Most of you probably already know that Bill Kristol has been offered a weekly column in the NYT. I don't think I need to say more about it here, but clearly the eds at the Times need to hear about it. I composed the following letter to ask them to reconsider their offer. It's a bit long for publication, but I don't care whether they publish it or not. But I did want to voice my objection. If you feel as I do, let them know:
letters@nytimes.com
editorial@nytimes.com
As a long time reader of the NYT, I am horrified to learn that William Kristol has been offered a weekly column.
I stuck with you through your cheerleading of the Iraq war, your failure to challenge the Bush administration's statements and claims. I stuck with you through Jayson Blair's plagiarism and Judith Miller's deeply flawed WMD reporting. These are no small spots on your reputation, but I felt (and still feel) that the Times is the paper of record and the most reliable source of information available in an increasingly compromised US media environment.
But giving Bill Kristol column inches may not only be the figurative final straw for me personally, it's a national embarrassment.
The stridency of my reaction does of course have much to do with my politics; I share no common ground with Kristol and his ilk. But this goes deeper than my personal values and biases. Kristol has shown himself to be, time and again, unworthy of the privilege to frame the public debate. He has been wrong on every major (and minor) policy issue on which he's held forth. He has parroted dangerous, anti-constitutional neo-conservative talking points, even against all the available evidence. He has engaged in divisive partisanship. He not only has blood on his hands for the unnecessary and illegal Iraq war, but he's one of the most prominent voices in support of an even more unnecessary and dangerous attack on Iran.
To give only a few specifics: He has vilified the Nobel committee, calling them "bloviators," for awarding Al Gore this year's prize, and called Gore himself "deranged" (possibly for striving to raise awareness about what the scientific community largely agrees is becoming a global emergency). He has implied that those who wish to pull out of Iraq are not "sober, serious" (which includes more than half the country). Only six months ago, in July 2007, Kristol's column in the Washington Post put forth the thesis that "George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one." His three warrants? 1. A strong economy (perhaps Kristol did not predict the housing bubble bursting, as did your other capable columnist, Paul Krugman). 2. No second terrorist attack on US soil (problematic in its use of vague negative evidence as proof positive), and 3. The Iraq war "seem[s] to be on a course for a successful outcome (a hasty conclusion that demands one ignore obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
Kristol is not a stupid man, and he writes well. But his intellectual dishonesty, his selective memory, and his stacking the deck is well documented and should have no place in the NYT.
The Times might argue that Kristol provides balance to its reputation as a "liberal" paper (an accusation leveled only by far right conservatives as far as I know. It's not, in my view, accurate). I would respond that Kristol provides no more "balance" than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Kristol is a prevaricating chicken-hawk, a neo-con apologist willing to ignore fact and cast ad hominem aspersions on those who disagree with him. He is a shrill, minority voice continuing to push discredited, bankrupt and illegal policies. He should not be given a platform in a respected media outlet. Not if that outlet wishes to remain respected. Kristol already has a megaphone through the Weekly Standard and Fox News. Why should you hand him yet another?
Finally, Kristol has on several occasions bashed the Times itself, going so far as to call for prosecutions against the paper for doing its job by reporting that the Bush administration had been monitoring (possibly illegally) international banking transactions.
Paper is valuable. Please devote the space to giving voice to intelligent, fair-minded writers who have a proven record honesty, who demonstrate clarity of thought, who aren't in part responsible for the deaths and displacement of millions and yet agitating for more bloodshed. You already have one conservative in David Brooks. Do you need another, even more myopic one?
Thank you.