FrankRep
02-19-2011, 11:38 PM
National Review ♥ The New Republic (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/78942.html)
Tom Woods
February 19, 2011
The print issue of a recent National Review contains an article by Allen Guelzo on nullification (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596981490). You’ll never guess: it’s unfavorable. Guelzo writes, “Its danger lies in how easily it could destroy not just Obamacare but the entire Constitution.” No concession at all that there might be a side to this story other than Daniel Webster’s, or that his objections might have been replied to a zillion times already. A blogger points out (http://uncouthruminations.blogspot.com/2011/02/national-review-stands-beside-history.html) how eerily similar Guelzo’s analysis and conclusions are to those of Sean Wilentz writing on the same topic in the New Republic last year. (Here’s my reply to Wilentz (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods131.html), who has not opened his mouth on the subject since.) There’s your glorious range of allowable opinion — left-neocon to right-neocon. National Review takes its role as the safe opposition seriously, and was not about to ruin its perfect record of pointing and shouting at any naughty idea the New York Times has forbidden us to entertain.
There isn’t anything raised by Guelzo that isn’t amply replied to in my series of replies to common objections (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods162.html), by the way.
Tom Woods
February 19, 2011
The print issue of a recent National Review contains an article by Allen Guelzo on nullification (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596981490). You’ll never guess: it’s unfavorable. Guelzo writes, “Its danger lies in how easily it could destroy not just Obamacare but the entire Constitution.” No concession at all that there might be a side to this story other than Daniel Webster’s, or that his objections might have been replied to a zillion times already. A blogger points out (http://uncouthruminations.blogspot.com/2011/02/national-review-stands-beside-history.html) how eerily similar Guelzo’s analysis and conclusions are to those of Sean Wilentz writing on the same topic in the New Republic last year. (Here’s my reply to Wilentz (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods131.html), who has not opened his mouth on the subject since.) There’s your glorious range of allowable opinion — left-neocon to right-neocon. National Review takes its role as the safe opposition seriously, and was not about to ruin its perfect record of pointing and shouting at any naughty idea the New York Times has forbidden us to entertain.
There isn’t anything raised by Guelzo that isn’t amply replied to in my series of replies to common objections (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods162.html), by the way.