Academic debates occasionally get pretty ugly, and that is just the way it is. Sometimes they get really very ugly. There is one case that has bothered me for several years.

James Q. Wilson is now 80 years old, and for decades he has been the most prominent criminologist in the country, responsible for a number of important ideas, such as the Broken Windows theory, which argues that urban disorder and vandalism produce additional crime.

Undoubtedly, Wilson has made a number of enemies as he has taken positions that upset some on the left. One such issue was Wilson’s involvement with the National Academy of Sciences panel on Firearms and Violence. The panel was set up by the Clinton Administration and contained many outspoken gun control proponents (e.g., Steve Levitt argued that theoretically the presence of firearms leads to greater levels of violence and Richard Rosenfeld argued that those opposed to the Brady Law were “immune to scientific assessment”); nevertheless the final report refused to take a stand on whether right-to-carry laws reduce crime.

Dissents for National Academy of Sciences reports are very rare. Being on a panel is a cushy, prestigious position, and there is a lot of pressure to sign on to any conclusion. Those who don’t aren’t invited back to be on future panels. Over the ten years prior to the Firearms and Violence report, there were only two dissents out of the previous 236 reports. Wilson himself had been on four of these panels and never previously wanted to write a dissent, including the previous panel that attacked work showing that the death penalty deters crime.

But for Wilson, the firearms panel was different. Wilson’s dissent was not only rare, he was also forceful: “In view of the confirmation of the findings that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate, it is hard for me to understand why these claims are called ‘fragile.’”

(more…)

Last week Big Government reported that a “meeting of former Clintonistas and senior Democrat political operatives” headed by James Carville took place “to coordinate a push-back to the burgeoning tea party movement.”

For those who recall former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, it is hardly surprising that the Clintonistas who saved the Clintons in 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal became a threat to the Clinton’s political survival, are now plotting to ostensibly save the Democrat party.

Reportedly as part of their ‘push/pull” strategy, 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement will be identified, targeted and smeared.

The question is–will the tea party movement learn from the Clinton’s history of the politics of personal destruction?

First, I should declare my involvement. In late 1999, I was approached by Linda Tripp’s representatives to write her story. Tripp was targeted, vilified, and smeared during the events that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. As a result, I saw how the Clinton machine worked to destroy their “political enemies.”

(more…)