Let me give you some advice Orion. I have never heard of Jonah Goldberg before, when I see a name of some pundit pontificating some Republican BS I look up his books on Amazon.

For instance, take Stephen Moore, former Wall Street Journal editor, currently chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, frequent pundit on NPR and TV as an example.

You look over the books, and then the reviews, if necessary. (Not necessary for Moore.)

Stephen Moore: 2004, Bullish on Bush, How George Bush's Owenership Society Will Make America Stronger...........2014 Crash Landing: How Bush, Bernanke, Pelosi and Obama Have Wrecked the U.S. Economy (And How to Salvage America's Future)

Do you see a problem with this guy? He is a propagandist for the right. Trust nothing from this guy.

2004 Bullish on Bush,strong America etc, Bush presumably doing what the Wall Street Journal and Moore believe in, then.....2014 Bush thrown under the bus with Obama and Pelosi.

BTW - The 2014 book is tough to find now as it was pulled before printing.  The economy was clearly not wrecked.  It survived as an audio book at the link which apparently came out before Moore could pull it and throw it in the dustbin.

_________________________________________________________________________

Now to look at Goldberg.

Writer for the National Review a politcal organ of the right, and a meal ticket for writers who come up with ingenious inventions The (ignorant, uninformed) Base will love if it attacks liberals. And Goldberg does that, making liberals the source of all evil, even evil of the Nazis.

Jonah Goldberg, 2 books. Both vehemently anti-liberal.

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

by Jonah Goldberg (Jan 8, 2008)

The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

by Jonah Goldberg (May 1, 2012)

So let's look at the 1 star reviews, lets look at Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Why?

Because it says Liberal Fascism ! How unique! Hitler was a liberal! Who wudda thought!

 We look up the Top 1 star review, on this page, it makes some very cogent points:

...Fascism is a version of this kind of capitalism: it begins as a violent, reactionary populism that blames organized labor for the decline of traditional values--such as the family, the church, and the nation--and it ends up as an anti-labor military state, which devotes its resources to maintaining profits for the private sector....Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." One of fascism's main features as a an economic system, then, is re-enforcement of profits at the public's expense....... the fascists were vehemently opposed to socialism and everything that socialists stood for. Like Hitler, Mussolini crushed his country's labor movement as soon as he assumed power.

Hitler was not 'liberal' for the people and the unions?

OK, Look at the badge coding system for the concentration and death camps of the Nazis. You have probably heard of Jews getting a Yellow 6 pointed star.

There were other emblems:

Under single triangles in Wikipedia Nazi Concentration Camp Badges we find:

Red triangle—political prisoners: social democrats, socialists, trade unionists, Freemasons,

communists, and anarchists.

Still think Goldberg's thesis that Nazi's were liberals and social democrats?

From that 1 star review again:

..The Nazis gave their organization a left-sounding name to garner popular support, and they appealed to imagery that appeared to praise the working class. Yet as soon as Hitler assumed power, he implemented "Operation Hummingbird," in which all socialists in the Nazi party were executed. Likewise, Mussolini's Squadistri--the "Blackshirts"--were also hired by private businesses as strikebreakers, union-busters, and as a "front against Bolshevism."

Jonah Goldberg is a right wing propagandist, a deceiver spreading falsehoods to intentionally distort facts, reality and history.  Everything he writes should be assumed to follow that pattern.

Interesting nugget from his Wiki page:

Goldberg’s career as a pundit was launched following his mother Lucianne Goldberg's role in the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, when he wrote about the "media siege" on his mother’s apartment in The New Yorker. [3][4] Goldberg has spoken of his mother and the Lewinsky scandal:

My mother was the one who advised Linda Tripp to record her conversations with Monica Lewinsky and to save the dress. I was privy to some of that stuff, and when the administration set about to destroy Lewinsky, Tripp, and my mom, I defended my mom and by extension Tripp... I have zero desire to have those arguments again. I did my bit in the trenches of Clinton's trousers.

These tapes became the focal point of the Lewinsky scandal. Goldberg was privy to the tapes and the conversations his mother had with Tripp because he served as a vice president of his mother's now-defunct literary agency. When the scandal broke, Goldberg defended his mother and Tripp during the ensuing media firestorm.

There are all sorts of articles available via the Google machine about Sanders/Trump comparisons - aka false equivalencies. This particular one by Mr. Goldberg is among the least substantial. The subject is not unworthy of spirited debate, Orion, but choosing his piece may not be the place to start.

I am going to defend Orion on his point about the right not wanting to give up social programs and gravitating to Trump.  

It took me a little while to find this.  Krugman this past week had an Op Ed piece about the invisible primary that is held by Republicans.  There is just 130 families that donate the majority of the money to the Republican candidates. They don't like social programs and especially social security.  W was going to privatize it and found out no one really wanted that.  But the rich wants the program gone because they don't want to pay into it. So the republican base has had to put up with listening to politicians bash that program that they depend on in order to push back on minorities. 

Wealthy individuals have long played a disproportionate role in politics, but we’ve never seen anything like what’s happening now: domination of campaign finance, especially on the Republican side, by a tiny group of immensely wealthy donors. Indeed, more than half the funds raised by Republican candidates through June came from just 130 families.

And while most Americans love Social Security, the wealthy don’t. Two years ago a pioneering study of the policy preferences of the very wealthy found many contrasts with the views of the general public; as you might expect, the rich are politically different from you and me. But nowhere are they as different as they are on the matter of Social Security. By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1 percent want to see it cut. And guess whose preferences are prevailing among Republican candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/opinion/republicans-against-retirement.html  

Trump came along and upset their whole system of financing elections.  Bush, Walker, and Rubio has collected huge amounts of money in their super pacs by promising to give the wealthy what they want.  They have committed to this but the voters are happy to support Trump who is not going to take away popular programs and have promise to make them even better, also still beat up on minorities and women.  

Trump knows what he is doing and is not going to stop until he is defeated.  

The fallacy in Goldberg's piece is that Trump and Sanders are not tapping into the same frustration. Before discussing the impact of immigration practices it is best to see it in the context of the larger problem of Capital mobility. Joel Blau says it best in his book Illusions of Prosperity:

The new, post-Keynesian market thrives not on greater aggregate demand, but on economic insecurity. From a defense of entitlements to full employment and universalistic social programs, any increase in economic security therefore heightens the risk of capital flight. Capital mobility has intensified as an ordinary part of doing business. Nevertheless, faced with a secure, confident and ever-more demanding labor force, many more U.S. businesses might pick themselves up and move overseas.

What Sanders is saying recognizes this larger context. What Trump is saying denies it and thus defends fhe prerogatives of laissez-faire economics.

The false equivalence committed by Goldberg is that Sanders arguing against an "open border" policy is not a part of a "socialist insurgency." We do not have an open border policy now but a poorly managed border system that is not adequately enforcing the laws presently on the books. Trump is calling for changes that create new problems of their own. If the birthright basis of citizenship is to be qualified in some fashion, what will be the criteria? Who will draft and enforce those rules? Nothing Sanders has said even remotely raises the specter of such powers being given to the government.