On Smear Jobs
It is not in the least clear to me what this accomplishes, except to harden divisions among ourselves that should not even exist, but let’s come back to the heart of this entire controversy. The problem that John Zmirak and others have had with the review is not especially that it was critical (how could it be, since John believes that the United States was right in entering WWII?), but that it included admittedly gratuitous references to David Irving. This is supposed to have constituted a smear, yet in the context of the review Prof. Lukacs was contrasting the differences between the two. You can argue that Irving’s name should never have entered into it and that there is no reason to make the comparison, but to hold that it is a “smear” to say that Mr. Buchanan is not like and different from Irving is to make the word smear utterly meaningless.
I would reiterate that this fratricidal hurling of anathemas among people who, in fact, agree an overwhelming majority of the time is completely mad.
P.S. Dylan Waco at Left Conservative has a good post on all of this as well.
This is not really my debate, but … that was one of the most extraordinary bits of stupid, frantic, and – to be frank – apparently downright hateful gossip-mongering I have had the displeasure to encounter. It makes me proud to be writing something for the magazine that came under attack.
I think that if someone points out the difference between two people in an article without giving any particular reason, it sort of implies that the two are very similar except for in this one case.
Thanks, John. Speaking for myself, I’m pleased that you are contributing to TAC, and I’m sure the readers will benefit from your articles.
I see nothing wrong with Prof. Lukacs’ David Irving reference. I think this video (“David Irving on the British Empire”) shows why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d56GVijAwO4
Could he have compared Buchanan to John Charmley? Of course. But the reference to Irving is still reasonable.
It was reminiscent of Peter Brimelow’s similar piece on WFB after his death, although at least Brimelow was aiming his “this man was just a phony dilettante, and here are some loads of nasty gossip about him” barbs at someone against whom he had genuine grievances and with whom he had had a genuine philosophical break.
Daniel, what do you think of Scott McConnell’s response to all of this? (The substance of it, I mean, and not just the obvious point that there is nothing wrong with publishing a critical review of a book by a conservative icon.)