{"id":1844,"date":"2018-04-12T14:52:19","date_gmt":"2018-04-12T18:52:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/?p=1844"},"modified":"2018-04-12T14:52:19","modified_gmt":"2018-04-12T18:52:19","slug":"national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html","title":{"rendered":"The National Post’s Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried"},"content":{"rendered":"

Confessedly, I know virtually nothing about the Canadian publication, the National Post<\/a>. <\/em><\/p>\n

Yet I know more about the Post<\/em> than one of its contributors, Robert Fulford, knows about Paul Gottfried, the American conservative movement, and the so-called \u201calt-right,\u201d for of these subjects Fulford knows nothing. <\/em><\/p>\n

This, though, didn\u2019t deter him from presuming to speak to them.<\/p>\n

So, I know this much about the National Post: \u00a0<\/em>It lost whatever credibility it may<\/em> have had when it decided to publish Fulford\u2019s hit piece on Gottfried, a retired academic and veteran scholar of European and American intellectual history who Fulford ominously characterizes as \u201cthe godfather of the alt-right.\u201d<\/p>\n

The alt-right, Fulford explains, is a movement whose \u201cadherents have nothing in common but the concepts they love to hate\u2014liberalism, multiculturalism, free trade and political correctness.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Fulford\u2019s narrative, Gottfried spent \u201cyears\u201d in the proverbial wilderness entertaining \u201cthoughts that seemed at best eccentric [.]\u201d \u201cHe was against globalism, the \u2018therapeutic welfare state,\u2019 the Civil Rights Act and most of the other obsessions of the left.\u201d Fulford laments that these \u201cat best eccentric\u201d ideas now belong to the \u201ceveryday conversation\u201d of the internet.<\/p>\n

So, what changed?\u00a0 Well, to hear Fulford tell it, Professor Gottfried met\u2026Richard Spencer, the young, handsome, articulate, and charismatic figure who the media decided to make the face of the \u201calt-right.\u201d\u00a0 Gottfried and Spencer, Fulford continues, recognized each other as \u201cnatural allies\u201d and, together, decided to brand \u201ctheir movement \u2018alt-right\u2019,\u201d i.e. an alternative to what Fulford (laughably) describes as \u201cthe traditionally right-wing<\/em> Republican Party\u201d (emphasis mine).<\/p>\n

It is at this juncture that Fulford\u2019s tale takes a telling, if subtle, turn, a turn obviously designed to convict Gottfried of a sort of guilt-by-association, for the remainder of his essay focuses on the position that he attributes to Spencer\u2014not Gottfried.\u00a0 Spencer is recognized as a \u201cwhite supremacist,\u201d Fulford remarks, even though he disavows this label in favor of \u201cidentitarianism,\u201d a term that Fulford dismisses as a ploy by which to conceal\u2014what else?\u2014Spencer\u2019s \u201cwhite supremacy.\u201d<\/p>\n

All-too predictably, Fulford refers to Spencer\u2019s role in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia last summer, a rally, as Fulford describes it, comprised of \u201cwhite nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis\u201d\u2014comprehensively, \u201cfar-right extremists\u201d\u2014who \u201cbattled with counter-protestors,\u201d \u201canti-fascists,\u201d while \u201cchant[ing] racist and anti-Semitic slogans [.]\u201d<\/p>\n

Fulford\u2019s analysis is scandalously wrong.\u00a0 That his monumental errors are sincere is a proposition that stretches credibility to its snapping point.\u00a0 Where to begin?<\/p>\n

First, Gottfried is hardly some fringe figure. \u00a0In 1967, he received his Ph.D. from Yale University, where he studied under, among others, the Marxist, Frankfurt School critic, Herbert Marcuse. Gottfried is a prolific scholar who over the last half-of-a-century has authored numerous books and an exponentially greater number of academic and popular essays.\u00a0 He has served on the editorial boards of journals, presided over scholarly associations, and taught at a variety of colleges and universities. Moreover, Gottfried served in the Reagan White House, participated intimately in Patrick J. Buchanan\u2019s presidential campaign, and influenced Richard Nixon, who, in his post-presidency years, cited as one of his favorite books Gottfried\u2019s The Search for Historical Meaning<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Gottfried reads, writes, and speaks in several languages and is unquestionably among the most erudite observers of the European and American intellectual landscapes.\u00a0 His work on the American conservative movement is second to none.<\/p>\n

His ideas, though increasingly unpopular in a culture that continues to drift leftward, have never been \u201ceccentric.\u201d Much less is Gottfried\u2019s thought of the invidious character that Fulford insinuates.<\/p>\n

Second, Gottfried and Spencer never conspired to brand a \u201cmovement.\u201d<\/p>\n

For starters, to as great an extent as anyone, it is Gottfried himself who spares no occasion to remind those of like mind that the old or \u201cpaleo-conservative\u201d right with which they sympathize isn\u2019t a movement <\/em>at all.\u00a0 He entertains no illusions that this tradition of thought will reverse its extensive sequence of misfortunes in the foreseeable future, and unfailingly assumes the charge to dispel those illusions in others.<\/p>\n

