Let's see, today's Washington Post Editorial page seems to agree with me regarding David Brock:
"But he never says that the Troopergate
story wasn't true. Rather, he says that he's had "pangs of doubt" and that
he "doesn't know" how much of the troopers' tale is for real".
The Seduction of David Brock
By Benjamin Wittes
Wednesday, March 18, 1998; Page A21
When David Brock declared his independence from the conservative
movement last summer, he carefully stood by his own work even while
renouncing his career as a "right-wing hit man." Brock, the author of "The
Real Anita Hill," broke with the right because his fellow conservatives, he
suddenly realized, had admired his investigative writing only as long as he
"kill[ed] liberals for a living." And when he published a
less-savage-than-expected book about the first lady, "The Seduction of
Hillary Rodham," they turned on him. At that time, Brock defended all of
his previous writings -- including his famous (or infamous) story in the
American Spectator, in which he had reported allegations that then-Gov.
Bill Clinton used Arkansas state policemen to procure women. The
so-called Troopergate story and his two books, he argued in Esquire
magazine, had all merely reflected his pursuit of the truth, and he expressed
shock that conservatives didn't understand that his "commitment to
journalism outweighed partisan considerations." He wondered: "Had they
cheered 'The Real Anita Hill' and Troopergate because they believed them
to be true, as I did and do, or just because they were useful?"
Only nine months later, Brock has a somewhat different take on the
Troopergate story. The journalistic judgments underlying the piece, he
writes in the current issue of Esquire, were "a charade." In this latest article,
which is fashioned as an open letter to President Clinton, Brock questions
the reliability of the troopers' story, noting that they were "greedy and had
slimy motives." He admits to "conspir[ing] to damage you and your
presidency." He says he "didn't learn a damn thing worth knowing about
your character." And, most notably, he admits that perhaps his own
partisan interests did outweigh his commitment to journalism: "I wasn't hot
for this story in the interest of good government or serious journalism. I
wanted to pop you right between the eyes." He confesses, in other words,
that he was, after all, just being useful.
Were Brock's new story a genuine effort to correct falsehoods in his earlier
work, it would be a laudable act of self-criticism. But Brock's new piece is
not quite a correction. He might beat up on the troopers' integrity and
wonder if they "took me for a ride." But he never says that the Troopergate
story wasn't true. Rather, he says that he's had "pangs of doubt" and that
he "doesn't know" how much of the troopers' tale is for real. His real beef
against himself is that the story, whether true or not, never should have
been published. Brock is somehow trying to apologize without admitting
any real journalistic fault.
What's more, between his protestations of regret, Brock still sounds a bit
proud; his tone, in fact, in this breast-beating quasi-retraction is oddly
self-promoting. He blames himself for the entire public unfolding of recent
Clinton sex scandals, pointing out that it was Troopergate that first
mentioned a woman named "Paula" -- which caused Paula Jones to sue
Clinton for sexual harassment, which in turn caused civil discovery about
the president's sex life, which in turn caused the whole Monica Lewinsky
mess. "I started it by introducing Paula Jones to the world. Now I'm trying
to stop it," reads one of the headlines of the story. Brock's is not a
ridiculous version of events, but it is a self-important version that places
David Brock at the center of a saga in which he was actually only one of
many players and that would -- despite his sense of centrality -- probably
have happened without him. But admitting that, of course, would defeat the
point, because only by magnifying his own guilt can Brock realize the full
redemption he now seeks. And this is a man seemingly itching for
redemption -- the same man who last year posed for an Esquire photo
bound to a tree with kindling piled at his feet.
Redemption, however, is better sought in a confessional than in the pages
of a gentlemen's magazine. I don't actually doubt the sincerity of Brock's
ongoing conversion; I even respect it. But if he is not saying his
Troopergate story was false, and if he therefore is not correcting the
record, his personal anxieties about having put the story in the public
square should not necessarily alter the way the public reads the story.
Brock, moreover, seems only partly to have learned the lesson that the role
of a journalist is not to be an effective tool of a political movement. Having
broken with the Clinton opponents for their exploitation of his work, Brock
must understand that his publicly tortured conscience is exceptionally useful
to the Clinton side -- which is exploiting it as well. In July, he wrote,
"When liberals attacked my credentials as a journalist and stigmatized me
as a hired gun for the right wing, I charged ahead because I knew it was
baloney." Now he says -- albeit indirectly -- that the liberals were right all
along, while Clinton lawyer David Kendall urges White House loyalists to
help him out in his current research. How much longer before he becomes
a hired gun for the left and the seduction of David Brock is completed?
washingtonpost.com
The writer is a member of the editorial page staff. |
