The progressives were as close to homegrown fascists as any movementamerica has ever produced, says julian zelizer. Both the Wilsonand thefdr administrations were descendants#albeit distant ones#of the first fascistmovement:the french revolution, he says. Zelizer: the one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian.
The progressives were as close to homegrown fascists as any movementamerica has ever produced, says julian zelizer. Both the Wilsonand thefdr administrations were descendants#albeit distant ones#of the first fascistmovement:the french revolution, he says. Zelizer: the one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian.
The progressives were as close to homegrown fascists as any movementamerica has ever produced, says julian zelizer. Both the Wilsonand thefdr administrations were descendants#albeit distant ones#of the first fascistmovement:the french revolution, he says. Zelizer: the one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian.
Philosophically, organiza- tionally, and politically the progressives were as
close�to authentic, homegrown fascists as any movement America has ever
produced.13 Militaristic,�fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply in- volved in the promotion�of Darwinian eugenics, enamored of the Bismarckian welfare state, statist beyond�modem reckoning, the progressives represented the American flowering of a transatlantic movement,�a profound reorientation toward the Hegelian and Darwinian collectivism imported�from Europe at the end of the nine- teenth century. In this sense, both the Wilson�and the FDR administrations were descendants#albeit distant ones#of the first fascist�movement:�the French Revolution. But what tmly makes the French Revolution the first fascist�revo- lution was its effort to tum politics into a religion. (In this ths (\.ccordingly,�they declared war on Christianity, attempting to purge it from society and replace�it with a "secular" faith whose tenets were synonymous with the Jacobin agenda. Hundreds�of we shall see, the Nazis emulated the Jacobins in minute detail. is no longer controversial�to say that the French Revolution was disastrous and cruel. But it is deeply controversial�to say�that it was fascist, because the French Revolution is thefons et origo of the left and�the "revolutionary tradition" The American right and classical liberals look fondly�on the American Revolution, which was essen- tially conservative, while shuddering�at the horrors and follies of Jacobinism. But if the French Revolution was fascist,�then�its heirs would have to be seen as the fruit of this poisoned tree, and fascism itself�would finally and correctly be placed where it belongs�in the story of the left. This would cause seismic disorder in the leftist worldview;�so instead, leftists embrace cognitive dissonance�and ter- minological sleight of hand. The one thing that unites these movements is�that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian. But v But what do we mean when�we say something is "totalitarian"? The word has certainly taken on an un- derstandably�sinister connotation in the last half century.�Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it's be- come a�catchall for bmtal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that's not how the word�was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a�society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything�was inside�the state and nothing was outside: where truly no child was left behind. Again, it�is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but�not necessarily an Orwellian�one. It is nice, not bmtal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian#or "holistic"�if you prefer#in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond�political significance, from what�you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Liberals�place their faith in priestly experts who know better, who plan, exhort, badger,�and scold. They try to use science to discredit traditional notions�of reli- gion and faith, but they speak the language of pluralism and spiritu- ality�to defend "nontraditional" beliefs. Just as with classical fascism, liberal fascists�speak of a "Third Way" between right and left where all good things go together and�all hard choices�are "false choices." The idea that there are no hard choices#that is, choices between competing�goods#is religious and totalitarian because it assumes that all good things are fundamentally�compatible. The conservative or classical liberal vision understands that life is�unfair, that�man is flawed, and that the only perfect society, the only real utopia, waits for�us in the next life. Fascisms differ from each other because they grow out of different�soil.