Well, I got some nice news over the weekend. Publisher’s Weekly, the trade publication fairly renowned for trashing conservative authors with gusto, gave my book quite a nice write-up:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
Jonah Goldberg. Doubleday, $27.95 (496p) ISBN 978-0-385-51184-1
In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism’s spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as “Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left” and “Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism”-Goldberg argues that fascism “has always” been “a phenomenon of the left.” This is Goldberg’s first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg’s study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives’ ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book’s tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued — and funny. (Jan. 8)

Considering the source, I really couldn’t ask for more.

Now, as some readers may have noticed, I’ve generally refrained from responding to a fairly relentless chorus of snickering and tittering from liberal and leftwing bloggers, not to mention a few compatriots on the right, about my book. Nearly all of the commentary has been grounded in near complete ignorance and transparently bad faith. From some people, I hardly expected anything but such shabbiness (Tim Noah, call your office). But other snipers have been more disappointing, if for no other reason I thought more of them (The Economist comes to mind). I don’t expect apologies from many, or any of them, but it would be nice if the serious people didn’t feel locked into their earlier barbs to the point that they felt they couldn’t contradict themselves by taking the book seriously (disagreements with it are, of course, fine). That’s why I’m partial to the Holtsberry challenge, though my hopes are limited that it will be taken up by very many.

Update: I added the line from the PW review which had the title of the book. It got clipped by accident.