John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Over at NRO, John O'Sullivan, former editor of National Review and former speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, has a piece up analyzing the John Derbyshire affair. The piece is long--quite a lot longer, for that matter, than the Derbyshire article that started it all--but full of good sense and close reasoning. I can't say I agree with every conclusion--in my view, John at several points lets Derbyshire off too easily--but every last word is worth reading, and pondering. (That's John O'Sullivan to the right, btw, and John Derbyshire below to the left.)
An excerpt:
I fear that Mark Steyn is right in saying that Derb’s departure will further narrow the already narrow limits of acceptable debate in American intellectual life. The tumbrils are already rolling, with Elspeth Reeve at the Atlantic Wire denouncing Victor Davis Hanson on obscure grounds and calling for a campaign to drive “racist” writers from their jobs. Driving people from their jobs, causing them to lose health insurance, bringing distress to their spouses and children — this seems a curious ambition for a young journalist of (presumably) liberal bent. Fifty years ago liberals denounced McCarthy for driving people from their jobs because, as Communists, they were supporting a state that was genocidal at the time. They raged against “guilt by association.” Are they now anxious to have their own witch-hunts against racists? But who will define “racist”? Will it be Ms. Reeve? Or a committee of public safety? Set up by whom? And will Ms. Reeve herself have to appear before this tribunal, having written several times for Taki’s Magazine and being therefore a colleague of Derb’s at one remove and so guilty by association? To get the nasty and vicious flavor of this enterprise, read the comments from the Internet Left where perhaps the most common theme is that National Review fired John because we are racists attempting to conceal our racism that he made uncomfortably explicit.
- Comment (69)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
GOVICIDE:
But because too many of his points are demonstrably untrue. That . . . is the reason he should've been dismissed.
Wouldn't it simply have been better to demonstrate their untruth?
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
O'Sullivan seems to have one of his core arguments wrong, that he thinks Derb wasn't serious:
However, Derb's own website says
Edited on April 15, 2012 at 1:48amOct '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Wouldn't John O'Sullivan make a great editor of National Review?
Oct '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
For all the dialog concerning this issue, pro or con.
Distill this down, if any here were to be marooned on an island with limited resources, who would commenters here pick as a companion or companions ? Consider that in depth if you will.
Would you dispatch and consume anyone of dissenting opinion ?
Perhaps to simplistic to grasp, save it speaks to a measure of Humanity and Compassion lost to political and Religious devotions..
Mar '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Mark Wilson: O'Sullivan seems to have one of his core arguments wrong, that he thinks Derb wasn't serious:
However, Derb's own website says
Were I to characterize Derbyshire's article, I'd call it a polemic rather than a satire. Whether it's more or less polemical than "The Talk" to which it responded is certainly open to debate, but to accept "The Talk" as acceptable racial commentary and then to silence Derbyshire's response is simply silly.
Aug '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Like Kennedy I went on an NRO cruise and met Derb, as well as Steyn, O'Sullivan , and the rest. Rich Lowry is very lowkey. It's people like Derb and Breibart and Steyn that make the loud noises which gets people attention.I am really disappointed in NR. Derb 's health has never been mentioned and the Demo would have been draping the Natl Cathedral at this point with Sandra Fluke's std or Hilary Rosen's ingrown whatever . Derb knows how to calculate, he thrives on it. His calculation shames us all. Sharpton should never win anything.EVER
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
1) I see that John O'Sullivan has what is virtually the first point of his piece wrong- that is, the idea that this is an issue of free speech. It is not- no one has censored Derbyshire. He was, and is, free to post whatever he wants to post.
2) For years, he has not hesitated at all to say in print that he generally doesn't care for blacks. That is his right as well.
3) There should be no stigma in letting go, or virtue in retaining- for a journal that operates out in the marketplace of ideas- a writer who makes bluntly racialist comments. Your right to speak does not trump your employer's right to protect its reputation, as WFB did when he booted Buchanan.
4) I was unimpressed by Derbyshire's approach to "debating" origins of life (invoke Darwin generally and then appeal to "authority" in the form of Jerry Coyne), as I am unimpressed by his wisdom in blurting out what he apparently believes.
A lot of things can be "true" in your eyes, that does not mean that you make the world better by bleating them out loud.
I invoke Thomas Sowell.
Apr '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Arguing diminished capacity is Soviet?
The Soviets locked you up for it.
If you believe that he is capable of arguing his case, then you can argue why he should have to to you to begin with?
This is a free country, after all.
He can believe what he wants. Just like the NR can fire whomever they want.
Apr '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Arguing diminished capacity is Soviet?
The Soviets locked you up for it.
If you believe that he is capable of arguing his case, then you can argue why he should have to to you to begin with?
This is a free country, after all.
He can believe what he wants. Just like the NR can fire whomever they want.
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Duane Oyen:
4) I was unimpressed by Derbyshire's approach to "debating" origins of life (invoke Darwin generally and then appeal to "authority" in the form of Jerry Coyne), as I am unimpressed by his wisdom in blurting out what he apparently believes.