�What unites them are their emotional or instinctual impulses, such as the quest for�community, the urge to "get beyond" politics, a faith�in the per- fectibility of man and the authority of experts, and an obsession with the�aesthetics of youth, the cult of action, and the need for an all- powerful state�to coordinate society at the national or global level. Most of all, they share the�belief#what I call the totalitanan�temp- tation#that with the right amount of tinkering we can realize the utopian dream�of "creating a better worid" Nazism was the product of German culture, grown out�of a German context. The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians�are not Germans. And in America, where hostility to big government�is cen- tral to the national character, the case for statism must be made in tenns�of "pragmatism" and decency. In other words, our fascismmust be nice and for your�own good. American Progressivism, from which today's liberalism de- scended, was�a kind of Christian fascism (many called it "Christian socialism"). This is a difficult�concept for modem liberals to grasp $ut liberals often forget that the pro- gressives�were also imperialists, at home and abroad. They were the authors of Prohibition,�the Palmer Raids, eugenics, loyalty�oaths, and, in its modem incamation, what many call "state capitalism." But liberal fascists�are still racist in their own nice way, believing�in the inher- ent numinousness of blacks and the permanence of white sin, and therefore�the etemal justification of white guilt. While I would argue that this is bad and�undesirable, I would not dream of saying�that to- Still, it should be noted that on the postmodem left, they do speak in terms�Nazis could understand. Indeed, notions of "white logic" and the "permanence of race"�were not only under- stood by Nazis but in some cases pioneered by them. The�historian Many on the left talk of destroying "whiteness" in a way that is more than�superficially reminiscent of the National Socialist effort to "de- Judaize" German�society. Indeed, it is telling that the man who oversaw the legal front of this project,�Carl Schmitt, is hugely popular among leftist academics. Mainstream liberals don't�necessarily agree with these intellectuals, but they do accord them a reverence and�respect that often�amount to a tacit endorsement. A simple fact remains: Progressives did many things�that we vould today call objectively fascist, and fascists did many things�we would today call objectively progressive. Teasing apart this seeming contradiction,�and showing why it is not in fact a contradiction,�are major aims of this book. But th Let me put it this way: no serious person can�deny that�Marxist ideas had a profound impact on what we call liberalism. To point this It's�cmel to call someone a Nazi because it unfairly suggests sympathy with the Holocaust.�But it is no less inaccurate to assume that fascism was simply the ideology of Jewish�genocide. If you need a label�for that, America's political system used to be about the pursuit of happiness. Now�more and more of us�want to stop chasing it and have it delivered. And though it has been the sub- imply�this: it is fool's gold. The idea that we can create a heaven on earth through pharmacology�and neuroscience is as utopian as�the Marxist hope that we could create a perfect world by rearranging the means of�production. The history of totalitarianism is the history�of the quest to transcend the human condition and create a society where our deepest�meaning and destiny are realized simply by virtue of the fact that we live in it.�It cannot be done, and even if, as often in the case of liberal fascism, the effort�is very careful to�be humane nd decent, it will still result in a kind ofbenign tyranny where some people�get to impose their ideas of goodness and happiness on those who may not share them. Wells�was a leading voice in what I have called the fascist mo- ment, when many Westem�elites were eager to replace Church and Crown with slide rules and industrial armies.�Throughout his work he championed the idea that special men#variously identified�as scientists, priests, warriors, or "samurai"#must impose progress on >es in order�to create a "New Republic" or a "world theoc- ough militant Progressivism#by whatever�name# could mankind achieve the fulfillment of the kingdom of God. Wells,?ascism,�like Progressivism and communism, is expansionist�be- cause it sees no natural boundary to its ambitions. For violent vari- One objection�to all of this might be: So what? It's interesting in a counterintuitive way to leam�that a bunch of dead liberals�and pro- gressives thought this or that, but what does it have to do with liber- als�today? Two responses come to mind. The first is admittedly�not fully responsive. Conservatives in America must carry their intellec- tual history#real�and alleged#around their necks like an albatross. The ranks of elite liberal journalism�and scholarship swell with in- trepid scribblers who point to "hidden histories"�and "disturbing echoes" in the conservative historical closet. Connections with dead right-wingers,�no matter how tenuous and obscure, are trotted out as proof that today's conservatives�are continuing a nefarious project. Why, then, is it so trivial to point out that�the liberal closet�has its own skeletons, particularly when those skeletons are the architects of the�modem welfare state? I am simply fighting on a battleground ot liberalism's choosing.�Liberals are the ones who've insisted that conservatism has connections with fascism.