The following is a response to a book review by an old friend, Andrew Zvirzden, blogger at Atlantic Review. You can read his review here. I have a lot of respect for Andrew, growing up he was always one of the most intelligent of our group of friends. I respect his honor and his integrity, he is a good man, but I believe that he as tacked ideologically and adopted a globalist paradigm. He has fallen into the seduction common to so many intellectuals: that the populace has a greater claim to rights than the individual and that there is no greater level of citizenship than to be a citizen of the world. The following is my response to his review:
Andrew, you always make one significant error in your evaluations of policy. You argue that the left/right divide is fluid and not static, thereby shifting the argument toward “what is center” and away from “what is correct.”
Jonah Goldberg’s book tries to use the left/right paradigm to explain the deviation from correct principles of individual rights, divisions of power, and limited government that the fascist regimes built by socialist movements sought to usurp. Perhaps framing the argument in a worn-out, hijacked paradigm was his greatest error. But he did so to reflect the difference between strict constructionist constitutional framing of government and historical fascist regimes (which intellectuals incessantly label as right of center – thus falsely correlating fascist methodology to conservative ideology) to his readers.
Among his greatest examples is the Nazi movement. A socialist movement that harnesses a countrys nationalism to deny individual rights, concentrate power, and expand the role of a government is no less to the left than the Bolshevik coup in Petrograd. Just because the communist party in Germany positioned itself to the left of the Nazis does not make the Nazi partys platform to the right of some preconceived static center. They both deviate from correct principles of good governance, as does the neo-Liberal (aka Progressive) movement… hence the title “Liberal Fascism”.
You would be wise do shed the old world paradigm of a left/right divide about a fluid center. As Aristotle would say, A=A. Rand, Existence exists. There is right and there is wrong. The principles espoused in the American Constitution represent the greatest firm point about which to build a government. There is no left of that point, there is no right of that point. There is only deviation from correct principles of government.
via Z Reviews: Liberal Fascism.
Again, I have much respect for Andrew. Check out his blog. He is becoming quite accomplished as he pursues a path through academia that will ultimately lead to influence in international and domestic policymaking circles. His Bio at Atlantic Review is as follows:
Originally from upstate New York, Andrew is currently pursuing a concurrent MA/MPA in International Economics and European Studies from Johns Hopkins University-SAIS and the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. He previously studied at the Free University of Brussels, University of Rome Tor Vergata, and Brigham Young University. He has also worked at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, the US Mission to the European Union, and as Assistant Editor for Scandinavian Studies. Andrew specializes in political economy, international finance, and EU-US relations.
via Atlantic Review: About The Atlantic Review.
I do believe after reading his posts, however, that he is mistaken and misguided, that he has allowed the myth of democracy to poison the virtue of republican governance in the preservation of individual rights. I believe that he espouses a transnational doctrine that sacrifices state economic sovereignty on the altar of global stability. I will certainly keep a respectful eye on Andrew’s career.