Derbyshire hits bottom; Bottum hits Derbyshire

For years I’ve been wondering aloud why no one at National Review and no name conservative anywhere ever complained about John Derbyshire’s casually nihilistic jottings at the online version of that magazine. Now finally there is one. Joseph Bottum, managing editor of First Things, was outraged last month by Derbyshire’s remark that a couple of years in jail would do Lewis Libby good.

Bottum was so mad he even flirted momentarily with the idea of not reading National Review any more, an amazing statement for the editor of one establishment conservative magazine to make about another establicon magazine. However, I have a feeling Bottum’s anger may also have been related to the fact that everyone at National Review, including Derbyshire, was opposing the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, which Bottum—who promotes open borders with Mexico and who once said that to stop Muslims from immigrating into America would make America as immoral as the terrorists—supported. Meanwhile I, in agreement with Bottum, support a complete pardon for Libby, based on the outrageous nature of Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into “Plame-gate” that led to Libby’s indictment and trial, a view that elicited an anti-Semitic remark against me by a commenter at ParaPundit. Such are the cross-currents of today’s politics.

- end of initial entry -

A reader writes:

I wonder why Joseph Bottum gets upset at John Derbyshire but not at the support NRO is giving to the Giuliani campaign. Bottum wrote an article in which he declared that whatever splits exist in the conservative movement, there would always be the two prongs of agreement on pro-life and national security. Now one of his prongs has been clipped off as large numbers of conservatives accommodate themselves to a pro-choice candidate and Bottum says nothing. But a few words from Derbyshire on Libby arouse his wrath. Maybe these pro-lifers have just been posing.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2007 10:01 AM | Send