Quick Update
Daniel Larison and historian William Hay have both responded to that provocative Viereck post of mine. There’s a limit to how far I’ll defend Viereck, but I should be able to answer at least a few of the charges against him. It’ll have to wait, though; blogs demand instant response, but deadlines are more demanding still.
On another topic, I’ve added William Norman Grigg to the blogroll, which I’ve been meaning to do for some time.
November 9, 2006 at 6:22 pm
[...] My other thoughts were these: Bramwell’s article is very much like some of Viereck’s late 1950s and early 1960s-era commentary when he engaged in a kind of “pox on all your houses” approach to critiques of other conservatives: NR was too nationalist and capitalist (he was almost certainly right) and Kirk was both a no-good sell-out to Barry Goldwater and the latter’s “Manchester liberalism” (here he would be not very right at all) and a sort of traditionalist poseur (”the traditionless worship of tradition”!). (Separately, and related only tangentially to these Viereck remarks, where is Dan McCarthy’s promised response on Viereck that we have all been anticipating?) Of course, Viereck’s own criticisms of Kirk et al. leave one puzzling over Bramwell’s claim that Kirk had “almost no political opinions whatsoever.” Perhaps he expressed few of them in print, in which case I think I understand what Mr. Bramwell means, but that he had almost none? That is harder to believe. [...]