These days, numerous leftist intellectuals ply their trade in the following manner: They hunt for anything that might be construed to show that their adversaries were bad people (usually racist) and therefore their body of work is tainted. That’s easier than actually confronting rival arguments.

In this article in City Journal, historian Phil Magness points to one such case, namely the way historian Quinn Slobodian misrepresents the views of Ludwig von Mises. Von Mises was a consistent proponent of liberalism in the real meaning of the word. He argued that nearly all government intervention was counterproductive and that people should be free to pursue their own goals.

But Slobodian wants to discredit him.

Magness writes:

Slobodian’s research overlaps with my own historical interest in Mises, and to its credit, his earlier works such as his 2018 book Globalists explored a neglected chapter of the economist’s life: the period he spent in Switzerland after fleeing the Nazi regime in his native Austria. Yet, like much of the “neoliberalism studies” genre, Slobodian approached the subject from a position of pronounced hostility. Even mundane episodes in the history of the Austrian School were recounted with not only disdain for its ideas but also a heavy dose of innuendo about the motives of its leading figures.

There was a time when there was enough integrity in the history profession that those who misrepresented the truth to make their claims look sound were rebuked. That was the case with Michael Bellesiles and his made-up research to support gun control. But that was 20 years ago.

Magness may be the sole scholar to call out Slobodian. Bravo to him for doing so.