SACCO & VANZETTI CONT'D
Jonah Goldberg
The Corner
I'm at the Chicago airport, about to get on another plane, so I have to be quick. Readers may recall that last week Reuters published an article calling into question the letter revealed in the LA Times which purported to show that Upton Sinclair lied about believing Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent. Today, Greg Mitchell chimes in.
Some may recall that Mitchell, editor of Editor and Publisher and author of a book about Sinclair and I have clashed before. He is an unreconstructed baby boomer left winger (a charge certainly more fair than his characterization of me as a hysterical rightwinger). Anyway, it's no surprise that he's coming to defense of his hero Upton Sinclair. But, at least from a first, quick, reading of his attack on me his entire criticism seems to be based on the fact that I shouldn't have read and relied upon the original LA Times story in good faith. As I noted last week, the real story seems to be more complicated. And that's fair enough. But I hardly had access to the actual letter at the time I wrote the column and the point of my point is still entirely accurate. Even if Sinclair was entirely and thoroughly honest in his conviction about Sacco and Vanzetti, Sacco and Vanzetti were still guilty. (Though, again, some believe that Vanzetti was merely an accomplice after the fact). The defense of Sinclair boils down to the claim that he wasn't a liar, he was merely a useful idiot.
If, as it increasingly seems, the case against Sinclair is weaker than the LA Times claimed (known rightwing bastion that it is), I'll be glad to say so. Indeed I pretty much have. And, I think Mitchell is fairly persuasive on the merits. But, I'm less inclined to read him in good faith since he often lacks so much of it himself.
corner.nationalreview.com
editorandpublisher.com |
