>Does anyone remember David Abraham? He was a left wing Princeton asst prof
>of History who was essentially run out of the profession by a cabal of right
>wing Germanists who objected to his thesis that Hitler had the support of
>the German capitalist class.
There is a good point that leftists have to be even more scrupulously scholarly in order to protect themselves from attack, which is often true. And it would help Moore if he was a bit more careful, although if we are speaking on effectiveness grounds, I just don't see most of those criticizing a guy whose at the top of the best seller lists on that basis.
He may pay for it in the longer term, but my comparison to Reagan is still accurate I think. People judge different people on fact-type issues with different criterion-- "experts" will be blasted to smithereens if they screw up the facts, since supposed accuracy on such issues is the basis for people to listen to them. Artists get lots of latitude based on appealing to "higher truths" of the situation. And political leaders get latitude based on representing the democratic will of others.
Moore is operating mostly in the artistic camp but is assuming a bit of the last category based on his popularity as a left figure. So his authority is unlikely to be destroyed by the fact-based attacks on him currently being launched.
And I'm sure he'll happily issue "corrections" in the classic mode-- "admit" that a fact was wrong and find something even more aggregiously bad as the substitute fact.
-- Nathan Newman