The Times goes all-in on the 1619 Project's factually misleading history. Notable here: when push comes to shove, the expertise of liberal academics who have studied these issues for a lifetime & earned widespread acclaim gives way to the imperatives of ideology.
In the 1860s, the New York Times was staunchly supportive of Abe Lincoln. Today, it not only promotes the smearing of Lincoln, but endorses the arguments of his opponents - Stephen Douglas and Roger Taney, drawing on John C. Calhoun - about the American Founding.
What switched?
What switched?
I don't think credentialed academics should have a monopoly on history - or any other area. I do think that if you're challenging the experts in a field from the outside, you need to come loaded for bear with evidence & specificity.
As a litigator, I've learned two things about experts. One, you can hire experts on both sides of just about any issue. Two, if you want to beat an expert in an argument about the truth, you gotta do your homework.
Especially when they focus on the things they're credentialed & respected in, rather than using them as a roving commission
The bottom line in all this is that you are not going to get an intellectually honest debate from the NY Times Opinion section. What you'll get is people who hand-wave or smear anyone who offers inconvenient facts.
Siding with Calhoun over Lincoln out loud.
