Mr Geordin Hill-Lewis is an official spokesman for the DA but he seems still to need some elementary coaching in debate. He starts with, "As an historian, RW Johnson would know.". Actually, I'm a political scientist, not an historian. He shouldn't assume he knows what I am and then get it wrong.
He then suggests that I bring "personal motives" into my interpretation. How, pray, would Mr Hill-Lewis know that? We have never met and he knows nothing about me. It is a mistake to impute motives to someone you don't even know. You can't possibly get that right.
He continues "for his analysis to succeed, (Johnson) is compelled to create an exaggerated perception of failure. because his purpose is to attribute blame". Again, this makes the elementary mistake of presuming that he knows how my mind works and even, apparently, my (surreptitious?) motives.
This sort of thing is no good at all. One should not pretend to omniscience and continually claim to know other people's inner motivation. It's not just bound to be wrong but it's an unworthy way of going about things. Imagine if I attempted a Freudian interpretation of Mr Hill-Lewis's motives, rep[lete with references to childhood repressions, sexuality etc. It would be grossly impertinent and, of course, inevitably wrong.
Similarly, Mr Hill-Lewis suggests that I do not provide "an honest analysis" and that I merely "pretend" that the Ramphele fiasco was damaging. Again, this imputation of dishonesty is unworthy and insulting. These are things one learns in a school debating society. A DA front bencher should not need to be told this.
As to the substance, the De Lille disaster occurred in large part because she was so authoritarian. She centralised all Cape Town's decision-making in her hands and used it to appoint cronies. This was no surprise. She had always ruled her own party with a rod of iron. She was never a suitable recruit for the DA. This was obvious from the start.