Paul Gottfried’s New Website

The redoubtable Paul Gottfried, one of the best living analysts of liberal-theocratic absolutism and its weird mental gymnastics, and more than that, a relentless critic of so-called conservatives who accommodate and facilitate liberalism, is well-known for his books and articles.  Gottfried has established his own website, The Gottfried Report, where he does what he does best without being filtered through a third party’s wont or sensitivity.  I strongly recommend The Gottfried Report to readers of The Orthosphere.

About these ads

16 thoughts on “Paul Gottfried’s New Website

  1. I have without hesitation deleted a remark by “a.morphous” on the grounds that it is uninformed, personal, rancorous, and uncivil. Should “a.morphous” wish to argue on the basis of evidence, he is welcome to do so, and I will not interfere. However, Incivility will remain unwelcome at The Orthosphere. The bibliography of Professor Gottfried is available at the Wikipedia article on him. Those books would be a good place to begin for anyone who wishes to understand the man’s thought.

    • My comment may have been rancorous (horrors!), but it also contained a link to evidence backing it up.

      Gottfried’s biography brags of his personal acquaintance with Nixon, which explains a lot. If you want to associate yourselves with people who brag of their association with criminals, be my guest.

      But I’d suggest you stay far away from partisan politics (and Gottfried is clearly a partisan political player). It’s soul sucking, and makes you less interesting.

  2. Dear “a.morphous”: Paul Gottfried has a been a steady critic of the Republican Party, from which he has long dissociated himself, for decades. He has devoted books to denouncing phony conservatism. He identifies all existing political parties with the managerial-therapeutic state and with totalitarianism. There is absolutely nothing “partisan” about him, and it is fantastic for you to say so. Gottfried knew Richard Nixon, a person of considerable historical interest, as an adviser and friend. There is no possible reason why Gottfried should not write about RMN, just as there is no possible reason why he should not write about Will Herberg, whom he also knew. To say that Gottfried “brags,” as you do, is to use language in a slanted way. It is, alas, too late for me to heed your closing advice, with its hyperbolic editorial language (e.g., “soul-sucking”). Gottfried is a friend of mine, about whom I have occasionally written. I intend to stick by him, as he stuck by RMN. Sincerely, TFB

    P.S. Here is my evidence (I quote Gottfried from a recent column):

    “I don’t see any staggering difference between the two national parties. Changing the president would not appreciably reduce the size of our welfare state (spending was already totally out of control under our last GOP president); nor would it cause a major change in the substance of our foreign policy, which would likely remain some variation on liberal internationalism, no matter which party occupies the White House. Although there are rhetorical and even policy differences between our national parties, I don’t view them as standing for radically different worldviews. Perhaps if the Republicans ran a radical isolationist for president or someone who intended to dismantle big government or someone who ridiculed PC in what Richard Spencer calls ‘an edgy fashion,’ I would sit up and mark the difference. But looking at the last two presidencies, I am struck more by the continuities than by any dramatic departure.

    “The counterargument that the candidate I propose wouldn’t win doesn’t carry weight in this debate. I am simply pointing out that the overlap between our parties is so great that claiming that they represent dramatically different perspectives is rarely more than partisan gesture. Whether someone of a more conservative persuasion than Romney would have done even as well as he did as a Republican presidential candidate is irrelevant here. Although I think the answer may be a qualified ‘yes,’ whether or not I am right in this judgment is beside the point. I am addressing the degrees of difference between the parties, not the question of who would have been electable.”

    • Well, presenting your evidence while deleting mine is certainly one way to win an argument. Nixon would approve.

    • I find Gottfried to be overrated. Far from being some kind of great movement builder or a counter to the prevailing culture the paleo-con movement has contributed both to the stagnation and then irrelevancy of traditionalism. The Paleo-cons also seem to have taken on the personality characteristics of their founder they are overwhelming bitter and petty.

      • Paul Gottfried is a mensch.

        Sincerely, TFB

        Dear “Ita.” My reaction to the review of Gottfried’s memoir linked by CO is that people who haven’t experienced what non-conformists experience in the ultra-conformist, ultra-left-wing world of American colleges and universities cannot fully fathom the dissenter’s ordeal. If anything, Paul has held back his rhetoric. The people Paul blasts deserve it and more. Polemic has a role in the traditionalist program, as Alan Roebuck and Kristor have recently averred in another Orthosphere thread. We would all benefit from a dose of Gottfried’s chutzpah. Sincerely, Tom.

      • Rereading my comment I realized it was overly broad and insulting- I apologize, I do not think that all paleo-cons are that way. I just think that Paleoconservatism has not been a very effective movement. We should learn from their mistakes.

