The neocons at the Journal and Weekly Standard couldn’t give a damn about the reputations of those further on the Right who were being blackened by the slander mill in Montgomery, Alabama. In fact they joined in the fun and happily ostracized all the same targets of SPLC abuse. I was one of those victims, and many of those who contribute to this website have also been in this group of the doubly victimized. The fact that I was mentioned on the SPLC list of haters because I associated with people it went after cost me writing contacts and almost destroyed an organization that I have helped build over the last decade.
I suspect my name and the names of my co-signatories were dropped from a declaration of support for Trump put out by the American Greatness website last summer because I was connected in some way with the SPLC list. I can find no other reason for this slight. About seven years ago I almost lost a newspaper column because of this association—although the SPLC never claimed that I was either a racist or white nationalist. Apparently I just kept bad friends.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost, as the SPLC has turned its fire on Conservatism Inc. AEI, Bradley, Olin and Scaife Foundations have all been listed as hate groups along with VDARE.com, the Mises Institute and other groups on the non-authorized Right. Moderate feminists who have been critical of Muslims trying to impose Sharia law in Western countries have also made the list of alleged haters.
Needless to say, none of this will be seen as a vindication of those whom the Conservative Establishment and the SPLC allied to vilify in the past. Unlike the more recent targets of SPLC blacklisting, we remain the bad guys for Conservatism. Inc. as well as for Morris Dees’s hateful warriors against hate.
On a related note, I was struck by the comments of an African commentator for Slate about the role played by National Review, even under its present, apparently frenetically anti-racist and anti-Confederate editor, in spreading ideas about white supremacy:
Despite the magazine’s disavowal of the alt-right, the platform it provided for these writers and its elevation—throughout its history—of ideas that have become central to the movement tie National Review to the alt-right’s intellectual origins. In truth, National Review can no more disown the alt-right than it can disown its own legacy.Will this broadside lead to a stampede of neocon donors away from the offending publication? We shouldn’t hold our breath.