1. Some initial thoughts on this short article about the failures of liberal historians to understand conservatism. politi.co/2QbYbPM via @politicomag
2. The author, Geoffrey Kabaservice, has written a justly well-regarded book on the decline of Republican moderation in the post WWII era. I have to say, though, his criticism of the historiography (and the history profession) just doesn't ring true.
3. Only speaking for myself here, but I spent the first 18 years of my life in a small coal mining town that currently votes 67/33 for Trump. One of my grandpas was a Goldwater supporter, the other Eisenhower. There were several conservatives in my grad school orbit. 
4. This charge that "liberal" historians live in a bubble, that they are liberals because they know nothing about conservatism, feels off to me. Many became historians of conservatism precisely *because* they were raised in conservative environments & understood it quite well.
5. Next, a short article can't mention everyone, but why single out Corey Robin, who is not a historian but rather a political theorist? It would be like criticizing conservatives by picking on someone (like the John Birchers) who weren't part of that group. Oh yeah, and on that.
6. This piece's criticism of Lisa McGirr's 2001 book is odd. McGirr is faulted for treating the Birchers with detachment (wait, I thought we were *supposed* to do that).
7. But McGirr's fault, apparently, is to not stress how separate the Birchers and the @gop were. I wish @RuleandRuin had engaged with @pastpunditry's recent book where she shows how instrumental Bircher and Bircher-adjacent people were in Goldwater's campaign.
8. Even Goldwater, who never endorsed the JBS, admitted that "Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society...I’m not talking about Commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks, I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs.”
9. Given how many GOP voters and congresspeople fell for the birther lie and a host of other conspiracy theories, is it really so inaccurate for historians to think the JBS, in all of its wackiness, is a fairly significant piece of conservative history?
10. Liberal historians like myself also come under attack for not assigning works by conservatives. In 15 weeks my students read: George Nash, Bill Buckley, Russell Kirk, Patrick Allitt, Catharine Beecher, William Graham Sumner, Hayek, Reagan, Bruce Bartlett, Charlie Sykes, etc
11. The full list of readings is here: medium.com/@sethcotlar/hi… The course has evolved over time and there are many other conservative authors that we've read in past iterations of the class such as Yuval Levin, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Phyllis Schlafley, & Donald Critchlow.
12. The first time I taught my hist of conservatism class I assigned this collection which contains a synthetic overview of the topic by Donald Critchlow, one of the leading "conservatives who write about conservative history." amazon.com/Debating-Ameri…
13. I stopped assigning it, however, because my undergraduates dismantled Critchlow's argument ruthlessly, despite my best efforts to defend it. I was trying to set the tone of "there are good arguments to be made on both sides," instead, the piece accomplished the exact opposite
14. One of that piece's weaknesses is that it uses @gop and "conservative" interchangeably and opportunistically when talking about the 1960s and 1970s. Because people in the GOP supported civil rights, we are told, that proves conservatism has nothing to do with racism.
15. As @KevinMKruse shows in this thread. Conservatives (in both D and R parties) hated the Civil Rights Act. The @gop members who voted for it in 1964 were liberal Republicans, soon to be pushed out of the party. Many D's who voted against it became R's.
16. Thus this sort of argument that both Critchlow & Kabaservice make isn't very convincing. Yes, there were GOP allies for civil rights activists, but far more Democratic ones. And those R allies were *liberals* being marginalized by an R party becoming more conservative.
17. @RuleandRuin is critical of my take on the intellectuals of the 1990s. He certainly knows more about the topic than I, & I will make it a point to read more about this. The basis for my claims are largely biographical & are articulated in this thead:
18. I do find it odd, however, that this Politico piece mostly admits that much of the 90s work doesn't stand up well...like D'Souza and Murray and Bloom. I agree, but why not use this platform and this moment to make the positive case, rather than admitting the negative one?
19. I'd be interested in reading a piece that sketched out the robust ideas of 90s conservatism that were distinct from the problematic stuff Kabaservice acknowledges. That was precisely the point of this thread that touched off this conversation.
20. Perhaps that history of non-D'Souza, non-Gingrich, non-Murray, and non-Bloom 90s and 00s conservatism has already been written and I just haven't seen it. Not being snarky here, I really don't know and really would be interested in reading it.
21. I'm sure other historians will weigh in with their far more informed critiques of this Politico piece. I'll just end with this irony.
22. According to this conservative author, we can't trust liberals who write about conservatives. As outsiders, they don't get it. Yet conservatives (like him) are effective critics of liberal historians, because as outsiders they see "liberalism" more accurately. Hmmm, ok.
