I’m a right-wing conservative that seldom sees any redeeming qualities in left-wing zealots, but I’ve always had a few favorite liberals. Nat Hentoff (1925-2017), Joel Kotkin, Fred Siegel, and Alan Dershowitz, just to name a few. Insert the words “favorite liberal” in the search box in the upper left and you will come up with at least 12 posts I’ve put up on that topic since 2015.
What makes for a likable and favorite liberal, as opposed to almost all the rest of left-wing liberals, is their intellectual honesty. This sort of honesty is among the highest of virtues. It is so because those who possess it will stand for the truth even when the truth stands in the way of their personal ideology.
Intellectual honesty is the pursuit of truth even when it interferes with one’s personal faith, beliefs, or political views. The intellectually honest person will not engage in deception even when given an incentive for deception. Such a person will not twist facts to support one political view over another.
Alan Dershowitz is presently under attack by his fellow liberals. It’s a smear campaign using false allegations of ancient sexual misconduct, which supposedly occurred decades ago. Dershowitz, being one of my favorite liberals, is so intellectually honest I doubt he would deny allegations if they were true. If the scurrilous allegations were true I believe he’d say so. But he vehemently states they are not true. I believe him.
It’s easy to see the contemptible motives on the Left that is driving this disgusting campaign. Dershowitz has failed to tow the political line. He fails to agree completely with the politics of the Left. He agrees with a lot of it and describes himself as a liberal.
He supports Israel, anathema to the Left, refreshing to my side. I doubt he would vote for Trump but he defends Trump when he thinks Trump deserves to be defended. He opposes anti-Semitism and isn’t afraid to call the Left out for its embrace of the oldest, most vile hatred in history. The Left can’t allow any of this to stand. Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor, author of more books than most people on the Left have read, and he’s highly regarded as an intellectual heavy weight. The Left can’t stand by while he shows its true colors, its vaccous bromides, and its eagerness to be the sow that eats her piglets.
The vehicle for this vile attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with the Left is the New Yorker, a once great magazine now diminished to a disgusting rag of left-wing propaganda.
The atrocious “fleet-street” propaganda of the New Yorker is based solely on left-wing politics and not on any search for truth. Its former integrity has been completely abandoned for its leftist ideology. The loathsome Al Franken was recently given the soft touch of a sympathetic defense of his shameful acts by the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, proving that her politics transcends truth and virtue.
Alan Dershowitz is not shrinking from these attacks. He has penned an open letter to the New Yorker rebuking the allegations made against him.
The open letter should be read in its entirety. Here is an excerpt:
Having been contacted by your “fact” checkers, I now understand the thrust of Connie Bruck’s hit piece: You must know there is no actual evidence that I engaged in sexual misconduct or even met my false accusers — because I did not. So, you appear determined to concoct a false narrative of my life, going back more than 40 years to my first marriage, that falsely suggests that I am the kind of person who “could” or “might” have engaged in such misconduct. To support your false narrative, you began your negative “research” – as you acknowledged to my son — by sourcing a Holocaust denial site that circulates false stories about prominent Jews, including me. You then interviewed my enemies, my critics, dissenting students and especially anti-Israel and, in some cases anti-Semitic, zealots. The original reporting, which took place over many months, did not include interviews with longtime friends and associates who know me well and can present a more balanced perspective. You agreed to speak to a handful of such people only at the last minute, after I complained to the editor. But even then when some people called you, you told them the story was closed. Let’s see if you include the positive comments that contradict your story, that some of these people relayed to you.
You have even refused to interview me face-to-face. When your negative sources are dead or unwilling to be interviewed, you have quoted decades old adversarial court documents that contain false information that you believe is protected by the litigation privilege. You report old, negative articles about me even though they are based on false information. You don’t seem to care whether the information is provably false, as long as you are protected from a lawsuit. Most importantly you are apparently refusing to include in your one-sided screed information that undercuts your false narrative that I and others have provided you.
Based on the claims of your fact checker, your reporter originally wrote an entirely false account regarding a confrontation between me and a summons server that was fed to you— as many false stories about me have been fed to you. Your writer reported that a summons server tried to serve me in my apartment and that I told him to go “f.. himself.”
The problem is that he tried to serve someone else three times in an apartment that I haven’t lived in for seven (7) years. Finally, that person told him what he could do. But that person wasn’t me. I don’t use that kind of language. Your reporter believed your “source” and was prepared to attribute the episode to me without any proof that it was me. I wonder how many other stories in the article are also the product of such shoddy reporting.
Here is a list of just some of the information and documents that you and your fact checkers have been given. I urge readers of the published article to compare this list with what appears in your article and more importantly what has deliberately been excluded.
Dershowitz’s open letter reminds me of a common general instruction given by judges to a jury before it retires to deliberate on the case just heard. It goes something like this: “If you believe a witness has lied about one specific thing, you may conclude that the witness lied about everything.” That is exactly how we should view the New Yorker’s attack on Alan Dershowitz. It has lied about way more than just one thing. Therefore we are justified in assuming they lied about everything.