I seldom respond to internet criticism, both because it can smack of pettiness and ultimately feel ineffectual. The chances of turning some other soul’s mind in a congenial direction remain low, while overall investment into that discourse mode is unforgiving. Better to just canter along with dutiful consideration of another project.

At times however the need rises beyond levels of reasonable counter-protest. When a message is misconstrued by a perhaps well-meaning but clearly struggling spectator, their disorientation must be addressed lest it bring down the clarity of other prospective enjoyers. This process is condemned to playing out on the blog because Amazon has long-since deprived authors of the “reply” ability on reviews, leaving us with no venue to directly interact with negative sentiments in a healthy fashion.

Our subject today is a review of Why Conservatism Failed by the Amazon customer known as “U.M.D.” He begins his recriminations with the following paragraph:

“There’s a lot of good information in this book given its short length, and some good suggestions at the end, but seems to really hate Abe Lincoln and goes off on 3 or 4 tangents about how he was the worst president ever for running roughshod over the Constitution and launching a totally unprovoked, illegal invasion of the Confederacy, who were really good, freedom-loving people who were in the process of abolishing slavery already, so there was no reason to start the Civil War, better known as the ‘War of Northern Aggression’.”

This characterization is mostly false, yet it does signal association with the likely Reagan conservative character types who I warned against reading the text precisely because its contents would fall against their entrenched views on American history. The section (presumably he) refers to is designed to pare back assumptions on the Plural Right that Lincoln was some sort of limited government practitioner, which by any fair standard he was not. If anything, my target for derision here is Dinesh D’Souza, a known liar and historical revisionist who serves up prepackaged nonsense to older white conservatives in hopes of assuaging their dislike of being labeled racist by the Left.

Continuing on, there is no question that the CSA was in the process of reducing slavery, as demonstrated by provisions of the South’s constitution which barred the importation of further African slaves. Nevertheless, the text specifically notes that existing slaves were not freed under its auspices. Such shoddy reporting of the book’s content is lamentable, but certainly not surprising.

Our reviewer also appears to be frustrated by the reality of the CSA’s legal system being far more supportive of limited government than the federal behemoth empowered by Lincoln’s political legacy. He glazes over the actual components of the south’s government in order to gaslight folks with sarcasm and resentment. One can recognize the merits of the model without being a staunch advocate of slavery, which I wager would have been dissolved eventually by newer technology and the growing market economy.

After a measure of poorly-constructed weeping over the start of the Civil War, our joyous lad drops his conclusion.

“Distracting as this is, spending 5-10 percent of a 80 page book on hating Lincoln wouldn’t be so bad if the author’s point was consistent, but when we get to the suggestions on how to fix America at the end he suggests the next Republican President act in a unitary fashion, running roughshod over the Constitution in a manner just like Abe Lincoln in order to defeat leftism. He even suggests the next Republican President can suspend habeas corpus in order to deal with rioters, something at the beginning of the book he singled out as one of the acts that define Lincoln as an evil tyrant. I guess it’s okay when it’s our guy abusing executive power, but it’s totally evil when the other guy does it.”

Again, this outraged fellow chose to misinterpret the book as an attack on Lincoln simply because I neglect to tow the established conservative line on the CSA. What we require is nuance, an element lacking in the vast majority of emotions-driven political consumers. Just as Lincoln helped destroy the limited government system by claiming to defend it, modern actors are able to pursue similar methods in reverse, to protect crucial values and freedoms. The entire purpose of “energy in the Executive” as championed by multiple Founders is to safeguard the Republic against hostile attacks, and not exclusively those with foreign origin.

Of course a future conservative president can and should be deft about dispensing with the Plural Left, using whatever constitutional means are available to him. In contrast, quavering souls who screech, “You can’t do THAT” will merely drink their Bourbon and smoke cigars as D.C. burns, happily passing away the last moments of life, climaxing to the thought of Leftists receiving blame for the flames.

Thank you for reading. 🙂