In his new piece in The Nation (Who
Framed John Fund?), Eric
Alterman evaluates the domestic violence charges leveled against
John Fund by an ex-girlfriend, and puts forth his argument about
where liberals should draw the line when it comes to acceptable
tactics in dealing with political opponents. The article more or
less
favors Fund and calls into question the credibility of his accusers
and the wisdom of liberals who have advanced the story.
We can't stand John Fund, so naturally combed Eric Alterman's
article in the Nation for something with which to vehemently
disagree. But Mr. Alterman makes a defensible case in analyzing
the specifics of the Fund case and whether it should be used as
political ammunition against conservatives.
Still, it is by no means an easy call to make to say that liberals
should not participate in spreading even unproven allegations
against those who are known to have spread unproven allegations.
The debate is all about determining precisely what constitutes "fairness,"
presuming that it is fairness that should determine which stories are
legitimate game in politics. Eric Alterman believes that because
the
charges against Fund are at this time unproven and he has doubts
about the credibility of Fund's accuser, liberals should not participate
in smearing John Fund on this particular point. He argues that we
should stick only to those allegations that are undeniable, such as
Fund's clear journalistic crimes.
But there is another way to define what is "fair" in this case,
and that is to consider how John Fund himself has treated his
political enemies. And it isn't pretty. What's more, his behavior
is directly on point with regard to domestic violence allegations.
John Fund admits he was part of the effort to smear Sidney
Blumenthal by peddling the lie that Mr. Blumenthal had abused
his wife. As far as we're concerned, Fund finding himself
subject of the same allegations is not only fair and just, but
beautifully and practically divinely so, regardless of the
accuracy of the charges he faced.
Eric Alterman writes that John Fund denied originating the Blumenthal charges:
Sure, Sidney Blumenthal fingers Fund as the original
source for the malicious rumor, published by Matt
Drudge, alleging that Blumenthal had a history of
spousal abuse. (Fund denies this.)
But here is a transcript in which Fund admits the allegation
"might have" originated with him, that it was part of the
"information exchange" he "conducted as a journalist," and that
it was "gossip":
FOX Special Report with Brit Hume
July 30, 1998
HUME: So you're under subpoena now to appear as
a witness in the case against Matt Drudge. Tell us
about how all this came about.
FUND: Well, I never imagined that after 15 years as
a working journalist, I would be hauled in to
potentially court by a White House aide, who I think
is engaged in a campaign of harassment and
intimidation, along with other Clinton people.
HUME: Well, what is your connection to the Drudge
story, or your alleged connection?
FUND: I have never communicated or met in any
way with Matt Drudge. Four years ago, at a couple
of parties, I participated in a discussion about this
gossip about Mr. Blumenthal and his wife, and it
went away. I never reported on it. I never
discussed it. It was never published. I have no
connection except that some of the things that I
have written and my colleagues have written at
"The Wall Street Journal" apparently annoyed the
Clinton administration, and they are engaged in --
well, we know they're engaged in a war against Ken
Starr because James Carville announced it. It seems
to me that they're now engaged in a war against
parts of the media.
HUME: Now, you're at a dinner party four years ago.
This subject comes up. Did it originate with you?
FUND: It might have. I don't recall specifically.
HUME: And now who else was there? I mean, what other...
FUND: Other journalists.
HUME: So it's a bunch of journalists sitting around a dinner table.
FUND: Yeah, and exchanging information.
[...]
HUME: Did you ever seek to pursue this as a news
story or write it in any way or in any way advance
it beyond chatting about it with reporters?
FUND: It was part of the information exchange I
conducted as a journalist. It didn't go any further
because there was no information.
HUME: So it was just gossip.
FUND: It was gossip.
That is not to say that subjecting every individual wingnut to
similar allegations would be fair and just, simply because they
are The Enemy. But where John Fund is concerned, there is not
much in the way of a moral question, in light of his undeniable
sliming of Sidney Blumenthal. The only questions are strategic ones.