�They are the ones who claim free- narket economics are fascist and that therefore�their own economic theories should be seen as the more virtuous, even though the�truth is almost entirely the reverse. is an ideology of good intentions. But we all�know where even the waming that even the best of us are susceptible to Uie toiamarian temptation. When�the left did finally start attacking Mussolini in eamest#largely on orders from Moscow#they�lumped him in es- sentially the same category as Franklin Roosevelt, the socialist Norman�Thomas, and the progressive Robert La Folletti Given everything we've been taught�about the evils of fascism, how is it that for more than a decade this country was�in significant respects pro-fascist? Eve The answer resides in the fact that Fascism�was bom of a "fascist moment" in Westem civilization, when a coalidon of intellectuals going�by various labels#progressive, communist, socialist, and so forth#believed the era�of liberal democracy was drawing to a close. It was time for man to lay aside the�anachronisms of natural law, tra- ditional religion, constitutional liberty, capitalism,�and the like and rise to the responsibility of remaking the world in his�own image. God was long dead, and it was long overdue for men to take His place.�Mussolini, a lifelong socialist intellectual, was a warrior�in this cmsade, and his Fascism#a doctrine he created from the same intellectual�material Lenin and Trotsky had built theu- movements with#was a grand leap into the�era of "experimentation"�that would sweep aside old dogmas and usher in a new age. This was in every Mussolini�undoubtedly inherited his father's hatred of traditional religion, particularly the�Catholic Church. (His brother Amaldo was Later in life, as a student activist in�Switzerland, he made a name for himself by regularly offending devout Christians.�He p; He particularly liked to ridicule Jesus, describing him as an "ignorant Jew"�and claiming that he was a pygmy compared to Buddha. One of his fa- vorite tricks�was to publicly dare God to strike him dead#if He ex- Mussolini's Nietzschean contempt�for the "slave morality"�of ristianity was le introduced and car- ried a resolution which held that the Catholic�faith#or any other mainstream monotheism#was inconsistent with socialism�and that any socialists who practiced religion or even tolerated it in their chil- dren�should be expelled from the party. Mussol; reflected the influence of Georges Sorel's�syndicalism on�Mussolmi's thinking.20 Sorel's impact on Mussolini is vital to an understanding of fascism�because without syndicalism fascism was impossible. Syndicalist theory is hard to�penetrate today. It's not quite�socialism 1 it's not quite fascism. Joshua ^ Essentially, syndicalists believed in mle�by revolutionary trade unions (the word is derived from the For Sorel, the Second�Coming of Christ was a quintessential myth because its underlying message# Jesus�is coming, look busy#was crucial for organizing men�in de- sirable ways.21 Sorel's myth of the general strike was the equiv- dent of�the Second Coming. According ^ccording to this myth, if all workers leclared a general�strike, it would cmsh capitalism and render the proletariat#rather than the meek#the�inheritors of the earth. What mattered was mo- bilizing the masses to understand�their power over the capitalist ml- ing classes. As �As Mussolini said in an interview in 1932, "It is faith�that moves mountains, not reason. Keason is a tool, but it can never�be the motive force of the crowd"�Fhis kind of thinking has been�commonplace on the left ever since. Think of Al Sharpton when allegedly confronted�by the fact that the Tawana Brawley "assault"�was a fake. "It don't matter," he's reported to have said. "We're�building a movement."22�Even more impressive was Sorel's application of the idea of myth�to Marxism itself. Again, Sorel held that Marxist prophecy didn't�need to be ttrue. People just needed to think it was tme. Even at the�In other words, Marx�should be read as a prophet, not as a policy wonk. That way the�masses would absorb Mamsm unquestioningly as a religious�dogma.�Sorel was an irrationalist�who took this sort of thinking to its logical conclusion: any idea that�can be successfully imposed#with violence if necessary#becomes�tme and good. By�By marrying James's will to believe with Nietzsche's�will to power, Sorel redesigned left-wing revolutionary politics from�scientific socialism to a revolutionary religious movement that believed in the utility�of the myth of scientific socialism. Enli^�Enlightened�revolutionaries would act as if Marxism were gospel in order to�bring the masses under their control for the greater good. Today we�might call these aspects of this impulse "lying for justice."�Of course, a lie could not become "tme"#that is, successful#�"od liars. This is where another of Sorel's major�contributions comes in: the need for a "revolutionary elite" to impose its will upon�the masses. On this point, as many have observed,�Mussolini and Lenin held ahnost identical views. Central to their�common outlook was the Sorelian conviction that a small cadre of�professional intellectual radicals#who were prepared to reject compromise, parliamentary�politics, and anything else that smacked�of�incremental reform#were indispensable to any successful revolutionary stmggle.�Fhis avant-garde would shape "revolutionary consciousness" by fomenting violence�and undennining liberal�s.'