I see you’ve already taken Evidence. :)

If I didn’t already know you’re a law student, that would have given it away. Only a lawyer or law student would introduce that phrase into a literary discussion.

Historical revisionism is not only extremely important but it’s the bread and butter of the history professsion. Every quality historical site I have ever worked with is constantly revising the information it provides to the public and willing to ‘revise’ the way it interprets that info.

My second point is that, despite this author’s REALLY bad take on things and the unfortunate placement of those views in American Spectator, I disagree with the claim that anti-revisionism is a conservative philosophy. just one example I can give is the way the Right has re-evaluated Truman and drawn analogies between him and Bush. (I’m not arguing it’s a good analogy, but it does show a willingness to engage in revisionism.)