Academic historians, in fact, have tended to shy away from tackling Goldberg's book, precisely because it is such an obvious work of propagandistic polemics, and his methodology so shabby, that they haven't considered the work (such as it is) contained therein to be worthy of academic consideration.I'm particularly looking forward to reading Paxton's response as he has written what is widely considered to be one of the most definitive texts on fascism.
But because Goldberg's fraudulent thesis has now become conventional wisdom on the American Right -- and particularly among the Tea Party set, where signs equating liberals to fascists and Obama to Hitler have become commonplace -- many historians, especially those who have specialized in the serious study of fascism, have come to the realization that calling out Goldberg for his fraud is long overdue.
To that end, I began organizing last fall a series of essays from academic historians and political scientists critiquing Liberal Fascism. The essays are now ready, and this Monday, Jan. 25, they will be presented at History News Network.
In addition to my introductory essay, there will be essays by four widely acknowledged experts on fascism:
-- Robert O. Paxton, professor emeritus at Columbia University and the author of The Anatomy of Fascism.
-- Roger Griffin, professor of political science at Oxford Brookes and the author of The Nature of Fascism.
-- Matthew Feldman, professor of history at University of Northampton, and a co-editor of several academic texts on fascism.
-- Chip Berlet, senior researcher at Political Research Associates and the co-author (with Matthew Lyons) of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort.
Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
3 hours ago