An Australian friend of mine asked me to get him a copy of Blinded by the Right by David Brock. From the Amazon description, Brock used to be an extremely harsh critic of the left and has now done a turnaround. The book supposedly shows an insight into the right’s “smear tactics”.
My friend asked if this was just an hysterical version of what goes on, or if Brock has some credibility. Is this a shock-book or is it a fairly good analysis? I haven’t read the book (and, frankly, it doesn’t really interest me), so I have no idea what to tell him.
Has anybody read it? What’s your take/opinion? Would you recommend it? Any other comments welcome!
All I’ve heard of Brock was that he wrote an oft-cited book which purported to prove that Anita Hill’s allegations against Clarence Thomas were spurious and that Thomas’s confirmation hearing was a was a left-wing witch-hunt/character assasination.
I read the book a few months ago, and thought it was interesting, but I don’t believe everything that popped up in it. If anything, he’s just gone from being a right-wing hatchet man to a left-wing hatchet man. Same guy, different rhetoric.
The problem with Brock is that he’s already admitted to lying in his book about Anita Hill. It’s a bit much for him to turn around and ask us to believe everything he writes now. I don’t think he’s consciously lying in this book, but there’s a lot of resentment and animosity evident, and it probably alters his outlook on things.
I should point out that Brock isn’t attacking all conservatives here. He’s going after a particularly shrill and mean-spirited strain called the neocons: basically Ann Coulter and her ilk. Even as a conservative, I loathe these people. So if you do wind up reading the book, keep in mind that we conservatives aren’t all like that.
I read the book a few months ago, and thought it was interesting, but I don’t believe everything that popped up in it. If anything, he’s just gone from being a right-wing hatchet man to a left-wing hatchet man. Same guy, different rhetoric.
The problem with Brock is that he’s already admitted to lying in his book about Anita Hill. It’s a bit much for him to turn around and ask us to believe everything he writes now. I don’t think he’s consciously lying in this book, but there’s a lot of resentment and animosity evident, and it probably alters his outlook on things.
I should point out that Brock isn’t attacking all conservatives here. He’s going after a particularly shrill and mean-spirited strain called the neocons: basically Ann Coulter and her ilk. Even as a conservative, I loathe these people. So if you do wind up reading the book, keep in mind that we conservatives aren’t all like that.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I’m a little worried about sending this off to someone who will have this and the Australian press as his only exposure to American politics. Doesn’t really make us look good.
I’ve never read the book, but if he writes about lying in a book about Anita Hill, and that makes you not believe this book, then would that mean you believe that he told the truth about Anita Hill, which means he didn’t lie and you would believe this book, which meant he was lying in this book about lying about Anita Hill, which meant he did lie about Anita Bryant and…wait, my head hurts I need some orange juice.
Anyway, I’m not familiar with this book and would like to hear more.
Mmmmmm … not quite. What it means is that once a guy admits to or is shown to be a liar, you can’t just take his words at face value anymore. I’m not saying that everything he ever writes after this admission is a lie, or even that anything is. I’m just saying that whatever he says has to be qualified with the fact that the man is not above telling lies, and you might not want to take whatever comes out of his word processor as gospel.
Also, as I’ve said, the message itself is affected by his rancor. Brock is clearly someone with an axe to grind (and justifiably so, IMHO, if he’s telling the truth), and he obviously feels that print is the best revenge. This is a guy who took an innocent woman–whom he’d never met, much less suffered at the hands of-- down with libelous statements just to further the ends of his political party. Do you really think he’d hesitate to do the same with his former friends who he feels betrayed him?
Well sure, but when you say you can’t just take his words at face value * anymore *, that must include all previous words also.
I’m just kidding and making this into a paradox, but there are people who will call him a liar, and then still believe the Anita Hill story, which they will take as the truth. If you take it in the sole context of he admits to being a liar in Blinded by the Right, therefore the Anita Hill book must be true, it’s kind of funny.
Again, I haven’t read either, so I’m not making a statement about the author or his works.
> Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I’m a little worried about
> sending this off to someone who will have this and the
> Australian press as his only exposure to American politics.
> Doesn’t really make us look good.
Surely it’s a bad thing for anybody to take their entire set of political opinions from one book. But is that really what your friend wants to do? It sounds to me like he’s read lots of books but can’t find a copy of this one in Australia. If someone is so superficial that they take all their opinions from one book, giving them a new book isn’t going to make them more superficial. Tell your friend, “Brock’s opinions are highly controversial. No one is certain whether to believe him anymore.” Then send him the book.
I need some orange juice.