Why is Charles Krauthammer a New Republic Contributing Editor?
I’ve noted previously that many New Republic writers seem to have an appropriately low opinion of Charles Krauthammer. Jonathan Chait, for example, once wondered “why Obama didn’t pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, [Bill] Kristol and [Charles] Krauthammer” to have dinner with. Today, Christopher Orr refers to “characteristic lawyerly sophistries that Krauthammer tries to sneak past readers.”
The weird thing about this is that Krauthammer is on The New Republic’s masthead as a contributing editor.
Now everyone should understand that contributing editor titles don’t imply that the person bearing them plays any actual role in the production of the magazine. And I don’t think Krauthammer has contributed any pieces to TNR since 2002 or 2003. But these titles are honorific—magazines often bestow them upon people who used to work there, as Krauthammer did, with whom they wish to be associated. That’s why Ryan Lizza and Peter Beinart and Robert Wright are all there on the masthead. But if folks at the magazine understand that Krauthammer is dishonest, then why this interest in associated themselves with him? There are very few things that can be done in the world to hold prominent media celebrities accountable once they ensconce themselves firmly in the bosom of the conservative movement. But denying them “contributing editor” titles at magazines that aren’t part of the conservative movement is one of those things.
27 Responses to “Why is Charles Krauthammer a New Republic Contributing Editor?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Because he shares Peretz’s hatred and unreal contempt for Arabs? And that’s considered a sufficient positive to make up for any number of other sins? Maybe? Possibly?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I’d also like to know why Krauthammer is not undergoing psychological evaluation as a possible danger to himself and/or others. But first thing’s first I guess.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
As long as you are a good, loyal neocon, you are golden with TNR.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
#1 beat us all to it.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
SomeCallMeTim hit the nail on the head.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I consider myself a free market conservative ,so my favorite columnist is the very liberal writer Richard Cohen. I also liked William RAsberry back when he wrote for the Washington Post.They both challenged my beliefs and kept my mind open to the possibility that some of my views could be wrong.
My point is , we all should try reading views that are different than our own.And if someone really does not like MR Krauthammer , then simply do not read him.
I beleive what makes America great is the diversity of opinions and the complete access to these opinions.
Plus, you never know. I once read an opinion article by Pat Buchannon , a man i regard as a total moron ,racist and all around jerk. It was about how we should be wary of pushing other countries around, and it was right in my opinion , and very well written. Even jerks like MR Buchannon make sense every once in a while.
I myself will not lose any sleep over who is a contributing editor of the new republic.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Perhaps you confuse The New Republican with responsible journalism Matt.
How many times do they have to show otherwise before people get the message?
Do they at times get it correct? Yes. Blind hogs and acorns / stopped clocks, etc.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Pete,
The objection to Krauthammer isn’t his views. It is that he uses blatant lies to make his arguments.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
pete from baltimore: I try to read other people’s views as long as they aren’t painfully stupid, but giving someone a figurehead contributing editor position does not encourage anyone to read views that are not their own. If Krauthammer actually contributed in some material sense that would be a different matter, but just throwing his name on the masthead does not really advance that.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Charlie is a fantastic writer with unimpeachable credibility. Only a fool – or possibly a Frenchman – could conclude otherwise
May 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Now everyone should understand that contributing editor titles don’t imply that the person bearing them plays any actual role in the production of the magazine.
Although I once ended up on a masthead as a “contributing editor” when I was actually a contributing editor (i.e. editing contributing writers) which was a quirky bit of literalism from the chief editor. The “contributing writers” title was reserved for all of the honorific namedropping as well as the regular non-staff contributors.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
In what sense is TNR not part of the conservative movement?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Oh, how I pine for the days when TNR was a liberal magazine publishing famous liberals like Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke. Nowadays we get liberals like Chait and Kirchik.
what part of “conservative movement” confuses you, Matt?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
#1 above beat us all to the punch, but what I wonder is why any self-respecting progressive still deigns to sully himself by touching those defiled pages any longer. One must draw the line somewhere.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The way daddy Soros has Obama turning this country into the next Soviet Union, I’m surprised you guys haven’t figured out how to shut down all conservative voices all together. The left feels threatened by them and wants to silence talk radio and Fox News only as the beginning.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The objection to Krauthammer isn’t his views
No, it’s his views, too. You don’t get to start with the assumption that 287 mil. people are little more than cockroaches to be stepped on as necessary for some other end, and that, somehow, something some subset of these millions of people have done justifies such contempt.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
It would be funny if TNR tested for unwanted sympathy for Arabs as part of the hiring process. They could plan to meet a prospective hire for lunch, and have a woman (perhaps from McKinsey!) in hajib spill some groceries and twist her ankle just in front of an approaching candidate. If the candidate moved to help the mewling woman…well, enough said, and there are other magazine opportunities around. If the candidate soldiered on, at least one issue of fit would be answered.
