There's a certain string running through a group over 50 that's seemingly driven crazy by Obama's candidacy. I don't quite get it but the line runs through a group as diverse as Juan Williams, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury and Sean Wilentz. I don't know what the line is. Maybe it's the fact that an Obama win would disrupt so much of what we thought we knew about race in America. I'm not on that "end of black politics" bullshit, but I think there is considerable hesitancy to reconsider old assumptions. By and large, these attacks are silly, tending toward the "vague" canard. I can't figure out if these guys can't log on and check Obama's platform or what. Anyway, here's Publius breaking Wilentz off:
Wilentz is essentially exploiting his authority to write shoddy work. And so here's my question -- if Wilentz is willing to cherry-pick and ignore historical sources in pieces like this, what confidence should I have that he hasn't done something similar in his historical works? If he's so willing to let his emotions blind and taint his column (a column he is holding out to the public as historical), it calls into question -- to me -- his other work. And certainly his reputation.