Drift is an awful book. It is poorly researched, poorly written, and poorly argued. That, however, is not the problem. The problem is that it is treated as a serious work by people who should know better, thereby legitimizing it and its brand of “thought” in the minds of unsuspecting readers. The net result is a degradation of the level of political discourse in the nation. Instead of the intellectual arguments of a Hamilton and Jefferson, or, more recently, that of a Buckley and Galbraith, the nation’s discourse is being brought down to the level of playground insults. It is up to thoughtful people on both the right and left to halt this downward slide and bring serious conversation back to the table.
Ouch.
An example of the unserious nature of the book:
The best example of Maddow’s lack of discretion in her use of sources comes when she addresses the Reagan rearmament. Taking the position that the military buildup was unnecessary, she quotes Leonid Brezhnev, Konstantin Chernenko, and Yuri Adropov as definitive proof that the Soviet Union had no hostile ambitions towards the US and wished for a peaceful solution not involving an arms race.
When intellectual laziness that should get an F from any decent college professor is exalted, this is what ends up happening (but thankfully, not at places like this).
No comments:
Post a Comment