Comments on: On Smear Jobs

By: John

John — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:38:12 +0000

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.)

By: James Kabala

James Kabala — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:55:32 +0000

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.

By: M.D.Mercury

M.D.Mercury — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:42:37 +0000

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.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:57:24 +0000

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.

By: kamdugle

kamdugle — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:56:15 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:53:04 +0000

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.