Dave Neiwert has nice things to say about my discussion of Liberal Fascism, which is clear proof that Dave Neiwert is worse than Hitler. Anyway, I wouldn't expect Goldberg to reply to my dissection. But he has to reply to Tomasky's. Which is OK; Tomasky and I say about the same thing, though I do it with more panache. ("Panache" being definable as a fondness for the word "fuck.") Anyhow, Goldberg's initial response to Tomasky is comical.
Tomasky (much like Tim Noah and Matt Yglesias) uses a debater's trick of sorts by basically saying there's nothing new in the book and everybody who knows anything about liberalism knew all of this stuff already. This is, quite simply, untrue.
Tomasky said that anyone who knows anything about history knows all this stuff already, and that such anyones also know that Goldberg is citing the record selectively and dishonestly. He also said, as did I, that nobody who knows anything about liberals today will mistake his caricature of modern liberals as accurate.
Tomasky may in fact be precisely the sort of liberal who rejects the fascistic or collectivist strains in contemporary liberalism. But it is silly, hypocritical and has the appearance of dishonesty for him to speak of "liberalism" and how I know "nothing" about it. The liberalism he defends is not liberalism as lived in America. Indeed, by his own account, most self-described liberals have little association or understanding with the (allegedly) grand intellectual project he is defending. The notion that the typical liberal — or even the average well-educated one — knows the history I've laid out in my book is complete and reckless nonsense. Indeed, if liberals know the history I've laid out, I wouldn't have so many quotes from liberals getting their own history so spectacularly wrong.
What a petulant boob. This has nothing to do with anything Tomasky actually said: it's diversionary crap.
He's pounding the podium, in other words.