Um, I think we’re missing the real slander. Of course, Joe Lieberman should be defended for showing up at our dinner. But the Moose ignores almost entirely the gist of the attack from Atrios. This may be because it’s just such an old attack, he trots out like a fresh insight when convenient. Atrios says Lieberman shouldn’t have attended because some forty years ago NR looked negatively on the Civil Rights Act. By this logic, virtually hundreds of liberals are to be similarly condemned for having appeared on WFB’s Firing Line, for saying kind things about Buckley and NR etc. Is John Kenneth Galbraith to be flayed now too? If this is the sum of the indictment, Why not condemn Mark Shields for being on Capital Gang with Kate O’Beirne? For that matter, why not condemn Bill Clinton for his refusal to condemn his “mentor” Senator William J. Fulbright, who was a passionate segregationist, opposed Brown v. Board of Ed, blocked civil rights legislation and signed the Southern Manifesto? Why not mount a campaign to change the name of the Fulbright scholarships?

I’m not trying to change the subject per se. I think it’s legitimate to criticize past positions of NR, or any magazine or public figure if it’s part of a serious argument about…something. I bring up Fullbright simply to highlight that leftists like Atrios don’t actually care about applying the logic of their position to anybody but their enemies. They don’t like Lieberman because he’s still holding onto a couple branches as the rest of his parties lemmings leap off the cliffside. So they apply this guilt-by-association silliness to him. And they don’t care about context and history when it comes to NR because they don’t care about context and history at all.

Update: From a reader:

“Jonah,
You make excellent points regarding the vitriol associated with 40 year old positions. I would challenge Atrios to apply that same standard to Robert Byrd. Let’s not be hypocritical about condemning people.