[This is a copy of a letter to the Editors of The New Republic regarding their "TNR Primary". Each day, a team of five columnists grade the Democratic candidates on their performances. The candidate with the highest GPA at the end of the primary will win special mention in the magazine's "endorsement issue" in February. As you'll see below, however, the project isn't without its problems]
To the Editors:
Candidate: TNR Primary
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: F
On the one hand, the TNR Primary gave Howard Dean an "F" in Foreign Policy
because of Dean's statements about Israel (Joshua Kurlantzick, "Say What?", 9/9/03). Apparently, Kurlantzick finds in Dean's statements that the U.S. should not "take sides" and should be "even handed" a "precipitous break with previous policy." As Kurlantzick sees it, Dean fails to recognize that the U.S. "has to take sides".
On the other hand, the same day, the TNR Primary gave Joe Lieberman only a "D" in Intellectual Honesty for taking the same Dean quotes "out of context" (Clay Risen, "Stretching", 9/9/03). According to Risen, Lieberman's interpretation (and Kurlantzick's) is "a big stretch." As Risen points out, Dean's actual position is that in order to have peace, the Palestinians must crack down on terror and get serious about demcracy, while Israel is going to have to dismantle some settlements and help improve the Palestinian quality of life. Even Lieberman agrees with that. What's more, says Risen, "[i]f that's not a restatement of current U.S. policy, it's hard to think what is."
So which is it? Did Dean propose a change in U.S. policy or not? And if he didn't, isn't it true then that Lieberman manufactured a disingenous "gotcha" issue? I think the answer is found in the quality of the reporters' essays: note that Risen did his homework to find out what Dean's actual position was, whereas Kurlantzick didn't. For that reason alone (though there are many others), I'm more inclined to credit Risen's interpretation, and to recommend that Dean's "F" be erased. You might want to make Kurlantzick write "I will do better research" a hundred times on the blackboard as well.
In any event, I give the TNR Primary an F for its role in the mess.
[I might have added that if TNR left both standing in the name of differing points of view, parity at least would suggest that each side get the same grade; as it is, Lieberman is getting a pass, while Dean fails. That seems unfair, given that the grades come down to two sides of the same issue.]
To the Editors:
Candidate: TNR Primary
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: F
On the one hand, the TNR Primary gave Howard Dean an "F" in Foreign Policy
because of Dean's statements about Israel (Joshua Kurlantzick, "Say What?", 9/9/03). Apparently, Kurlantzick finds in Dean's statements that the U.S. should not "take sides" and should be "even handed" a "precipitous break with previous policy." As Kurlantzick sees it, Dean fails to recognize that the U.S. "has to take sides".
On the other hand, the same day, the TNR Primary gave Joe Lieberman only a "D" in Intellectual Honesty for taking the same Dean quotes "out of context" (Clay Risen, "Stretching", 9/9/03). According to Risen, Lieberman's interpretation (and Kurlantzick's) is "a big stretch." As Risen points out, Dean's actual position is that in order to have peace, the Palestinians must crack down on terror and get serious about demcracy, while Israel is going to have to dismantle some settlements and help improve the Palestinian quality of life. Even Lieberman agrees with that. What's more, says Risen, "[i]f that's not a restatement of current U.S. policy, it's hard to think what is."
So which is it? Did Dean propose a change in U.S. policy or not? And if he didn't, isn't it true then that Lieberman manufactured a disingenous "gotcha" issue? I think the answer is found in the quality of the reporters' essays: note that Risen did his homework to find out what Dean's actual position was, whereas Kurlantzick didn't. For that reason alone (though there are many others), I'm more inclined to credit Risen's interpretation, and to recommend that Dean's "F" be erased. You might want to make Kurlantzick write "I will do better research" a hundred times on the blackboard as well.
In any event, I give the TNR Primary an F for its role in the mess.
[I might have added that if TNR left both standing in the name of differing points of view, parity at least would suggest that each side get the same grade; as it is, Lieberman is getting a pass, while Dean fails. That seems unfair, given that the grades come down to two sides of the same issue.]
posted by Daniel at 5:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home