Thread by @KevinMKruse

Kevin Williamson has responded to the criticism of his "we need *less* democracy" column yesterday, and I'm flattered to have made the #1 spot.

The link just goes to my account generally, which lets his distorted "summary" stand on its own, but ... #1!

nationalreview.com/corner/fewer-v…

He won't provide the actual link for some reason, but I believe this tweet yesterday is what he's referring to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1379810144192765955

Now, if you (unlike Williamson) actually read that thread, you'd see it wasn't about one article, but a good number of NR pieces.

Williamson denied that segregationists & the architects of modern conservatism made common cause in the 50s & 60s, so I used NR to show how they did.

At the end of the short thread, I sarcastically mocked the very sort of argument that Williamson wrongly attributes to me in his "summary"

I thought my take was pretty obvious. Hell, I even use scare quotes on "logic"!

But yes -- drawing conclusions from the evidence, giving accessible citations instead of misleading "summaries" and, you know, just reading what other people actually wrote instead of what you imagined -- this *is* the sort of thing that passes for argument at Princeton.

As a P.S., we’ve done this dance before:

https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/1142454240377524230?s=21

https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/1142454240377524230