Is such a position an example of "librul moral relativism"? Not at
all. It's moral absolutism, which holds that smearing an accused
person with serious charges absent credible evidence is
absolutely wrong, and reporting on an accused person with
serious charges absent credible evidence, who has smeared an
accused person with serious charges absent credible evidence
first, is absolutely fair.
In our view, preemptive strikes against conservatives are
generally unfair and usually ineffective or counterproductive -
but liberals embracing a doctrine of aggressive, scorched-earth
self defense in the current media and political context is not
only fair but imperative.
Still, MWO has done very little in the way of promoting the Fund
charges, other than linking to a few stories about the arrest at the time
it occurred. Part of the decision is the seriousness of the charges.
Despite how "fair" hyping them would be, it nevertheless takes a lot
of effort to mimic the likes of the sleazy Christopher Hitchens by
wholeheartedly defending and perpetuating extreme accusations
about which there are clearly questions.
Still, if that were the only question, we'd likely have very little
reason not to enthusiastically advance the story in Fund's
case. But part of the reluctance is that promoting allegations
of this kind in the absence of adequate proof is that, should the
charges prove untrue as presented, cases of other victims are
undermined and credence added to the idea that claims of
violence are often overstated or made up.
Most will conclude from tapes revealing his seedy manipulation
of the woman he impregnated and who aborted his child that
John Fund is at least clearly guilty of some forms of brutal but
nonphysical abuse, and most of his right-wing colleagues would
claim to believe he is an accessory to murder.
But liberals generally do victims of domestic violence no favors
by promoting allegations before there is sufficient evidence, and
where there is evidence that the alleged victim was also intent on
harming the reputation of the accused. Especially high profile cases
in which many other shoes may remain undropped. At the same time,
it can be argued that politically harming conservatives can help
genuine victims of domestic violence, as they are better protected
by liberals. Again, a close call, strategically speaking.
So we have little objection to anyone reporting on the
allegations, nor to those arguments like Eric Alterman's, which
urge restraint. We can appreciate a self-interested
side of the
case against pursuing the story. But we don't share Mr.
Alterman's general concern about "being more like them"
tactically if the media are in such crisis that it is the only way
of succeeding. And they - and as a result our nation - are in
deep crisis, as his own book
so thoroughly documents.
There is nothing inherently admirable in queasiness about being
more "like them," and in fact an effort to publicly demonstrate
the reluctance and "seem reasonable" to the Washington DC
Kool Kidz Kareerist, power-bootlicking establishment is why so
many so-called liberal columnists are such useless disgraces to
their profession.
Eric Alterman urges we ask ourselves the question of what
degree we really want to be "like them." We would say the
better question in the current atmosphere is to what degree we
have to be like them. Put us squarely in David Talbot's camp as
cited in Mr. Alterman's column:
It's true, John Fund did live by the sword. But
liberals and leftists must ask ourselves whether we
really want to live by David Talbot's famous claim,
made in the context of revealing a decades-old
adulterous affair of Henry Hyde's, that "ugly times
call for ugly tactics."
There are always questions of fairness that merit examination
before a decision is made to publish highly charged material.
There will always be aggravating and mitigating factors
involved, and the Fund case is one in which reasonable people -
including reasonable, fighting liberals who aren't concerned with
currying favor with the right - will disagree. (We welcome your
thoughts.)
But we have all witnessed over the last decade the
consequences of our being pathologically "not like them" and
their being relentlessly "like them": the unprecedented abuses
of power involved in the "impeachment" and near-removal of a
legitimately elected president; the theft of a national election in
broad daylight; the ramming through of an agenda rejected by
the American people in that stolen election; the total loss of US
credibility worldwide as a result of the incompetence and
arrogance of the illegitimate regime - and the complete absence
of media accountability for any of the above.
Turn on a national "news" network and you will find the right
openly advocating
bludgeoning US senators who are their
political opponents with tire irons, while "mainstream" talk show
hosts like Chris Matthews sit by and chuckle.
We contend that there are few if any tactics remaining the left
is not justified in employing these days. We're at war.