haing a holiday of his own is very gratifying to Hberals. But ifrnan admirer suggested that King is the archetypical American,rnmany would regard this as bizarre.rnThe third characteristic of fascism is militant nationalism.rnThis was manifesti}- the case with Hitler and Mussolini. Americanrnliberals, on the other hand, are militant mtemationalists.rnMoreover, fascism identifies with the host culture, whereasrnAmerican liberalism despises American culture. In a patronizingrnmood, liberals refer to it as “Mom, the Flag, and Apple Pie.”rnIn a less friendly mood, they speak of “Puritan Repression,rnBabbittrT,-, and Racism.” For a long time, the tried to hide theirrntrue conxictions behind legislation flattering to the masses. Butrnno longer.rnThe partisan of Rand might object that fascists also ruinedrnriieir countries. But this was not the case with Franco. If hernhad lost, the communists would probabK’ have ruled Spain.rnWhile it is true that Hitier led his countr)- to destruction andrnMussolini severely weakened Italy, neither man had intendedrnthat result. This cannot be said of American liberals. As hasrnbeen demonstrated time and again, the despise the basicrnAmerican type. Even the eourtiy Adlai Stevenson describedrnthis hpe as fat, dumb, and happv. American liberals bear morernsimilarih” to the Soiets, who clearly hated the Russian peoplernand did all they could to alter them. For 70} ears, they braggedrnabout “The New Soviet Man,” and when the new man finallyrnemerged, he proved to be a proficient criminal.rnH o\ then should American liberalism be classified? Onernw onders wh’ Rand did not follow the well-worn path ofrnthe American right and contrast democracy with the virtues ofrnrepublic, as Benjamin Franklin had done. The propagandarnvalue of linking American liberalism with fascism may not havernbeen the only reason why An Rand did not do this. She perhapsrnw as hesitant to use something which came from classicalrnpolitical philosophw In the Politics, where Aristotie lists thernthree legitimate regimes—monarchy, aristocracy, and polity—rnand compares and contrasts them with the three illegitimaternregimes—despotism, oligarchy, and democracy—he states thatrnthe latter three substitute private interest for the common good.rnBut Rand argued that “there is no such thing as ‘the public interest’rnexcept as the sum of the interests of individual men. Andrnthe basic, common interest of all men—all rational men —isrnfreedom.” For Aristotle, the city or polis existed for the sake ofrnthe good life, not the maximization of liberh’. More to thernpoint, because of Rand’s exaltation of selfishness, she could notrnaccept the notion that, in Hitier’s Germany, all were sacrificedrnto the self-interest of the ruler. In her mind, the principle ofrnthat regime was the sacrifice of all to the state. Wliether Hitierrnwas sincere or not was not an important question to her.rnDoubriess, Aristotie’s typolog)- could be made more consistentrnwith individualism. One could adapt some of Aristotle’srnwords and argue that, in legitimate regimes, government is limitedrnbecause law preails over the will of men, while in illegitimaternregimes, goernment is boundless. In these terms, a kingrnwho proceeded to the throne legitimately but behaved as arntyrant could be classified as a despot, regardless of the origin ofrnhis rule. The American republic could be distinguished fromrnits degenerate democratic form by the fact that in the latter, thernlaws only pretend to be consistent with the Constitution. Onerncould e’en argue that the present American government isrna combination of two illegitimate regimes, oligarch) andrndemocracv.rnNor was Aristotle’s theory incapable of comprehending an illegitimaternchange of regime within a single country; “Peoplerndo not easily change, but love their own ancient customs, andrnit is by small degrees only that one thing takes the place of another;rnso that the ancient laws will remain, while the power willrnbe in the hands of those v’ho have brought about a revolutionrnin the state.” But this still misses the point. American liberalismrndoes not simply intend to rule but to destroy the UnitedrnStates as we have known it. Since Ayn Rand was partiy aware ofrnthis fact, she may have been aware that the classical theor’ isrnnot adequate for understanding that phenomenon.rnFascism was largely a reaction onrnthe part of the European rightrnagainst the early 20th century trend towardrnsocialism and internationalism.rnWith the Spanish-American War, America passed from republicrnto empire, as astute observers of the da recognized.rnWilliam Graham Sumner wrote that the war should have beenrncalled Spain’s conquest of the United States; Spain was thernoriginal imperialist state of the modern West. Theodore Roosevelt,rnwho belie’ed that war checked the tendenc}’ of civilizedrnmen to go soft, had not anticipated what would develop fromrnthat change in regime. Less than 20 years after the charge uprnSan Juan Hill, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Rooseveltrnwould conspire with First Lord of the Admiralty WinstonrnChurchill to send a passenger ship, the Lusitania, across the Atlanticrnfrom America, stuffed with weaponry. Soon, many arnyoung American would have his rendezvous with death.rnA better characterization of American liberalism was writtenrnin 1952, ten years before Rand’s “Fascist New Frontier.” Thernauthor was Caret Carrett:rnNever in an’ world, real or unreal, has it been imaginedrnbefore that Fmpire, out of its own pocket, should notrnonly pay all the costs of Empire, but actually pay otherrnnations for the privilege of giving them protection andrnsecurity-, defending their borders and minding theirrneconomic welfare.rnThat indeed is Empire in a new sign. The chasm isrnbankruptc}-.rnNot to make sense of it, which is impossible, but onlyrnin order not to forget tliat you belong to a race of oncernrational creatures, you have to keep telling yourself that itrnall began when you walked through the looking glass.rnIt is onh’ bv tring to make sense of it that one can understandrnthe phenomenon of modern liberalism, not by trying to makernconverts by comparing it with something that hberals haverncarefully taught the masses to hate, root and branch. As Randrnherself would have admitted, it is the Truth that shouldrnmatter. trnMARCH 1998G3rnrnrn