the Wall Street Journal resents populist smears against republican presidents and dead kings
There is a new book out that blames World War I on the idiocy and cloisteredness of Europe’s monarchs. When I saw that the WSJ had reviewed it, I thought, “har har, I bet the reviewer was offended by its criticism of conservative authority figures.” I was correct.
The reviewer scorns the “popular mythology” that an arms race made war in Europe inevitable “unless power could be wrested in time from the crowned heads who so ill-deserved it.” His alternative arguments are not compelling. For example, he believes that “it was not the fact of an arms race that produced World War I but rather Germany’s unwillingness to rest until it had won that race.” Don’t all races involve contestants who are unwilling to rest?
Anyway, I can’t complain about newspapers having political biases. That’s normal. But do they have to be so formulaic about it? I can’t predict Gossip Girl plot twists; I should not be able to guess how random reviewers will feel about history books I haven’t read.
