> The author and his myopic defenders may accuse me of being a "Left Wing Radical" (tm) I wouldn't, I would just politely disagree, though I wouldn't consider

> The author and his myopic defenders may accuse me of being a "Left Wing Radical" (tm) I wouldn't, I would just politely disagree, though I wouldn't consider myself a myopic defender of the author (I haven't read the book the article references). Personally, since you mentioned being an American by birth and upbringing, I think you're in a spot where you're far more sensitive to the sins of those you were closest to. I've been a conservative for most of my life and have found myself feeling betrayed and disgusted by my own party since Trump, and I'm far more attuned to seeing the flaws of the right now, and has me questioning alot of rhetoric hearing and even repeating during my life. But both parties are inhabited by slicksters and con men who angle for power, and instead of focusing on the fact that both parties have problems, I try to just critically examine my own assumptions and try to give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing side. But when I hear BS from either side, I try to call it as it is. As far as the article, I didn't read it as proselytizing American greatness, but rather a retelling of why the man's name is so indelibly engraved as a euphemism for betrayal in American culture. I don't think it's a radical claim to admit that there have been a couple of generations academics who have been far more focused on the sins of the founding fathers while at the same time completely ignoring the sins of any individuals who may have been part of the disenfranchised or abused groups. That to me is intellectual dishonesty. I think deifying or demonizing the founders is wrong, but the article didn't strike me as trying to do either but rather trying to tell what's actually a pretty interesting story about a complex person, whose story seems to be simplified by one side or the other. But perhaps I'm naive, that's for you to decide :)