Posted on 03/22/2005 7:56:09 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
My book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History has received far more attention than I ever expected. Once the book hit number eight on the New York Times bestseller list, the Times’ editorial page condemned it without actually showing where its arguments were mistaken; several weeks later, to my surprise, the Times published a favorable profile of me. The controversy surrounding the book has reached at least two other continents: Brazil’s Folha de S. Paulo, with the highest circulation of any newspaper in Latin America, published a full interview with me, as did a major Catholic newspaper in Ireland. The Times of London, for its part, published a more or less positive piece about the book.
Among conservatives the reception has been mostly favorable: Pat Buchanan praised the book on the “McLaughlin Group,” Gary Bauer called it one of the top five books of 2004, and positive reviews appeared in such outlets as Human Events and this magazine. But neoconservative attacks on the book have also begun to surface, the most recent of which was by Max Boot.
Boot’s review appeared in the online version of the neoconservative Weekly Standard. Mind you, the print version of the Weekly Standard had already reviewed the book favorably. Reviewer James W. Haley Jr. said that my book “is ultimately about truth” and is one that “everyone interested in American history should have in his library.” “It is not surprising,” he observed, “that a history guide written by a professor with an undergraduate degree from Harvard and a doctorate from Columbia made it onto the New York Times bestseller list. What is surprising—refreshingly so—is that a text that challenges the liberal canon has so resonated with the American public.”
Max Boot didn’t find it quite so refreshing. Having seen the book (erroneously) described in the New York Times as “a neocon retelling” of American history, he grew curious and got a copy. Boot is right about one thing: the description of my book as neocon was simply idiotic; distinctions like neoconservative and paleoconservative are typically lost on the Times.
What is so revealing about Boot’s critique, though, and what in fact makes his review newsworthy, is that it conclusively proves what traditional conservatives have consistently alleged: neoconservatism, at root, is merely a variety of leftism. Boot’s criticism of my work, in fact, is almost identical to that of the New York Times.
Early on, Boot explains, The Politically Incorrect Guide “starts to slip from conventional history into a Bizarro world where every state has the right to disregard any piece of federal legislation it doesn’t like,” a position its author derives “mainly the writings of the Southern pro-slavery politician John C. Calhoun.” What my book actually says is that important early Americans held the view that the states could refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal legislation and that both North and South had recourse to this mechanism at one time or another during the 19th century. As for relying “mainly” on Calhoun, in an 11-page chapter on the subject my discussion of Calhoun amounts to half a page. My main source, in fact, is Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson’s concern was this: if the federal government is allowed to have the final, authoritative word on the extent of its own powers, the states will wind up completely eclipsed as the federal government hands down rulings in its own favor. The states had to have some corporate mechanism for resisting federal usurpations if they were not to be absorbed by the federal government.
I understand why Boot, a neoconservative nationalist, wants to avoid letting people know that it was Jefferson who came up with this “Bizarro” idea, since most Americans have an abiding respect for Jefferson and might be inclined to give his ideas a fair hearing. Boot prefers instead to attribute the idea solely to the “pro-slavery” Calhoun in order to taint it with the brush of slavery and get back to the neoconservative business of defending federal supremacy.
Professor Kevin Gutzman has shown that the principles behind nullification had in fact been germinating for 10 years, developing from ideas and positions that were taken for granted at the Virginia ratifying convention even by the Federalists, who most favored political centralization. Boot’s treatment of the subject reveals not the slightest acquaintance with any of this; my active imagination has simply invented some “Bizarro world” in which these ideas were taken seriously.
See the rest at :http://amconmag.com/2005_03_28/article2.html
Ping!
Link to Max Boot's dishonest smear job on the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343384/posts
Good post.
Max Boot: dishonest to the max to boot.
I suspect that many reviewers, perhaps Boot in this case, just skim the books they are reviewing rather than giving them a good, honest read. That would be especially true if they felt an axe to grind before starting.
Great article. Is that a ping list? If so, I would greatly appreciate being added to it. Thanks.
THANX for posting this! I planned on doing so earlier today, but I plum got busy & forgot about it (it's a short-term memory thing, ya know).
Thomas E. Woods for Prez in '08!
Thanks for posting this! I was considering adding this book to my library, now I am certain I will.
Ev'n Reb Banker - good to see you stop by
bump
You wanna ease up just a bit on those negative references to "Boot"?
--Boot Hill
For that matter, why am I permitted to criticize our country’s abortion policy in no uncertain terms and be a decent citizen in good standing but not American foreign policy?
Looking at the lineup of speakers at the 2004 RNC, I suppose it's just a matter of time before pro-lifers are told the shut up as well.
And as for "paleocons" being told to shut up, that seems to be going around, doesn't it? Even in -- and especially in -- the Republican Party.
Wonder why Max Boot didn't just title his review, "Shut Up!"?
And even if you read every word, you have to sit and think on it to separate the bits that resonate from the fluff and the BS, if you're going to write a thoughtful, balanced review. (Not saying Woods fills his pages in part with fluff and BS, haven't read his books yet, just talking about the degree of commitment it takes to write a book review of any value. Having seen him speak on YouTube, I very much doubt there's much fluff or BS to be found in Woods' books.)
Great book, I’m looking at it in my shelf right now. Very “accessible”.
I’m a big fan of books written for non readers, using breakout quotes, illustrations, and funny asides as devices to entertain average readers. While I prefer old school books (100% text) myself, I like to loan out these sort of books (politically incorrect guides) to disgruntled liberals and folks on the fence.
They are a VERY useful tool in changing hearts and minds.
Wow! No wonder I had to reread the article to see what we were talking about. My comment, and the thread, were posted in March of 2005.
What we must keep in mind is that the Left’s control of our education system and media has allowed them to teach lies for years. It is to be expected that they will try to defend the lies and discredit the truth.
Certain Freepers have been influenced by this slanted education. Regardless of the plainly written language in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalists Papers and the Constitution, and by the states who ratified it, some still claim that Article II, section 8, (?) of the Constitution eliminated the ratifying states’ right to secede.
I am pinging Non_Sequiter because he is one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.