        Professor Bertonneau, I am curious as to what you think of Continental Op’s link?

  3. My accomplishments are small compared to Gottfried’s, but I have one experience in common with him: Being a non-self-disguising dissenter in the ultra-conformist left-liberal environment of the academic humanities. It is an endless ordeal. Gottfried endured it twice as long as I have up until now. As to the argument that Gottfried is “missing something” — everyone is “missing something,” which is to say no one’s view is omniscient or without bias influenced by experience. Is Gottfried “missing” more than Bertonneau or “Continental Op”? Or Mr. “a.morphous”? If “Orthospherians” can come to terms with the “Manosphere” (and why not), it should be easy for them to come to terms with the author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and Leo Strauss and the American Conservative Movement. In the search for truth, Gottfried is a worthy partner.

    Mr. “a.morphous” should feel free to post his evidence again. It would be gentlemanly were he to add commentary demonstrating how what he quotes either contradicts or abolishes the page after page after page of discourse from Gottfried’s books and articles that resemble the two paragraphs I have quoted in support of my characterization of the man, as against his. I deleted Mr. “a.morphous’s” original remarks because they imported no substantive content; they were simply a leaping attack on Gottfried, lacking any basis. I repeat here that the notion of Gottfried as a “party hack” is an uninformed fantasy. Sincerely, TFB.

    • Gottfried claimed that First, there is nothing Richard Nixon was shown to have done that even approached the gravity of what this administration appears to have engaged in.

      That is just ridiculous on its face to anybody who knows anything, but for evidence see here: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/18/nation/na-tapes18 or here: http://hnn.us/articles/nixons-biggest-crime-was-far-far-worse-watergate

      I have not surveyed the full breadth of Gottfried’s output to see if this is typical or an aberration, it is true. And he obviously isn’t stupid. I am not sure what else would lead someone to make claims like the above.

      • My dear “a.morphous” — regarding RMN and BHO, you live in a different universe from the one, the large one with many mansions, that I inhabit. We are afflicted by BHO and you prate about RMN. I suggest that Paul Gottfried has much to offer “Orthospherians,” a proposition empirically testable, and you go barking after RMN. The verbal traffic with you is ethically asymmetrical. I sign my real name to what I believe, as does Professor Gottfried, and you sign yourself with a protective pseudonym. RMN resigned in 1974 and you keep hounding RMN in 2013. When you risk what I risk, or what Professor Gottfried risked for forty years, by signing your real name, I will be impressed.

        “I have not surveyed the full breadth of Gottfried’s output to see if this is typical or an aberration.” Noticeably!

        Yours, THOMAS FELIX BERTONNEAU.

      • I don’t really spend much time thinking about Nixon. Gottfried mentions him prominently on his website, and I was simply responding to that.

        I notice you don’t make any effort to disprove my assertion, say, by citing something specific BHO has done that is worse than planning to firebomb your political opponents, or prolonging a war to enhance your electoral prospects. If you are friends with Gottfried maybe you could ask him what he had in mind.

    • Dear Joseph: You’re welcome. Of particular interest is the column in which Gottfried speculates about the character of a true opposition party, to replace the GOP. T.

  4. A. Morphous asserts “That is just ridiculous on its face to anybody who knows anything” in response to Gottfried’s statement touching on RMN and BHO misdeeds. This link, http://www.redstate.com/fdardick/2012/10/03/140-obama-crimes/ provides what A. Morphous requests – citations of something specific BHO has done that is worse than what the L.A. Times claims RMN did. However, the 140 crimes do describe BHO’s crucial role in the death of many thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan, and his general role in destroying what remains of the U.S. and quite a few of other nations.

    Likely, the soft (and occasionally hard) cover up, by the L.A. Times, of Obama’s crimes is far more damaging to the world than what RMN did.

    I don’t believe it is presumptuous to say that the vast majority of the Orthosphere would agree with what I’ve just said. Of course, A. Morphous will not agree that the 140 crimes are worse than what the L.A. Times claims RMN did. He will not agree about the perfidious nature of BHO’s role in the soldier’s deaths and BHO’s destruction of nations. Of course, we should not expect him to find that the media’s suppression of Obama’s crimes to be more evil than what the L.A. Times claims RMN did.

    Clearly, the Orthosphere and A. Morphous are so far apart on issues such as these that little or nothing is to be gained by ‘hashing this out’. No disrespect intended, but in view of this wide gap and his obvious disrespect for those who value this blog, I do not see the value of publishing his assertion, the one that began my comment. Such comments seem to only degrade the conversation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s