Down in Flames

This post by Eugene Volokh, following up his approving citation of the odious James Taranto making silly claims about “[t]hose Westerners who side with the “Iraqi resistance” against America,” digs himself into a big hole right off the bat. First of all, shouldn’t you have such evidence before you defend the relevant empirical claim? This is just Tech Central Station- caliber hackery on its face. Secondly, as the always-invaluable Henry Farrell points out, Volokh moves the goalposts to the 40-yard line, making the criteria considerably more vague and expansive than Taranto’s initial slander. But what is profoundly embarrassing is that his delegation to his commenters has produced virtually nothing. Even if you’re generous and apply the broader criteria, they’ve come up with a filmmaker, a cartoonist, a mayor, and an obscure university professor. Pathetic.

Meanwhile, Henry’s request for examples of Reynoldsism have, not surprisingly, been rather more fruitful. Randy Paul reminds us of Hitchens claiming without mentioning a single name that “here are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today’s Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq,” which may be the most egregious. Or it may not, because a parade of reactionary luminaries (including, of course, Taranto himself) have made similar comments. Needless to say, there are plenty of examples of evidence-free slanders from the master himself; Ted Barlow cites his disgusting claim that “John Kerry has it tough…he’s been trying to send a positive message on the war when many people in his own party are actively rooting for the other side,” which is definitive but far from unique. When it comes to reprehensible smears, Reynolds definitely sets the standard of the right of the blogosphere…

Belle Waring has a funnier response.