Jonah Goldberg, a syndicated columnist and editor at the National Review, has attempted an immense project in his new book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. The book is the conservative rejoinder to an entire line of books dedicated to comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler or claiming Republicans have a secret fascist agenda. Two of the more recent examples are Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America and Naomi Wolf’s apocalyptically-titled The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.

Although its title is admittedly extravagant, the phrase “liberal fascist” has an important but little-known historical basis. It is derived from a speech given by H.G. Wells before the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932. He argued that the way of the future lay in becoming “enlightened Nazis” or “liberal fascists.” The anointed ones would then create a socialist mega-state through a disciplined fascist vision of the common good. Mr. Goldberg jumps from this point into an intellectual overview of the major totalitarian movements of the twentieth century and some of the ideas that informed and shaped them.

Liberal Fascism is dense, replete with interesting historical research that gets little popular attention, and it is passionately argued. The proclivity of most liberals and some conservatives will be to reject the book out of hand because of its provocatively counterintuitive title. This would be a real shame because, while Mr. Goldberg has turned the table on the uncouth leftwingers who persist in calling conservatives fascists, he has also opened a mostly unexplored front in our political discussion.

Central to this discussion is the question, what is fascism? The book opens with an instructive discussion of the term and its historical meaning, and the author admits finding a definition is difficult. Even academics who study the subject differ on a precise definition. Roger Griffin, in his book The Nature of Fascism, says it is “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.” The German historian Ernst Nolte claims it embodies both “anti-liberalism” and “anti-conservatism.”

Both definitions represent parts of the truth. Mr. Goldberg defines it simply as the cult of the state—a secular religion. Fascism presents a “utopian vision” whose adherents are “the bearers of great hope.” The French Revolution was the first modern fascist experiment in his view. It “worked on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who would serve as the authentic, organic voice of the General Will.” He quotes Robespierre as saying, “There are only two parties in France: The People and its enemies.”

Mr. Goldberg traces the rise of European fascism from its early beginnings in Italy as personified by Benito Mussolini. The writer Mark Gauvreau Judge describes Mussolini’s ideology in his review for Christianity Today:

[Marxism]—combined with the bizarre syndicalist philosophy of George Sorel and a Nietzschean contempt for Christianity— resulted in Italian fascism, a mix of myth-making, prophecy about the rise of the working class, and a relentless determination to aggrandize more and more power for the state. German fascism was not far different…

Mr. Goldberg argues that “American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal.” Fascism in the United States would be fascism with a big smiley-face, he writes. Thus, the cover of the book is a huge yellow smiley-face with a Hitler-style mustache against a red background. Liberal fascism would more closely resemble Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than George Orwell’s 1984. According to Mr. Goldberg it would employ dictatorial methods to ensure one’s “happiness” and comfort, to ensure one felt part of The Whole, part of the village.

What unite them [fascism and liberalism] are their emotional or instinctual impulses, such as the quest for community, the urge to “get beyond” politics, a faith in the perfectibility of man.

Mr. Goldberg is right to dismantle the preposterous view that twentieth century fascism was a Christian project. Fascism of both the German and Italian variety was militantly antichristian and fundamentally opposed to laissez-faire economics, traditional morality, and individual liberty. It was economically collectivist, spiritually pagan, and terribly postmodern:

Mussolini’s Nietzschean contempt for the “slave morality” of Christianity was sufficiently passionate that he’d sought to purge Christians of all kinds from the ranks of Italian Socialism.

This does not make liberalism fascistic, but it does render it ridiculous to call American conservatives fascists and then whimper with indignation when the favor is returned.

Mr. Goldberg also attempts to dispel the notion that National Socialism and Marx-Leninism are polar opposites:

In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space…but in terms of their theory and practice, the differences are minimal.

This is a point of legitimate argument, though when the two movements are compared, their programs and motives laid bear, and their philosophical framework exposed, their actual differences pale next to their perceived differences.

Mr. Goldberg believes early twentieth century Progressivism and modern liberalism are essentially the same movement. Classical liberalism is largely what we today call American conservatism. He points out that the Progressive movement was racist, eugenicist, and supportive of totalitarian overtures to utopia. He lists adoring passages about Mussolini by prominent Progressives and early New Dealers. One of the chief architects of the New Deal was Rexford Guy Tugwell, who stated after his visit to fascist Italy, “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”

I think Mr. Goldberg’s analysis is incorrect in some places, but this is a legitimate question: why do so many influential leftwingers express solidarity with totalitarian movements? The most vicious dictators from Castro to Lenin have been praised lavishly by leftwingers including Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Elaine Brown, Cindy Sheehan, George Galloway, and Dennis Kucinich. How these fellow-travelers maintain even a scintilla of credibility is a wonder. It is unfair to equate liberalism with fascism; they are opposed to each other. Liberalism has been influenced by the ideas of early Progressivism, and since the 1960s has been infused with nihilism, but the ideas behind most of liberalism are descended from the great liberal traditions.

It is instructive here to make a distinction between modern liberalism and leftwing totalitarianism. The distinction was seen most clearly in the 1960s. The political philosopher Allan Bloom described the scene while he was a professor at Cornell in The Closing of the American Mind:

I have seen young people, and older people too, who are good democratic liberals, lovers of peace and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest of reasons…. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face-to-face with men of real commitment…. And commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts.

The chief flaw of liberalism in this regard is not fascism but how easily liberals are seduced by The Grand Idea and by self-assertive, eloquent strong men who are willing to make a try at altering the nature of the world.

A point on which most conservatives agree is that liberal relativism lays the groundwork for regimes of a most illiberal and undemocratic nature. T.S. Eliot makes this point in Christianity and Culture:

That liberalism may be a tendency towards something very different than itself, is a possibility in its nature. For it is something which tends… to relax, rather than to fortify. It is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards, something definite…. [T]he destination is likely to present a very different picture when arrived at, from the vaguer image formed in imagination.

I am reminded of a story Robert Bork, a conservative jurist and former professor at Yale Law School, tells in one of his books. It was the 1960s and members of a black nationalist group ordered the faculty to appear before them. Most faculty members went and found a number of the black students were heavily armed. One guarded the door while the others castigated the professors for all kinds of “grievances.” The students stormed out of the room finally. One professor looked at another and said, “Weren’t they sincere!” This relativistic sentiment is the slimy linkage between liberals and totalitarianisms across the spectrum.

At the end of the day Mr. Goldberg’s book is informative for anyone with an open mind. However, his alternations from polemic and to analysis make it a more difficult read. The subject of fascism and its current influence on society could fill several volumes. All lovers of liberal democracy have an interest in the subject of this book. While there is much to disagree with, there is a lot to learn for those willing to listen.