Fatal Attraction: Boors and Email

Gary North - January 23, 2017

On January 20, I wrote this about Trump's inaugural address:

I say this as a man with 59 years of public speaking experience and a Ph.D. in American history.

There have only been three inaugural addresses that have come down through the ages. The first was Lincoln's second inaugural, with the phrase: ". . . with malice towards none, with charity for all." The second was Franklin Roosevelt's first inaugural: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The third was John Kennedy's: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." These are legendary phrases.

This is not a unique insight. It is commonplace.

My article was reprinted on LewRockwell.com on January 21. I received this email:

Re. Trump's Inaugural Address Was Like No Other in History

When you began your article: " I say this as .... a Ph.D. in American history. " I knew only nonsense could follow. But I was wrong and pleasantly surprised. Everything you wrote after your first three paragraphs was well taken.

So, I will not dismantle your 'There have only been three inaugural addresses that have come down through the ages.'; least of all Kennedy's with its legendary statist phrase "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

I merely want to introduce you to the one inaugural address you did not count, the memorable one delivered by Thomas Jefferson on his First Inaugural in Washington, D.C. Wednesday, March 4, 1801, and the sentence "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

Have a good day.

I had an easy reply. I sent him a link to my January 19 article, "Biden on the NWO: The Wobbling Has Begun." It began:

"About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; . . ." -- Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, 1801

Medal of Freedom recipient Joseph Biden's last speech as Vice President represents the departing administration, as he said. He gave this speech at the annual gathering of the Old Boy Network in Davos, Switzerland: the World Economic Forum.

This was one of those wonderfully serendipitous events: I had cited the very passage from Jefferson's inaugural the day before. It turned out that I was not an ill-informed historian after all.

DON'T SEND THAT EMAIL!

In every movement, there are people who have bits and pieces of a narrow subset of some field. They are better informed in the narrow area than the people they associate with. But they do not associate with full-time researchers or scholars. Full-time researchers and scholars know that they must tread carefully, since the person they want to correct may have a lot of specialized knowledge.

This is why I never get unsolicited rants from strangers with Ph.D. degrees. They know better.

My critic began: "When you began your article: "I say this as .... a Ph.D. in American history. " I knew only nonsense could follow." In short, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money to earn a Ph.D. in history is clearly a wrong-headed person.

He might have asked himself this: "Why did Rockwell use this article as his lead article?"

He sent me Jefferson's statement. It is a fine statement. But it is not widely quoted outside of conservative circles. I said of the other three: "These are legendary phrases." Jefferson's is not legendary.

A few people who have achieved nothing academically are anxious to put academics in their places. They have contempt for learning. Academics have faults, but ignorance of familiar documents in their own fields is not one of them.

Most people don't care what academics think. This, I fully understand. But to spend the time to compose an email in an attempt to one-up an academic in his own field is time wasted. Only an ill-informed, arrogant person would do this.

To keep from identifying yourself as an ill-informed boor, ignore nonsense. Don't respond to it. Your email to the source of the nonsense will not straighten him out. It will only remind him of the existence of the intellectually walking wounded.

I send a detailed email to the author of a recent monograph. He had some verbal mistakes. I knew what he meant, but he stated it wrong. So did another author in his book. He ignored some pertinent information. I was just trying to help him correct the second edition. He replied:

Thanks very much for taking the time to read my book so carefully, and then to send on this constructive critique. I really appreciate this.

I am going to forward your note to my publisher, too.

A number of the errors or shortcomings you cite are due to my own disorganization as a writer. I was supposed to get this book done back in April--and I didn't get my manuscript in for nearly another 4 months! It was all the publisher could do to get it out barely in time for the electoral season. And so some typos/errors were not caught--thus also no time for an index.

If this should go into a second edition, I would hope we can fix that stuff.

No author wants to get caught making mistakes. But the mistakes look worse in a second edition. My correspondent understands this. I was working as a free proofreader/editor.

If you are clearly trying to help, you will not look bad, even if your proposed correction is wrong. Just don't insult the author.

Simple, right? But boors do not understand this. My advice: don't be one.