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:
Jun '10
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. We can have all different kinds of people on our side but we can't have people who lie. Moreover, people who lie while trying to act wise.
...
Are you confusing the words untrue and lie? They are spelled differently for a reason.
Lying -- remember we went through this with GWB on Saddam's Nigerian connection -- is knowingly telling an untruth. So, to complete your smear you must first say what is untrue, prove that Derbyshire knew himself that it was untrue and then that he passed on said untruth.
Jul '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
I am a little disappointed about how the whole Derbyshire thing was handled. Multiple sources come out stating how minorities must give talks to their children about how whites especially those in authority are just edging to kill kids for being a minority and possibly wearing a hoodie. This is taken as a sign of white racism. Derbyshire chimes in with a flip on the story where he tells his kids about being careful around some minorities in some situations. This is taken as a sign of white racism. Both stories use folk wisdom and pseudoscience to back up their points but only one version is the type to get a commentator removed from their gig. This is taken as fairness. I listen to the Ricochet podcast where Rob, Peter and James dance around the question obviously scared that they may say something that will end their careers. This is taken as free, smart conservative talk. I am glad to see John O’Sullivan piece on the Main Feed, it represents one of the few sane points of view I have seen. I have now finished my screed, if this be racism then make the most of it.
Edited on April 15, 2012 at 8:03pmNov '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Basil Fawlty
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." · 3 hours ago
You are correct - he talks about satire and irony at the beginning, and then goes on to offer defense of the substance of Derbyshire's screed. Incoherence seems to be a finely cultivated trait at National Review these days.
Jan '12
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Say what you will about Derb's reasoning, but if you dispute the veracity of the first sentences of his points 8 and 9, then you haven't spent time in places like Berkeley or Oakland during the height of the Black Power days. The experience would have taught you a thing or two about the differences between civilized discourse and savage behavior.
One anecdote of many: a co-worker's son was at Berkeley High. When some blacks beat up a white, his black teacher said that it was impossible for blacks to exhibit racism, for they never act but in retaliation against oppression. This was a few decades ago, as Critical Race Theory was just beginning to infiltrate the institutions of education. Fortunately, the son was Catholic; on his own he enrolled in the local parochial school the very next day.
If you disregard the fact that there is a non-trivial percentage of blacks who hate whites just because the latter are white and who are willing to turn their hostilities into action if circumstances allow them to get away with it, then I advise you not to leave your protected environments.
Mar '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Mothership_Greg
Basil Fawlty
Mothership_Greg
Basil Fawlty
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
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." · 3 hours ago
You are correct - he talks about satire and irony at the beginning, and then goes on to offer defense of the substance of Derbyshire's screed. Incoherence seems to be a finely cultivated trait at National Review these days. · 20 minutes ago
Don't be too hard on them. They have a young editor.
Jan '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
With no radio derb this week, I listened to a year old podcast. When speculating what would happen if Obama's birth certificate was proven to be fake, I heard this:
"...that would just reconfirm for many African Americans, the vast majority, that the deck is stacked against them."
Is this true? Do the vast majority of African Americans believe the deck is stacked against them?
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Larry Koler
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? · 6 hours ago
I have read it from him, Larry. I believe it was during a set of Corner debates starting 7 or 8 years ago. I believe that the words "don't care for" are a direct quote. It was around the time that he sang "Without the Communist Party There Would Be No New China" at the NR Christmas party.
Feb '12
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
I am just so happy to hear that Derb Radio will continue.
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Peter Robinson
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. · 20 hours ago
Edited 20 hours ago
Peter, I was trying to get to a parallel point about quality of argument and ran into the 200 words.
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Palaeologus: 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'sattemptto protect its reputation.
Of courseNational Reviewhas every right to protect what it deems to be its interests. But its readership is equally free to conclude whatever it likes based onNR'sactions.
If I told my customers that their opinions about how I conduct my business were of no consequence, I wouldn't have many customers.
Paleologus, for the life of me, I can't see where we are disagreeing here. NR has the right to protect its reputation, and readers who think that they should stood up for Derbyshire instead have the right to subscribe to VDare, Taki, or American Conservative.
Mar '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Duane Oyen
Paleologus, for the life of me, I can't see where we are disagreeing here. NR has the right to protect its reputation, and readers who think that they should stood up for Derbyshire instead have the right to subscribe to VDare, Taki, or American Conservative. · 56 minutes ago
It's quite possible, of course, for a magazine to burnish its reputation with its enemies so assiduously that it has none left with its friends.
Jun '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Duane Oyen
Larry Koler
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?
I have read it from him, Larry. I believe it was during a set of Corner debates starting 7 or 8 years ago. I believe that the words "don't care for" are a direct quote. It was around the time that he sang "Without the Communist Party There Would Be No New China" at the NR Christmas party.
Duane, I think it's important to get this right because you are charging him with racism. I'm not sufficiently informed on Derbyshire, but from what I've read about him it doesn't look like he's a racist. Please don't let this hang out there.
Did he say something like "I don't care for blacks who join the New Black Panthers"? Or "... who kill other people"? Or "... who are communists"?
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Larry Koler
Duane, I think it's important to get this right because you are charging him with racism. I'm not sufficiently informed on Derbyshire, but from what I've read about him it doesn't look like he's a racist. Please don't let this hang out there.
Did he say something like "I don't care for blacks who join the New Black Panthers"? Or "... who kill other people"? Or "... who are communists"? · 3 minutes ago
He said:
He elaborated on it here. In light of his recent article I don't think you can dispute that he doesn't "care for" black people as a group.