Another reason that Fulford\u2019s analysis runs aground on this score is that \u201calternative<\/em> right\u201d is a term that Gottfried alone<\/em> coined some years back with an eye toward distinguishing the old, authentic right from the contemporary impostor that passed in its name (Spencer shortened the label to \u201calt-right,\u201d retired it, and then embraced it once again after Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 Presidential campaign and in an attempt to undermine Donald Trump, made \u201calt-right\u201d a household word).\u00a0 The official right, the Republican or neoconservative right, though obviously more visible and resourceful than the intellectual-political tradition to which Gottfried subscribes, is nevertheless a fake: It isn\u2019t right-wing at all.<\/p>\n

The right-wing of the popular American (and, evidently, Canadian) imagination is but a softer species of leftism.\u00a0 The \u201ctraditionally right-wing Republican Party\u201d to which Fulford alludes shares with its left-wing Democratic counterpart the same essential ideology: On the issues of potentially limitless immigration at home, potentially limitless military intervention abroad, increased government spending, subsidies for Big Business, the promotion of Political Correctness, \u201cfree trade,\u201d and, generally, the centralization and consolidation of government power and, thus, the erosion of American federalism\u2014America\u2019s \u201cright-wing\u201d and left-wing are of a piece.<\/p>\n

And this brings us to the next point:<\/p>\n

Contrary to Fulford, Gottfried has refused to become a member of America\u2019s \u201ctraditionally right-wing party\u201d precisely because there is no such thing.\u00a0 And he\u2019s been even more critical of the GOP than he has been critical of its rival precisely because the former is the animal that pretends to be rightist when it is not.<\/p>\n

Fourth, given the foregoing, by now it should be clear that when Gottfried referred to his political-philosophical orientation as \u201calternative right,\u201d he did not mean to imply that it was a second right, so to speak.\u00a0 In the last analysis, Gottfried has strenuously maintained that, in reality, there is no alternative <\/em>right; there\u2019s just a relatively small, not particularly resourceful, but genuinely right-wing composed of himself and some others of like-mind.<\/p>\n

Fifth, this last point having been made, however, it is critical to note that, despite what Fulford would have readers believe, the stuff of which Gottfried\u2019s understanding of the old right consists is not<\/em> the \u201cracism,\u201d \u201canti-Semitism,\u201d \u201cneo-Nazism,\u201d \u201cwhite supremacy,\u201d \u201cwhite nationalism,\u201d and even \u201cnationalism\u201d with which Fulford attempts to link it.<\/p>\n

Those of us, like Gottfried, who are convinced that the Managerial-Therapeutic state, Political Correctness, and the policies birthed by the union of the two are disastrous for the country recognize in nationalism, whether of the white or some other variety, something like a natural ally of these ills.\u00a0 After all, the federalist design of the American Constitutional order, affirming as it does the sovereignty of each state member of the federation of states, is, or at least was meant to be, an antidote to the homogenizing Leviathan of the Nation (or nationalism).<\/p>\n

There is, though, a second reason why it is not just patently absurd, but morally offensive, to link Gottfried with \u201canti-Semitism\u201d and Nazism:<\/p>\n

Gottfried is a Jewish<\/em> man.\u00a0 He is a Jew whose family suffered persecution under Hitler and his Nazi party.<\/p>\n

Inexcusably, yet predictably, Fulford fails to mention these details.<\/p>\n

It is painfully obvious that behind Robert Fulford\u2019s article on Paul Gottfried is bad faith.\u00a0 He should be ashamed of himself, and the editors of the National Post <\/em>should be ashamed of themselves<\/em> for publishing Fulford\u2019s grossly misinformed and reckless piece.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Confessedly, I know virtually nothing about the Canadian publication, the National Post. Yet I know more about the Post than one of its contributors, Robert Fulford, knows about Paul Gottfried, the American conservative movement, and the so-called \u201calt-right,\u201d for of these subjects Fulford knows nothing. This, though, didn\u2019t deter him from presuming to speak to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nThe National Post's Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The National Post's Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Confessedly, I know virtually nothing about the Canadian publication, the National Post. Yet I know more about the Post than one of its contributors, Robert Fulford, knows about Paul Gottfried, the American conservative movement, and the so-called \u201calt-right,\u201d for of these subjects Fulford knows nothing. This, though, didn\u2019t deter him from presuming to speak to…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"At the Intersection of Faith and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-04-12T18:52:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jack Kerwick\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The National Post's Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The National Post's Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried","og_description":"Confessedly, I know virtually nothing about the Canadian publication, the National Post. Yet I know more about the Post than one of its contributors, Robert Fulford, knows about Paul Gottfried, the American conservative movement, and the so-called \u201calt-right,\u201d for of these subjects Fulford knows nothing. This, though, didn\u2019t deter him from presuming to speak to…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html","og_site_name":"At the Intersection of Faith and Culture","article_published_time":"2018-04-12T18:52:19+00:00","author":"Jack Kerwick","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html","name":"The National Post's Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-04-12T18:52:19+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-12T18:52:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/6832222998cc14717ded1849531201c5"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2018\/04\/national-posts-inexcusable-slander-paul-gottfried.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The National Post’s Inexcusable Slander of Paul Gottfried"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/","name":"At the Intersection of Faith and Culture","description":"Beliefnet Voices - Jack Kerwick","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/6832222998cc14717ded1849531201c5","name":"Jack Kerwick","description":"I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University, a master's degree in philosophy from Baylor University, and a bachelor's degree in philosophy and religious studies from Wingate University. I teach philosophy at several colleges in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.jackkerwick.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/author\/jkerwick"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/399"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1844"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1845,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844\/revisions\/1845"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}