« Cyrus | Main | $1 For Me, 64 Cents For All of You; $1 For Me... »
October 11, 2007
No Exit Revisited
Andrew Sullivan tries to answer my post from yesterday on No Exit, the article he published attacking the Clinton health plan. He says that "I don't think it's fair to expose the internal editing of a piece but there was a struggle and it's fair to say I didn't win every skirmish," which is interesting, and he says that "I was aware of the piece's flaws but nonetheless was comfortable running it as a provocation to debate." What he doesn't say is that he believes the piece accurately described the Clinton health care plan. Which is what's at issue. There were reasons to criticize the delivery structure the Clintons sought to implement, but No Exit simply lied about the system, claiming it would lock you in when the first page of the legislation said it was expressly barred from doing anything of the kind. The article was a smear, not a criticism. If he doesn't believe me, he should ask his colleague, James Fallows, or read the archives of The Atlantic, the magazine he now works for.
"It's odd," writes Andrew, "that Klein still supports a plan that Clinton herself has now conceded was misbegotten." Well, I don't support it politically, as it's bad politics. But it's much better policy than anything we're currently seeing in the debate (for a few words on why, see this post). I think it's odd that Andrew still supports an article that his magazine has apologized for and his new magazine discredited.
Andrew does, to be sure, make perfectly fair points on the many ways Hillary Clinton mishandled health care in 1994. He's right on much of it (though wrong on some: The Clintons did allow alternatives. The Republican voted them down, including the odd spectacle of Dole voting twice against legislation that bore his name). But here's my point: Her arrogance had nothing to do with a fundamentally misleading bit of journalism. Her paranoia regarding the press might. And when we're discussing why Clinton feels so paranoid and angry at the press, we may want to consider how such articles appeared to her.
October 11, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
New evidence shows that Andrew Sullivan was the twentieth 9/11 hijacker.
What's the problem with me saying that? After all, it's just a provocation to debate.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 11, 2007 4:46:46 PM
Also, Andrew writes:
And Ezra Klein should be careful unless his view of what journalism is degenerates into something indistinguishable from Sidney Blumenthal's.
Call me crazy, but I think Sidney Blumenthal's brand of journalism is far superior to Andrew Sullivan's.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 11, 2007 5:02:15 PM
So the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party is someone who's decision making processes are heavily influenced by paranoia and anger at the press?
Oh great. (Where is that Obama campaign contribution envelope.)
Posted by: huh | Oct 11, 2007 5:06:55 PM
This was the second time I clicked on the Atlantic link to find it was subscriber-only. Which was irritating.
Posted by: Glenn Fayard | Oct 11, 2007 5:12:12 PM
Have you put your mental energy towards this question...
How can health care become cheaper to individuals while maintaining quality?
I ask because isn't it true that, unlike so many technologies (that become cheaper over time, i.e., computers), the costs of health care technologies have remained high?
Posted by: MD | Oct 11, 2007 5:14:47 PM
Oh please. That's the same lame excuse he used to justify publishing the Bell Curve excerpts.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 11, 2007 5:24:40 PM
Petey,
What's the problem with me saying that? After all, it's just a provocation to debate.
You mean apart from the fact that it's absurd, malicious and a lie?
Ezra,
What he doesn't say is that he believes the piece accurately described the Clinton health care plan. Which is what's at issue.
No, that's not what's at issue. He is responding to your accusation that his decision to publish the piece was dishonest and unprofessional. He may or may not agree with you about the accuracy of the piece, but that's a different issue.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 11, 2007 5:32:59 PM
"You mean apart from the fact that it's absurd, malicious and a lie?"
I'm just using Andrew's standard.
It's actually kinda fun. You get to say absurd, malicious lies, and then assert that you were just trying to "provoke a debate".
Posted by: Petey | Oct 11, 2007 5:37:19 PM
You get to say absurd, malicious lies, and then assert that you were just trying to "provoke a debate".
Just to hammer the Bell Curve comparison a bit more:
One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from "The Bell Curve" in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it. I published it along with multiple critiques (hey, I believed magazines were supposed to open rather than close debates) - but the book held up, and still holds up as one of the most insightful and careful of the last decade.
It's worth noting that Andrew Sullivan's bio happens to put "No Exit" and "The Bell Curve" side by side...
TNR also published the first airing of 'The Bell Curve,' the explosive 1995 book on IQ, and 'No Exit,' an equally controversial essay that was widely credited with helping to torpedo the Clinton administration's plans for universal health coverage.
And you have to work hard to find more dishonest, corrosive "scholarship" than The Bell Curve.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 11, 2007 5:46:14 PM
"It's worth noting that Andrew Sullivan's bio happens to put "No Exit" and "The Bell Curve" side by side..."
When I said Andrew Sullivan was the twentieth 9/11 hijacker, I was just trying to open rather than close the debate.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 11, 2007 5:55:44 PM
I actually had a little email exchange with Mr. Sullivan when he attacked Michael Moore as a propagandist. I asked , if Moore is a propagandist then what does that make Herrnstein and Murray? His response, "serious academics."
