LIKE A HITCHENS WITH NOTHING TO BE EMBARRASSED ABOUT:

J. Gordon Coogler Award Rescinded, Shawcross Forgiven (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., 6.30.11, American Spectator)

Here is the problem. In February 1980 we awarded "The Worst Book of the Year Award" to the British writer William Shawcross for his Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia. The late and gifted Peter Rodman reviewed the book in The American Spectator and took issue with its narrative and methodology, for instance the maps were off according to his calculations; and yes, the New York Review of Books had done cartwheels over Sideshow. We had our worst book of the year. Our problem arose because over the years Shawcross has become increasingly sound, an admirer of George W. Bush (though with qualifications), a friend of America, a proponent of America's special relationship with the UK, and even a defender of Israel. Some members of the Coogler board began to suspect that we should strip Shawcross of his 1980 award, cruel as that might sound.

Actually even when we gave him the award he did not act like the ordinary knavish Liberal. We sent him Rodman's review and he responded to it, politely but for the most part negatively; and Rodman answered, not so politely but intelligently. The exchange took place in our July 1981 issue. But that was not all. Shawcross published the whole exchange in the paperback edition of his book. He relished the debate! He encouraged his readers to witness the exchange. I should have known then that this fellow Shawcross was not your normal run-of-the-mill intellectual antagonist. He believed even in the 1980s in the give and take of ideas. It is very rare. Most intellectuals run and hide.

Moreover, he has not flinched from standing up for those that defend Western values.

You can be a conservative and still think that Nixon and Kissinger behaved evilly and Cambodia was a mistake, though legal.

MORE:
The Shawcross Redemption: An ex-liberal cheers on Bush and Blair (John J. Miller, 1/29/04, National Review)

Here's what The New Statesman said about Shawcross in an especially agitated column: "Once a model progressive, he is today a fellow-traveler of U.S. imperialism, a committed Euroskeptic, a powerful advocate of pre-emptive war, and an apologist for monarchy and inherited privilege."

Egad!

The New York Times was more restrained but no less surprised. "What's going on here?" asked James Traub in a review of Allies.

What's going on here is that Shawcross has written an outstanding justification of the Anglo-American effort to drive Saddam Hussein from power. It is an exemplary piece of moral clarity and fine writing — and it is downright refreshing to read the words of a European who says things like this: "As in the twentieth century, so in the twenty-first, only America has both the power and the optimism to defend the international community against what really are the forces of darkness."

Allies would be a very good book no matter who wrote it. The fact that comes from the pen of Shawcross — "Cambodia was not a mistake," he once wrote, "it was a crime" — makes it both good and interesting.

Posted by oj at July 7, 2011 6:08 AM
Tweet   

Follow @brothersjudd