Replies

Buchanan is now reflexively hostile to any evidence that the United States retains any strong points at all. He deplores the fact that no top college has an American history requirement. But clearly universities are doing something right, for in what other country does the biography of a hitherto little-studied 18th-century politician spend months on the best-seller list, as David McCullough's ''John Adams'' has done?

How does one best-seller prove that "clearly universities are doing something right"? Does Caldwell know the ages of the people buying this book? Does he know whether they went to "top universities"? Does he know why they're buying the book? How does Caldwell extrapolate his conclusion?

You don't have to be a fan of Pat Buchanan to agree with him on the American history requirement, and also think Christopher Caldwell's argument here is incredibly weak.

You don't have to be a fan of Pat Buchanan to agree with him on the American history requirement, and also think Christopher Caldwell's argument here is incredibly weak

Worse than this. There is no argument at all, only an attempt at sniping.

Buchanan is now reflexively hostile to any evidence that the United States retains any strong points at all. He deplores the fact that no top college has an American history requirement. But clearly universities are doing something right, for in what other country does the biography of a hitherto little-studied 18th-century politician spend months on the best-seller list, as David McCullough's ''John Adams'' has done?

How does one best-seller prove that "clearly universities are doing something right"? Does Caldwell know the ages of the people buying this book? Does he know whether they went to "top universities"? Does he know why they're buying the book? How does Caldwell extrapolate his conclusion?

You don't have to be a fan of Pat Buchanan to agree with him on the American history requirement, and also think Christopher Caldwell's argument here is incredibly weak.

Re the logically fallacious connection between the quality of our universities, and the success of a non-academic biography: You could, with equal logical validity, claim that the bestseller status of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, 15 years ago, was a vindication of the very universities Bloom attacked.

(Caldwell's style also apes that of racial socialists. A few years ago, I read a piece by a bean-counting, tenured feminist, who was complaining about the number of times an 'obscure, 18th century white male biographer' showed up in syllabi. She was referring to James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson.)

You don't have to be a fan of Pat Buchanan to agree with him on the American history requirement, and also think Christopher Caldwell's argument here is incredibly weak.

I think it is too considering some of the bestsellers a century or more ago and the fact that some of those reading them were self taught(read uneducated by the left) farmers and thier families. He assumes that it is college graduates who have read the biography of John Adams. Of course, I'm no stranger to the reactions of teachers and the elite when they meet an articulate and thoughtful drop out. It's unimaginable to them that anyone can be self taught. Look at the railing against homeschooling.

Here's a great essay by Gatto regarding how his mother taught him to read and the sheer number of books that were sold amongst the "illiterate" and home educated farmers that even today's college professors couldn't read with interest.

http://www.primenet.com/~afhe/gatto3.htm