The bizarro world of Andrew Sullivan. He has no consistency in his positions and his hatred of all things Clinton causes him to say and do ridiculous things.
Posted by: Steve Balboni | Oct 11, 2007 5:57:45 PM
Anyone interested in revisiting the debate about how the New Republic helped scuttle the Clinton plan by pubishing a terrible article should take a look at Andy Lamey's article "Reckless Falsehood" from The Believer -- http://www.believermag.com/issues/200405/?read=article_lamey . The article makes clear that Andrew Sullivan did far more damage to The New Republic than Stephen Glass.
Posted by: Jeet Heer | Oct 11, 2007 5:58:55 PM
"I asked, if Moore is a propagandist then what does that make Herrnstein and Murray? His response, "serious academics."
I have it on very good authority that Al-Qaeda's plan was to have Sullivan use copies of The Bell Curve to club stewardesses and pilots into submission on 9/11, and he was only prevented from taking part in the plan by his inability to purchase copies of the book that morning since he could find a bookstore that would carry it.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 11, 2007 6:03:16 PM
"Clinton herself has conceded that she acted like an arrogant, paranoid self-righteous prick during this debacle."
AS prints this as gospel, but forgets to provide a link or a cite. Can anyone spell "P..r..o..j..e..c..t..i..o..n"?
Posted by: dogfacegeorge | Oct 11, 2007 6:08:42 PM
Ezra, why do you keep pretending these people are honest? What compels this fantasy?
Posted by: Oliver Willis | Oct 11, 2007 6:33:14 PM
I thought Oliver Willis was dead.
Posted by: The Entire Left Blogosphere | Oct 11, 2007 8:35:35 PM
Dead or alive, Oliver Willis is absolutely right on this one.
I have it on very good authority that Al-Qaeda's plan was to have Sullivan use copies of The Bell Curve to club stewardesses and pilots into submission on 9/11, and he was only prevented from taking part in the plan by his inability to purchase copies of the book that morning since he could find a bookstore that would carry it.
Well, my very good authority tells me that Sullivan's plan was to simply bore everyone within earshot to death by reading his collected Sunday NY Times Magazine pieces out loud.
Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.
Posted by: Uncle Kvetch | Oct 11, 2007 8:44:50 PM
"Is it irresponsible to speculate?"
No. You're just comfortable speculating about it as a provocation to debate.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 11, 2007 9:03:11 PM
If you want to be the 2nd coming of Sid B, go right ahead and take the advice of the, uh, wise counsel on this page. The decision is yours.
Posted by: ostap | Oct 11, 2007 11:22:46 PM
"If you want to be the 2nd coming of Sid B, go right ahead and take the advice of the, uh, wise counsel on this page. The decision is yours."
I'm actually a bit baffled as to the source of the general criticism of Blumenthal.
He worked for a Democratic administration for several years, I know. But what about a journalist openly working for an administration is so taboo?
Posted by: Petey | Oct 12, 2007 12:35:29 AM
I read Sullivan's blog regularly, and his postings about health care and Hillary Clinton are among his very weakest. Nor is his response to Ezra entirely convincing, particularly the lazy and cheap use of the "you were just a kid, so what do you know" card.
Posted by: DPP | Oct 12, 2007 5:27:24 AM
OT, just for the record, Ezra:
In your story "My commenters is smarter than I" (I simply love it that this is a blog where commenters really get respect) you wrote:
Jim notices something that I missed in Malkin's recitation of her family's health care woes. After being priced out on the individual market for awhile, Malkin purchased what's called a Medical Savings Account.
Yes, Jim quite eloquently made this point, and it nicely exposes Malkin as the hypocrite that she really is. But actually Jim wasn't the first one to make this point, much earlier another alert reader commented on your orginal story on Malkin's healthcare, rebuting two right wingers who accused you of picking your quotes:
"In fact, I advocated MSAs and noted approvingly the Wall Street Journal’s suggestion that the cure for limited market choices was less government intervention. Not more."
Rah! I get headaches from this stupidity. Firstly, tax preference IS governement intervention, its subsidizing certain choices. Secondly, only more government intervention in the meaning of regulation could force insurers to offer coverage to high risk groups like the Frosts (with two handicapped children) and Malkin (underweight) at prices that those customers could pay.
:pattingonmyback:
:D
No big deal, other commenters later made the same point, too. But this shows that having a comment section pays off. Nobody can find all the important points of all stories all of the time, and we, the readers, are only to happy when we're able to contribute to the debunking of republican spin. :-)
Posted by: Gray | Oct 12, 2007 6:56:05 AM
Did you and Matt talk aboout this and then decide that it would be better for you to post it?
lol
Posted by: mickslam | Oct 12, 2007 9:19:03 AM
"Did you and Matt talk aboout this"
Matt, who? And what's this about?
Posted by: Gray | Oct 12, 2007 9:35:23 AM
After all, it's just a provocation to debate.
Yeah, I was surprised he said that... Maybe I misinterpreted him, but it sounded essentially like the Kirchik defense.
Posted by: John-Paul Pagano | Oct 12, 2007 10:33:30 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
