Scott Thomas Beauchamp & the Decline of the New Republic
When conservatives today talk about Andrew Sullivan, they rank him among those bitter Bush-hating bloggers who, in practically knee-jerk fashion, angrily oppose anything the president (or for that matter, his Administration and even his sometime supporters) says or does. But, there was a time when Andrew offered one of the most unique perspectives on politics in American punditry. Throughout the better part of the 1990s and into this century, Andrew brought together his diverse experiences as an Oxford- and Harvard-educated British-born gay conservative Catholic to comment intelligently on the events of the day as well as on social trends and gay culture.
In the days before blogs, it was not easy for a man with such an unusual background to find a forum for his ideas. A conservative magazine would not have brought on an openly gay man who wished to opine on gay issues. Fortunately, the New Republic, hiring him when he was still in graduate school, provided that forum. It was one of the few places where those not so easily categorized could publish their opinions.
While that magazine had a largely liberal perspective, it did take conservative ideas seriously and often took editorial positions at odd with the liberal establishment. I have long appreciated its broad-minded liberalism–and have been reading the magazine since high school. For many years, I subscribed to its print edition and now subscribe to its online edition. While I disagreed frequently with the magazine’s editorial positions, it often surprised me by offering a perspective not too different than my own. But, even when i did not share the point of view of a particular writer, I usually appreciated his (or her) points.
Perhaps because of my past affection for that magazine, I have been following pretty closely the story of the magazine’s “Baghdad Diarist,” Scott Thomas Beauchamp. Even before the story had not been debunked, it struck me as strange that the magazine which once favored a strong military would bring on board a serviceman who had shown bias against its mission in Iraq even before being deployed there.
The magazine which once offered thoughtful criticism of (and occasional support for) the policies of the last two-term Republican president, Ronald Reagan, published a piece where a columnist ranted about the current two-term GOP chief executive: I hate President George W. Bush.
What’s sad about this once-great (and from time to time, still quite good) magazine is that this visceral Bush-hatred has increasingly come to dominate its political commentary. And the hiring of Scott Beauchamp and the failure to vet his work before publication suggests the current editors of the magazine have lost sight of the thoughtful work of their forebears. No longer the responsible voice of a broad-minded liberalism, the magazine all too often seem to have become another platform for those afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
And given the magazine’s past, that is great, great misfortune. A true loss to the tradition of civil discourse and intelligent criticism the New Repubilc promoted for the better part of its existence.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sullivan is clever enough (not much of a compliment there) to present himself with an assumed thoughtful sincerity — enough that sates his taste for success (and ultimately buys it), a taste developed at the New Republic with what many thought were genuine and provocative pieces, reflecting an author who defied immediate categorization.
But at what price? Sullivan has certainly risen in rank and reputation, if his career trajectory is in the hands of those paid to understand what his audience wants from him and if it is not the chimera it appears to be. It can’t be denied, however, that his success includes a significant philosophical turnaround coupled with a moral agnosticism that while not surprising of a media figure, is surprising for those of us who, in an oft-changing landscape, depend upon those things that never change — particularly from one whose apparent pretense was one and the same.
Sullivan doesn’t so much beg the question as to his current stance, but whether he was ever sincere. Was his early work, the work that gained him attention including that of the New Republic, an affectation or has he truly matured? Is the doubt he throws over his early work a betrayal of himself and/or of ourselves? Does our disappointment mean anything, since the message is mightier than the messenger (meaning that no matter how many lies a man later tells, they do not detract from an earlier truth)? If so, have we learned nothing and if not, what does this say of the slew of other chameleons who survive and adapt by adopting a la Gergen, Brock, et al.?