Derb would not take the slightest offense at what Duane has said about him.
Edited on April 16, 2012 at 2:30amJul '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Duane Oyen
Palaeologus: 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'sattemptto protect its reputation.
Of courseNational Reviewhas every right to protect what it deems to be its interests. But its readership is equally free to conclude whatever it likes based onNR'sactions.
Paleologus, for the life of me, I can't see where we are disagreeing here.
Duane, the bolded bit raised my objection. I took that part of your comment to mean that the consequences should only flow in one direction. That is, any negative consequences for NR as a result of the "firing" are inherently illegitimate.
Given your response, I see that I was a bit hyper-literal and mistaken. No harm; no foul.
Jun '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Well, Mark, I read both articles. If Duane had included the modifiers, "a mild and tolerant one," then I think it would have given some nuance to his statement. And nuance is very important on these issues. I have read Derbyshire before but never really knew him. But, I don't remember having read him on these issues before.
I think it's really important to classify Derbyshire and David Duke (and Bull Connor, too and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, also) differently. I don't think I should have to explain that last sentence. It stands on its own if you read it carefully.
David Duke and Bull Connor are not people whom I would want to live next door to. I wouldn't have qualms about having Derbyshire as a neighbor.
Here's the money quote from Derbyshire:
Now, what he's trying to do here is to show how silly this is to pretend that there are no differences between the races. He also explains that the definition of race is problematic.
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Larry Koler: Well, Mark, I read both articles. If Duane had included the modifiers, "a mild and tolerant one," then I think it would have given some nuance to his statement. And nuance is very important on these issues. I have read Derbyshire before but never really knew him. But, I don't remember having read him on these issues before.
I think it's really important to classify Derbyshire and David Duke (and Bull Connor, too and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, also) differently. I don't think I should have to explain that last sentence. It stands on its own if you read it carefully.
David Duke and Bull Connor are not people whom I would want to live next door to. I wouldn't have qualms about having Derbyshire as a neighbor.
Here's the money quote from Derbyshire:
He didn't use those modifiers in what I read, Larry. I can't add in what I don't remember just to be more politically correct at Ricochet.
Jun '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
So, Duane, no shades of gray here? David Duke, Bull Connor, members of the KKK, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Derbyshire -- they're all pretty much the same -- effectively, anyway -- right?
I can see immediately that what Derbyshire is trying to do is to accept the racism charge in order to talk intelligently about race. If people won't read his second sentence -- then that's a great way of filtering out the thoughtful people from those who react out of fear on the issue.
In other words, he doesn't for a minute think that he himself is a racist but he finds that every time he and Eric Holder sit down to talk about race -- he keeps running into the racist charge. No matter which way he turns. Heads I win, Tails you lose -- it gets old. And it's not intellectually honest. Critical Race Theory, Institutionalized Racism -- these are terms that if we accept them as intellectually legitimate (if we lie about it just to keep the peace), then we have let the barbarians in the door and the way clear to the highest office in the land.
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Larry, I don't think you're wrong in your analysis of Derb's views on race. I agree that he'd probably be a wonderful neighbor, and my own interactions with him were exceedingly pleasant.
But I think you're reacting a bit too strongly to Duane's matter-of-fact statement about Derb, that "he generally doesn't care for blacks". That theme also runs through is book We Are Doomed, where he says, for example, "Sun People kids are, in the broad generality, unacademic and unruly." (Sun People is his term of convenience for blacks and Hispanics.) Of course this is a nuanced view, and requires context to really understand what he's saying. But I don't think what Duane said misrepresents Derb's views.
Nobody here on this thread is talking about David Duke and the KKK, except you, as far as I can tell.
Apr '11
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Mark Wilson:
But I think you're reacting a bit too strongly to Duane's matter-of-fact statement about Derb, that "he generally doesn't care for blacks". That theme also runs through is book We Are Doomed, where he says, for example, "Sun People kids are, in the broad generality, unacademic and unruly." (Sun People is his term of convenience for blacks and Hispanics.)
We should note that "sun people" is not originally Derbyshire's term, but a sarcastic appropriation of race hustler Leonard Jeffries' term for blacks. In Jeffries's terminology, sun people were wonderful and loving, ice people (Caucasians) are cold and unfeeling oppressors. Derb just takes the terminology and turns it around on him, which may be a precursor to the "turning of the tables" feel of the piece on "The Talk."
May '10
Re: John O'Sullivan On L'Affaire Derbyshire
Mark Wilson: ........
But I think you're reacting a bit too strongly to Duane's matter-of-fact statement about Derb, that "he generally doesn't care for blacks". That theme also runs through is bookWe Are Doomed, where he says, for example, "Sun People kids are, in the broad generality, unacademic and unruly." (Sun People is his term of convenience for blacks and Hispanics.) ......... But I don't think what Duane said misrepresents Derb's views.
Nobody here on this thread is talking about David Duke and the KKK, except you, as far as I can tell. · 15 hours ago
Thanks for defending me, Mark. I strongly agree that Derb has the right to write what he wants to write. I still believe that NRO has a right to defend their market franchise without selling out to the censors. Derbyshire could have expressed this in a far less inflammatory way.
There is a difference between saying something indelicately and a pattern of unwise expression. For example, look at Gregg Easterbrook's Kill Bill review in 2003 that almost ended his career. That was a witch hunt; the current controversy, regarding NRO's action, is not.