▁isn ' t ▁exactly ▁a ▁sm ear , ▁but ▁it ' s ▁not ▁exactly ▁helpful ▁to ▁public ▁disc ourse ▁either . ▁Then ▁again , ▁if ▁Gold berg ▁had ▁stopped ▁short ▁of ▁doing ▁that , ▁the ▁ch ances ▁are ▁a ▁book ▁called ▁Liberal ▁F asc ism ▁wouldn ' t ▁have ▁made ▁it ▁onto ▁the ▁best - s eller ▁list . ▁ ▁A ▁review ▁in ▁the ▁Cla rem ont ▁Review ▁of ▁Books ▁said : ▁ ▁Gold berg ▁is ▁certainly ▁right ▁when ▁he ▁says ▁that ▁most ▁academ ics ▁have ▁will fully ▁ignored ▁modern ▁liberal ism ' s ▁progress ive - f asc ist ▁roots , ▁although ▁sch ol ars ▁such ▁as ▁James ▁Ce aser , ▁John ▁Mar ini , ▁and ▁others ▁( including ▁me ) ▁have ▁in ▁fact ▁been ▁calling ▁attention ▁to ▁the ▁progress ive ▁orig ins ▁of ▁modern ▁liberal ism ▁for ▁the ▁past ▁ 2 0 ▁years . ▁Liberal ▁F asc ism ▁clearly ▁draw s ▁from ▁these ▁works ▁but ▁makes ▁surprising ly ▁little ▁reference ▁to ▁them , ▁even ▁in ▁a ▁few ▁instances ▁when ▁the ▁book ' s ▁observations ▁sound ▁aw fully ▁familiar . ▁Yet ▁if ▁Gold berg ▁proceed s , ▁in ▁some ▁respect s , ▁down ▁a ▁path ▁bla zed ▁by ▁others , ▁he ▁does ▁so ▁with ▁the ▁kind ▁of ▁ter r ific ▁writing ▁and ▁energy ▁that ▁is ▁certain ▁to ▁make ▁the ▁connection ▁between ▁modern ▁liberal ism ▁and ▁its ▁statist ▁ancest ors ▁a ▁more ▁prominent ▁factor ▁in ▁America ' s ▁political ▁batt les ▁and ▁deb ates . ▁ ▁David ▁Gordon ▁wrote ▁in ▁his ▁review ▁"