Another below-the-belt punch

It seems the word fascism is being tossed around a lot. Both the Left and Right use it to strike below-the-belt punches. The latest contributor to this war of words is "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. According to Scott Horton, there are three big problems with the book. First, the book prevents a meaningful discussion of issues. The second problem is that such use of the word makes us much less sensitive to the monumental horrors that fascism can unleash, though the users of such language intend the opposite of trying to equate the other side's routine actions with those horrors. The third problem is the author has no clue about what fascism really is. The mark is missed so cleanly one wonders how a publisher accepted such a shoddy work. Robert Paxton wrote about the "mobilizing passions" of fascism in his book Anatomy of Fascism (2004). Some of them are: A sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of traditional solutions. The belief that one's group is a victim which justifies any action without legal or moral limits. The need for closer integration of a purer community, by violence if necessary. The superiority of the leader's instincts over universal reason. To me, this sounds a lot like the Christian Right, but this reviewer says what we have isn't fascism, but Caesarism, which is: The rush to anoint a leader and follow him blindly. A neglect of fiscal and political accountability. A turn to vaguely religious social standards as a replacement for the secular foundation of the republic. A use of foreign military adventures to silence political foes and unite the public. And a steady appeal to fear.