^�French Revolution was the first totalitarian revolution, the mother of�modem totalitarianism, and the spiritual model for the Italian�it was led and manipulated by an intelectual vanguard determined to replace Christianity�with a political�religion that glorified "the people," anointed the revolutionary vanguard as their�priests, and abridged the rights of individuals. As�According to Rousseau, individuals who live in accordance with the general will are�"free" and�"virtuous" while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics.�These enemies of the common good must be forced to bend to�the general will. He�He descnbed this state-sanctioned coercion in�Orwellian terms as the act of "forcing men to be free." It was�Tie idea of the general will created a tme secular religion out ofthe mystic chords�ofnationalism, a religion in which "the�people" in effect worshipped themselves.28 Just as individuals�couldn't be "free" except as part of the group, their existence lacked�meaning and purpose except in reladon to the collective.�It followed, moreover, that if the people were the new God, there�God Himself. In The Social Contract, Rousseau�What Rousseau proposed instead was a society�in which religion and politics were perfectly combined. Loyalty to�the state and loyalty to the divine must be seen as the same thing.�Rather, it is bound together by�the general will as expressed in the dogmas of what he called a "civil�religion" and enforced by the all-powerful God-state. Those who�defy the collective spirit of the community live outside the state and�have no claim on its protections. Indeed, not only is the state not required to defend�antisocial individuals or subcommunities, it is comOnly in this way could Robespierre�realize the dream that�would�later transfix Nazis, communists, and progressives alike: the creation�of "New Men." "I am convinced," he proclaimed in a typical stateity of bringing about�a complete regeneration,�and, if I may express myself so, of creating a new people." (To this�end, he pushed through a law requiring that children be taken from�their parents and indoctnnated in boarding schools.) The actionPrench Revolution�had become a "religious revival"�and the ideology that spewed from it a "species of religion" which�"like Islam [has] overmn the whole world with apostles, militants,�and martyrs."33�Robespierre appreciated, as did Sorel and his heirs, that violence was a linchpin�that kept the masses committed to the ideals of� yror is nothing other than justice,�prompt, severe, intlexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is�not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general�principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs."34�e utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits�/as its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is�routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it shortcircuits debate�and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic�movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened�state of emergency. Across the West, this was the most glorious boon�ofWorldWarL�An emphasis on "producers" had everywhere been the hallmark of�populist economics and polidcs. The key distincdon for "producerism,"�as many called it, was between those who created wealth with their�own hands and those who merely profited from it. William Jennings�The populists sought�to expand the scope of govemment in order to smash the "economic�royalists" and help the little guy. This was Mussolini's approach in a�nutshell (much as it is that of left-wing icons of today, such as�Venezuela's Hugo Chavez). Fascist slogans included "The land to�him who works it!" and "To every peasant the entire fruit of his�sacred labor!" Mussolini still employed warmed-over Marxist theory when convenient#as many populists did#to explain his new�fondness for the small landowner. Italy was still a "proletarian naNone of this is to say that Mussolini was a deeply consistent�ideologue or political theorist. As a pragmatist, he was constantlv�willing to throw off dogma, theory, and alliances whenever convenient. In the few years immediately following the formation of the�Mussolini's main governing themes were�expediency and opportunism. This was, after all, the age of "experimentation." FDR would later preach a similar gospel, holding�that he�had no fixed agenda other than to put Americans to work and launch�a orosram of "bold exDerimentation." "We do not distrust the fu' And much as Roosevelt would later, Mussolini asked the�Italian people to tmst him now and worry about an actual program�down the road. Shc�Mussolini's style was remarkably similar to Yasir Arafat's�(though Arafat was undoubtedly far more murderous). He played the�political game of claiming to seek peaceful accords and alliances�while straining to contain the more violent elements within his�movement. His hands were tied, he'd claim, when squads of Fascist�Blackshirts broke the bones ofhis opponents. Again like Lenin#and�Arafat#Mussolini practiced a philosophy of "the worse the better"�He celebrated the violence committed by socialists because it gave�him the opportunity to commit more violence in retribution. A�tlussolini's message and tactics triumphed. Moreover, his�success had less to do with ideology and violence than with populist�emotional appeals. Mussolini promised to restore two things in short�supply: pride and order.�Similarly#like certain modem liberals#he promised what he called a "Third Way" that was neither left