I’ve actively avoided writing about Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism because it’s, well, idiotic. A lot of virtual ink is being spilled dispelling this book, which, from excerpts I’ve read online does appear to be a load of s***. Even Jon Stewart ripped into Goldberg when he showed up on the Daily Show earlier this week.

The entire book appears to be based on a logical fallacy, specifically the Association Fallacy (or Guilt by Association). An example, from Wikipedia:

In the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister, the wordplay-prone Sir Humphrey Appleby commits the logical fallacy All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog.

Reading the various folks who are taking the time to read and/or criticize the book, it’s clear that this entire book is based on the above fallacy. Of course, Brad Reed’s review is the funniest (he does write, after all, on Sadly, No!, one of the funnier political blogs out there:

About five years ago, I imagine that Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza and Jonah Goldberg went out to a local bar and subsequently got into a drunken feud over who among them could write the most comically stupid right-wing attack book.

“I’m-a gonna write two books, one callin’ libruls TRAITORS and the other one callin’ ‘em GODLESS,” cackled a sauced Coulter while sipping down her gin and tonic.

“Pfffffft, anyone can call ‘em godless traitors,” said D’Souza. “I’m-a write a book that blames libruls fer 9/11″

Not one to be outdone, Goldberg pounded his Amstel Light on the table and rose to his feet.

“Tha’s nothin’!” he shouted. “I’m-a write a book that calls all libruls FASCISTS!”

Coulter and D’Souza burst into laughter.

“Tha’s shameless e’ev fer you!” said Coulter. “Yer own magazine used ta make a habit of praising Franco!”

Aside from the jokes, it’s amazing how the conservative movement has mobilized against liberals to the point where they have their own publishers and a tight core of interconnected writers. For example, Goldberg is the son of Lucianne Goldberg, “a central figure behind the scenes in the Lewinsky scandal.” These people get an outsized amount of publicity for basically being the same 20 people writing or publishing the same smears over and over again. And they say the media is liberal…

Atrios highlights a great article in Editor and Publisher that covers a recently uncovered letter from Upton Sinclair to a California lawyer talking about the Sacco and Vanzetti case. Unfortunately, the article talks about how the contents of that letter have been used by right wing tool, National Review editor, and syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg to smear Upton Sinclair.

Before I go any further, I want to suggest that everyone read the article. It’s a fascinating bit of history and a well written story. The politics of Goldberg’s response only motivated the article but aren’t central to it.

Sinclair wrote a book, Boston, that was ultimately sympathetic to Sacco and Vanzetti’s case. Because of that, Goldberg decides to (yet again) bash liberals. He ends with:

Never mind. Clooney’s fans, like Sinclair’s, always order the usual. And always seem to get it.

Quite pithy. And ultimately amusing considering the, uh, paucity of diverse opinions at the National Review. One might say the same of Goldberg’s fans who, like Rush Limbaugh’s fans or Bill O’Reilly’s fans, always order the usual victimhood and liberal bashing and deceit. And, they always seem to get it.

Of course, any article that begins a polemic against some ill-defined group of people with a quote from a movie star, well… that might be a warning flag.