Johann Hari has a very provocative piece in The New Republic (reg req’d) on Andrew Roberts, author of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900 –a book which was recently the subject of a cover review by John O’Sullivan. Hari writes:

At first glance, this isn’t surprising. Roberts’s latest work–A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900–sounds like a standard-issue neocon narrative. As a sequel to Winston Churchill’s famous series, it purports to tell the story of how the “Anglosphere” (Great Britain, the United States, Australia, and friends) saved the world from a slew of totalitarian menaces, from the kaiser to the caliphate. It presents Bush as the logical successor to Churchill–only Bush is, of course, even better. Yet, beyond this surface sycophancy, there is something darker and more fetid. Bush, Cheney, and–in a recent, glowing cover story–National Review, have, in fact, embraced a man with links to white supremacism, whose book is not a history but an ahistorical catalogue of apologies and justifications for mass murder that even blames the victims of concentration camps for their own deaths. The decision to laud Roberts provides a bleak insight into the thinking of the Bush White House as his presidential clock nears midnight.

Hari tries way too hard to hype Roberts’ significance in the Bush administration and to make the Bush administration into a threat to democracy. And, at times he sounds almost hysterical in his attempt to make support for Anglophones indistinguishable from racism. He writes: “Roberts advises Bush to embrace the idea of the United States as a civilizing empire ruling the world: the white man’s burden in the White House. Pigmentation–the old basis for dominance–is now discredited, so he has politely switched to linguistics.” That seems like an awfully big switch to me, worth more than a brief “it’s a Trojan horse for racism” dismissal.

He also tries to hang a lot on Roberts’ attendance at the Springbok Club. I don’t know enough about the Springbok Club, nor about Roberts’ relationship with it, but it sounds like the guy merely had dinner there and the Springbokers hyped it. The association may be damning, but Hari’s so hostile I’d like to hear another take before making up my mind.

But, Hari also offers some other pretty damning examples about Roberts’ overreach and historical misinterpretations. I haven’t read the book, but I’d love to hear a reaction from folks who have, including John O’Sullivan who wrote the review (which I thought was great reading).

Update: If you came to this link from the outside, do see David Frum’s responses linked above by Kathryn.