What You Don't See

It occurs to me that in the review I posted on Amazon shown below, Amazon deleted the names of two "left-wingers" from the review as originally written -- note the bracketed ellipsis [...] in the fourth paragraph. For the record, those two people are Michael Moore and Barbara Ehrenreich. Anyway, they were singled out by DiLorenzo for that special ad hominen treatment deployed by the RadCons. He also threw in a good helping of incredulity of the kind favored by this crowd: i.e.., how could anyone disagree that capitalism is perfectly fitted to mankind, and completely contiguous with man's nature -- why only lunatics like Michael Moore and Barbara Ehrenreich! (This well-worn likening of all left-wing critics as Micheal Moores in mufti was yesterday practiced by Bush Spokesmodel McClellan in his "smear" of Congressman Murtha when Murtha had the audacity to question the Administration's policy -- a term we should all tremble to use -- in Iraq.

For another example of the ad hominen attack as practiced by RadCons, check out this clip from one of the Amazon reviews of the DiLorenzo book, a review by an "M. Goodson" that criticizes "anticapitalists" like (he presumes) yours truly:

Comments from one who actually read the book... and understood it, August 30, 2005
Reviewer: M. Goodson - See all my reviews
It is quite obvious that many posting reviews on this book have not actually read it. This may seem fantastic, but one should not be terribly shocked at human irrationality (it's all around us). In fact, the author of the book in question wrote in some length of the anti-capitalistic mentality that contributes to this kind of behavior.

I comment specifically on the "review" by A. Epstein as his protests are typical. However, it is clear that "Arwin Ascendi", "Panopticonman", "Sgt. Rock", "Steven S.", and "F Hayek" also have not read the book (at least, their "reviews" contain no information to suggest so).

As attacks go, it's relatively mild; I will admit that my "review" contains no "specific" information to suggest that I read the book. But I did read the book. Every ridiculous assertion of the moral goodness of capitalism, every tendentious misreading of history -- I read it all. But I am more interested in showing how the RadCon tactics as practiced by its think tank goons have been absorbed and deployed by its many minions on Amazon. To wit: Goodson's method of slamming of "anti-captalist" critics is a perfect example of the adhominen attack as practiced by the DiLorenzo and rest of the RadCon gang.

First, M. Goodson asserts that we should not be "shocked at human irrationality" -- an assertion in perfect keeping with the view of the RadCon that mankind is evil. That's a lot to swallow, but trust me (or look at my review of Robert Reich's REASON for an explanation of this foundational truth of the RadCon philsophy). This belief resides at core of their "persuasion" (one simply can't call it a philosophy). M. Goodson then builds on this assertion by claiming human irrationality is typical of the "anti-capitalist" mentality. In so doing, he implicitly claims rationality for the pro-capitalist mentality.

Can you see how the argument from authority -- "we few, we wise, we conservatives unsurprised by human irrationality" is linked with the ad hominen attack? What always gets me is that if mankind is irrational -- a condition which grows out of mankind's inherent evil, then how have RadCons managed to escape this orginary curse? How can they, as part of mankind, know what "good" is if mankind, of which they are presumably a part, is evil?