Correction: On the Radoshes
As for his arguments about the book, we'll simply have to wait to read it (which, despite Daniel's belief to the contrary, I do plan to do). I based much of my opinion of what the forthcoming book might be like on the writings attributed to Radosh pere on this site. Daniel says that his father has denied writing the piece I quoted, which says our culture is a war between "traditionalists" and "self-described progressives steeped in existential depravity." I do not know whether or not he will claim to have written that "being left-wing essentially means never having to say you’re sorry, or even having to admit that you might have been wrong" in praising Mona Charen's Useful Idiots. Nor do I know he will lay claim numerous other snideswipes taken while lauding the semi-congealed arguments of William Shawcross or, in essence, simply summarizing Linda Chavez's autobiography with gee willikers, ain't she great moments stringing the abridgement together.
Daniel has written for McSweeney's, was an editor at Spy and now works for the newly-launched Radar magazine. None of these seem like appropriate depositories for neocon think-tank malarkey. (Go check out Radar and earn me some good will to help me atone for my error. I may want to beg them for an assignment soon.)
I apologize for the confusion, but I'm not buying the argument that some Hudson Institute intern posted an article under Ronald Radosh's name nearly three years ago and no one noticed it until now.
By the way, as for my main argument regarding Martin Peretz, Daniel agrees with me. Jussozeyano.