3 ms·

If you want a historian that tends right rather than left like Devereaux, you could try Victor David Hanson. https://newcriterion.com/article/the-spartan-way-o

If you want a historian that tends right rather than left like Devereaux, you could try Victor David Hanson. https://newcriterion.com/article/the-spartan-way-of-war/ https://newcriterion.com/article/the-spartan-way-of-war/ I don't think he is that adrift from Devereaux in his assessment of Sparta though.

lolinder 2y ago
> tends right rather than left like Devereaux I just feel the need to clarify that Devereaux is barely left-leaning. He keeps his politics pretty firmly out of his blogs for the most part, but when he does break out politics he's pretty clearly very close to the center relative to what we think today when we hear "left" and "right". As a historian (and, I believe, a good one), he seems to see the complexity of the current partisan dynamic too clearly to dogmatically pick a side.
- gadders 2y ago
  That is very much not true. He wrote a hysterical philippic [1] just before the election calling Trump a fascist, which was written with about the same level of historical rigour as the Paul Krugman's rants exhibit for economics. You may argue that "Trump is a fascist" and you are entitled to that view, but that is not a centrist view, and is at odds with the majority of the US population, which voted for Trump. [1] https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-definition-of-fascism/ https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
  - swasheck 2y ago
    generally speaking he is decidedly centrist in his historical perspectives. it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective that warns against the danger(s) of an incoming administration
    - gadders 2y ago
      >>it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective There have only been a couple of posts where he discusses current politics, so that is all I have to go on. However, from reading his material, I think it would be fair to say he is against the "great man of history" theory, which tends to be a more left wing interpretation.
  - cess11 2y ago
    In this poll, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-fascist-concerns-poll/story?id=115083795 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-fascist-concern... , so called centrists overwhelmingly said he is. The majority of the US population did not vote for him. Only a portion could vote, and only a portion of those voted, and out of those 49.9% voted for him.
    - gadders 2y ago
      Also ironic to nit pick about Trump not having a majority and then quote a poll that queried only 2800 people.
    - gadders 2y ago
      Pointless pedantry. I think you know what is meant by a majority in an election. He won the popular vote. I'm obviously not including toddlers etc in my statement.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > I think you know what is meant by a majority in an election. I thought I did. But now I'm learning that 49-something percent is a majority, so I'm questioning all my beliefs.
      - cess11 2y ago
        Perhaps, but I'm not interested in making a point. I'm interested in discovering why it's not important to you to describe the election result precisely. What was the participation? 60% or so? I think so. So maybe 30-35% of the people who could have voted for him actually did. In the US population large portions are unable to vote. You correctly pointed out the very young, but also the pre-adolescent young, the disobedient, the non-citizen, the precarious worker, the infirm and so on should also be included. So the majority you had in mind is rather small compared to what you literally compared it to. I'm guessing the result feels like 'the will of the people' to you anyway? Do you feel like most usians approved of the current regime? Do you also think that 'the will of the people' is inherently democratic? Inherently good, even?
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Are you trying to assert that fascism can't be popular? He pretty clearly stated the criteria and how he considers trump's movement in respect to them. You can refute the point¹ but you haven't, merely stating you disagree with them based on the popular vote. ¹ Not to me, I won't read it. I don't care and I've heard enough fascism apologetics on HN in the last few years.
    - gadders 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lolinder 2y ago
    It's not hysterical, it's very well reasoned and actually persuaded me, someone who's decidedly centrist.
    - gadders 2y ago
      Then you need to check some of his sources better.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        You need to provide better arguments than telling your interlocutor to check sources. This is just FUD unless you have concrete facts to share that make him wrong.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

> tends right rather than left like Devereaux I just feel the need to clarify that Devereaux is barely left-leaning. He keeps his politics pretty firmly out of his blogs for the most part, but when he does break out politics he's pretty clearly very close to the center relative to what we think today when we hear "left" and "right". As a historian (and, I believe, a good one), he seems to see the complexity of the current partisan dynamic too clearly to dogmatically pick a side.

gadders 2y ago
That is very much not true. He wrote a hysterical philippic [1] just before the election calling Trump a fascist, which was written with about the same level of historical rigour as the Paul Krugman's rants exhibit for economics. You may argue that "Trump is a fascist" and you are entitled to that view, but that is not a centrist view, and is at odds with the majority of the US population, which voted for Trump. [1] https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-definition-of-fascism/ https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
- swasheck 2y ago
  generally speaking he is decidedly centrist in his historical perspectives. it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective that warns against the danger(s) of an incoming administration
  - gadders 2y ago
    >>it is uncritical to paint in broad strokes over a post, or two, in which he uses historical analysis to communicate a progressive perspective There have only been a couple of posts where he discusses current politics, so that is all I have to go on. However, from reading his material, I think it would be fair to say he is against the "great man of history" theory, which tends to be a more left wing interpretation.
- cess11 2y ago
  In this poll, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-fascist-concerns-poll/story?id=115083795 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-fascist-concern... , so called centrists overwhelmingly said he is. The majority of the US population did not vote for him. Only a portion could vote, and only a portion of those voted, and out of those 49.9% voted for him.
  - gadders 2y ago
    Also ironic to nit pick about Trump not having a majority and then quote a poll that queried only 2800 people.
  - gadders 2y ago
    Pointless pedantry. I think you know what is meant by a majority in an election. He won the popular vote. I'm obviously not including toddlers etc in my statement.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > I think you know what is meant by a majority in an election. I thought I did. But now I'm learning that 49-something percent is a majority, so I'm questioning all my beliefs.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Perhaps, but I'm not interested in making a point. I'm interested in discovering why it's not important to you to describe the election result precisely. What was the participation? 60% or so? I think so. So maybe 30-35% of the people who could have voted for him actually did. In the US population large portions are unable to vote. You correctly pointed out the very young, but also the pre-adolescent young, the disobedient, the non-citizen, the precarious worker, the infirm and so on should also be included. So the majority you had in mind is rather small compared to what you literally compared it to. I'm guessing the result feels like 'the will of the people' to you anyway? Do you feel like most usians approved of the current regime? Do you also think that 'the will of the people' is inherently democratic? Inherently good, even?
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Are you trying to assert that fascism can't be popular? He pretty clearly stated the criteria and how he considers trump's movement in respect to them. You can refute the point¹ but you haven't, merely stating you disagree with them based on the popular vote. ¹ Not to me, I won't read it. I don't care and I've heard enough fascism apologetics on HN in the last few years.
  - gadders 2y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lolinder 2y ago
  It's not hysterical, it's very well reasoned and actually persuaded me, someone who's decidedly centrist.
  - gadders 2y ago
    Then you need to check some of his sources better.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      You need to provide better arguments than telling your interlocutor to check sources. This is just FUD unless you have concrete facts to share that make him wrong.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]