I invoke Thomas Sowell. · 29 minutes ago
This is a separate matter, Duane, but I'm in complete agreement here. Back before we launched Ricochet, I blogged a lot at NRO. (I still do blog on the Corner from time to time--Lord knows I still love NRO--but these days my main energies play out right here.) When challenged on evolution, Derb would as often as not attempt to shut down the argument, writing in capital letters as if shouting, or making spurious appeals to authority, or simply comporting himself with such rudeness and smugness that the discussion would become too unpleasant to continue. He's a man of high talents--we can all agree that he knows how to sling prose--but he's no saint.
Edited on April 15, 2012 at 3:48amNov '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Larry Koler
Peter Robinson
...
Just in time for the Obama racialists. They must be very happy with this.
Repeat after me. The Democaratic Party:
is the party that opposed Republican efforts to pass an anti-lynching law in the 1920’s and 1930s.
Nov '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
I was a rather faithful subscriber of NR from 1991 (just as O'Sullivan became editor) until 2011. I tried to find out some information about NR's history with the Derbyshire-types over the past 20 years. The best source for this was VDare.com. It seems as if there was a huge split at the magazine regarding Peter Brimelow's immigration views. O'Sullivan with Buckley's support allowed the magazine to support these views, but apparently something happened and there is some suspicion that O'Sullivan's strong support of Brimelow's views caused O'Sullivan to be fired as editor. Apparently, the mainstream conservative media continued to retreat from the immigration issue during McCain-Bush-Rove era until conservative establishment figures like Bill Kristol cried uncle under an avalanche of grassroots pressure in fear that a conservative split would damage Republican unity in support for the War on Terror. Non-American-born conservatives, at least of the Anglo variety, seems to have a different view of immigration/racial-type issues. Some like Brimelow and Derbyshire seem to be too toxic for the mainstream while people like O'Sullivan and Steyn approach these issues with more tact.
Jul '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Duane, I have to disagree with your third point.
Duane Oyen:
3) There should be no stigma in letting go, or virtue in retaining- for a journal that operates out in the marketplace of ideas- a writer who makes bluntly racialist comments. Your right to speak does not trump your employer's right to protect its reputation, as WFB did when he booted Buchanan.
Readers (and the public) do not have their rights to attach whatever they wish (virtue, stigma, indifference) to the actions of a magazine trumped by said mag's attempt to protect its reputation.
Of course National Review has every right to protect what it deems to be its interests. But its readership is equally free to conclude whatever it likes based on NR's actions.
If I told my customers that their opinions about how I conduct my business were of no consequence, I wouldn't have many customers.
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Basil Fawlty
This "sickness" meme is what I find distasteful. Derbyshire seems quite capable of defending himself and his opinions, and to attempt to dismiss his views by ascribing them to diminished capacity is positively Soviet in method. · 6 hours ago
Likewise, the entire O'Sullivan defense was premised on the idea that what Derbyshire wrote was satire. And yet Derbyshire himself has strongly disputed that. He claims he has actually given this talk -- about, lest we forget, not helping black people who are in "apparent" distress -- to his children. (He reports that they, indoctrinated by their schools, didn't take it too well.) Without O'Sullivan's premise -- about satire -- the rest of the defense fails.
UPDATE: Upon review, I see Mark Wilson already hit this point.
Edited on April 15, 2012 at 5:25amMar '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Basil Fawlty
This "sickness" meme is what I find distasteful. Derbyshire seems quite capable of defending himself and his opinions, and to attempt to dismiss his views by ascribing them to diminished capacity is positively Soviet in method. · 6 hours ago
Without O'Sullivan's premise -- about satire -- the rest of the defense fails.
Edited 23 minutes ago
Why?
Feb '12
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
John's analysis is impeccable. He and Steyn are on the same wavelength. Why are we circling the wagons and sacrificing our own as the true racists ply their noxious trade?
Jan '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Thomas Riehl - Because we are afraid.
Nov '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Basil Fawlty
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Basil Fawlty
This "sickness" meme is what I find distasteful. Derbyshire seems quite capable of defending himself and his opinions, and to attempt to dismiss his views by ascribing them to diminished capacity is positively Soviet in method. · 6 hours ago
Without O'Sullivan's premise -- about satire -- the rest of the defense fails.
Edited 23 minutes ago
Why? · 11 hours ago
Why does a defense based on a false premise fail...? Is this a serious question?
Mar '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Mothership_Greg
Basil Fawlty
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Basil Fawlty
This "sickness" meme is what I find distasteful. Derbyshire seems quite capable of defending himself and his opinions, and to attempt to dismiss his views by ascribing them to diminished capacity is positively Soviet in method. · 6 hours ago
Without O'Sullivan's premise -- about satire -- the rest of the defense fails.
Edited 23 minutes ago
Why? · 11 hours ago
Why does a defense based on a false premise fail...? Is this a serious question? · 13 minutes ago
Yes it is. Why? Because the crux of O'Sullivan's defense is not that Derbyshire was engaging in satire. It is, rather, that what Derbyshire wrote is a legitimate subject for inquiry and discussion and that the drive to suppress it by firing him ". . . will further narrow the already narrow limits of acceptable debate in American intellectual life."
Jun '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Duane Oyen:
...
2) For years, he has not hesitated at all to say in print that he generally doesn't care for blacks. That is his right as well.
...
I hope you have very good evidence for this statement. I don't know where he has said this. I really doubt he has said this -- but, it's possible. This smacks of the style of mind-reading that the left has pretended -- about always knowing what conservatives "mean" when they make statements. Is this what you are doing? Reading minds?