Obviously, this would be deeply, deeply wrong. But, to be honest, sufficiently funny that I’d probably forgive them for it. Feel free to steal the idea, TNR!
May 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
In what sense is TNR not part of the conservative movement?
In the sense that it heaps scorn on Republicans (from the left) and has endorsed Democrats for president since as far back as I can remember (1992). Though the editors can be hawkish (they supported the war in Iraq), its politics are far more anti-conservative than anti-liberal.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Tony Judt had to take his name off the TNR masthead when his essay on the one-state solution for Israel was published in the NY Review of Books a few years ago (early 2000s). So people who take positions inconsistent with TNR are asked to go away.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I think SomeCallMeTim owes Krauthammer an apology. Or else Peretz. Krauthammer is a warmongering fool, but NO ONE hates on Arabs like Peretz does. There’s nothing in Krauthammer’s portfolio that can hold a candle to the steady drip of sour racism that Peretz puts up daily on the Spine. That’s like those people who would mix up skill with transcendence and say that Grant Hill or Penny Hardaway or whomever was the next Jordan. It was just insulting. Recognize true excellence when you see it.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
The answer’s easy: he shares Peretz’s racist views against arabs.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
There’s nothing in Krauthammer’s portfolio that can hold a candle to the steady drip of sour racism that Peretz puts up daily on the Spine.
Disagree entirely. That the contempt is couched more carefully and comes along biweekly doesn’t make it different in any important respect. Indeed, I trust Peretz much more on Arab issues than Krauthammer. After Avigdor Lieberman, we know there are things that remain beyond the pale for Peretz. Not so for Krauthammer.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I hate to sound naive but is it fair to say that hatred for Arabs and Muslims is a core principle of neoconservatism? Or are there exceptions?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
the whole magazine could give up it’s liberal pretensions (minus the hatred for brown folk who happened to live in an oil rich area for a few thousand years) and join the ever-growing strength of the “new moderate voice of the GOP,” …. right?
:p
May 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I’d have to see some evidence from old Krauthammer material before I could say he’s on par with Peretz. Peretz has so many weapons in his arsenal:
1) the insistance on playing up every single bad thing that happens in the Arab/Muslim orbit (”What’s the big deal about us torturing? Look at this video of an Arab torturing a guy. Now that’s outrageous!”)
2) the insistance on countering any good news from the Arab/Muslim world with counterexamples of badness (”I see the New York Times travel section had an article about museums in Dubai, well here’s some sheikh in Yemen slandering Jews”)
3) the insistance that the Palestinians/ Pakistanis/ Egyptians/ whomever are not a people and can never form a functional nation-state
4) the insistance on smearing the entire Palestinian population for the actions of terrorists–none of this “normal people living their lives” vs. militants; Peretz insists, repeatedly and vehemently, that every last Palestinian is a dazed, delusional, genocidal monster
5) the insistance on taking events with run-of-the-mill explanations and giving them explanations having to do with the essential character of Arabs/Muslims (i.e. Somali pirates, financial opacity in Dubai, suicide bombers in Jerusalem or Islamabad, gender violence in Algeria, party politics in Ankara, anti-war sentiment in Dearborn, etc. can all be explained as part of the essentially savage nature of Arabs and Muslims)
6) the insistance on sluring Arabs and Muslims in topics that have absolutely nothing to do with them (”maybe Citicorp can be bailed out by Dubai, ha ha ha” type of crap)
This is just off the top of my head; I’m sure if I went back and re-read the Spine’s greatest hits I could come up with several more examples. Honestly I’m not sure what Peretz’s problem is with Avigdor Lieberman, seeing how batshit Peretz is. The real amazing thing is, Peretz brings this level of bile pretty much EVERY DAY. Krauthammer has his moments, but Peretz spews his stuff like the girl on the Exorcist. Outside of Stormfront or something I honestly can’t think of anyone who brings the racism towards Arabs/Muslims like Peretz. Certainly not anyone in the acceptable media.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
One thing that muddies the waters a bit with Krauthammer is that he wasn’t always the dishonest wingnut hack we know today. He actually got his start in the Carter administration and served as a Mondale speechwriter. At the time Fred Barnes joined TNR, I recall an interview where Krauthammer was asked if it bothered him to share TNR editorial meetings with the rabid rightwing Barnes (the question positing Krauthammer as a liberal of some stripe).
Of course, as noted above, Krauthammer’s virulent anti-arabism meshes well with Peretz’s, so that is probably as good a reason any for his continued welcome on the TNR masthead.
May 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Perhaps this is like the long period that Norman Mailer remained as a contributing editor through the Spring of 1991 of Dissent through the Spring of 1991, even after he had broken with the overall policies of that journal long before then. I believe that he discussed the issue in Armies of the Night. Some basic history of the incident, if it can be called that, is found in Dissent online here.