Comment by HardHobbit — August 6, 2007 @ 6:49 pm - August 6, 2007
Are there any really unbiased publications anymore? Newscasts? I don’t think so. With the explosion of media and information sources I think that is not a bad thing though. Everyone is going to come to any subject with a certain perspective and point of view. As long as everyone wears their prejudices on their sleeves, so be it. We can choose who to read, watch or listen too. I generally plug into those I am more aligned with, but occasionally I’ll check out other sources to see if they are providing “information”, education or just bile. If it is educational, I’ll watch a while. It’ is interesting that GPW has focused on Andrew Sullivan. I was a real fan of his in the 90′s. As a gay man just coming out, it was exciting to see one of us actually espousing fairly conservative opinions. But gosh it must be 4 years since I went to his blog. The anti Bush hatred and tunnel vision became hard to swallow.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 6, 2007 @ 8:33 pm - August 6, 2007
Being pointed out today on many blogs, is this excellent commentary on TNR and Beauchamp: http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003421.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 6, 2007 @ 9:09 pm - August 6, 2007
(#2 cont.) The whole thing is worth reading. I was especially impressed by the following:
The author, Rev. Paul McNellis S.J., is a Jesuit with an impressive military record.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 6, 2007 @ 9:21 pm - August 6, 2007
To say STB is a liar, you must also say that the 5 soldiers whom TNR interviewed are liars. Is that likely? I don’t think so. It seems likely that the soldiers knew any admission to an investigator might hurt their own careers…and I imagine there is a desire within the unit to keep this under wraps…
It is unlikely that TNR lied about receiving corroboration and in my opinion anyone who says they are lying about receiving corroboration are simply insanic conspiracy theorists.
Further, the office of public affairs is an institution that has participated in the proliferation of uncertainty before, and will again.
There seems to be more to this than has been reported and so I wait, neither swayed nor unswayed.
Further Still:
As thoughtful and well written of an obit for the TNR this post was, it still doesn’t rectify that you participated in the “outing” of a soldier on the front line, Mike Rogers style. You didn’t like his narrative so you and rightist pals sent tattletale letters to his superiors, researched and magnified every aspect of his life and likely got a whole bunch of active duty Americans in a heap of trouble. Perhaps, making our country less safe. It appears your “crocodile tears” over outed conservative gays have been just that.
Comment by gil — August 6, 2007 @ 11:28 pm - August 6, 2007
I love this juxtaposition:
It seems likely that the soldiers knew any admission to an investigator might hurt their own careers…and I imagine there is a desire within the unit to keep this under wraps…
It is unlikely that TNR lied about receiving corroboration and in my opinion anyone who says they are lying about receiving corroboration are simply insanic conspiracy theorists.
And then he caps it off with this:
There seems to be more to this than has been reported and so I wait, neither swayed nor unswayed.
So gil has flatly stated that our soldiers are lying and that TNR is not, even though TNR cannot provide proof of their claims, nor can he — but he’s not “swayed”.
As thoughtful and well written of an obit for the TNR this post was, it still doesn’t rectify that you participated in the “outing” of a soldier on the front line, Mike Rogers style.
You must have missed this.
And if your point was to avoid causing trouble for our active-duty troops, you could have thought of that prior to sending someone to Iraq to write articles that portray them as murderers and baby-killers — especially when it’s not true.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2007 @ 1:10 am - August 7, 2007
Conservatives have attacked Beauchamp solely because he has reservations about the Iraq war. Where was the outrage when soldiers were found to be trading grisly pics of dead Iraqis for access to a porn site? Or when the video of security contractors shooting up Iraqi civilians surfaced? And let’s not resurrect the discussion here some months back of how the US really needed to kick ass a lot harder in Iraq even if it meant war crimes would be committed. Well, we’re already getting murder convictions of our soldiers which you either deny or ignore while throwing tantrums about exposure of relatively minor transgressions. Hey whatever happened to the ol’ Limbaugh claim that Abu Ghraib was mere fraternity hazing?
Comment by Ian S — August 7, 2007 @ 1:40 am - August 7, 2007
To say STB is a liar, you must also say that the 5 soldiers whom TNR interviewed are liars.
Link please!
Comment by sonicfrog — August 7, 2007 @ 1:56 am - August 7, 2007
Spin those conspiracies, gil! Posit those probabilities! (What’s “likely” and “unlikely” – like you’d be able to tell)
Your conspiracies and “hopes” are so much easier – and tastier – for you, aren’t they? than admitting you’ve lost on the facts that are known.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2007 @ 3:00 am - August 7, 2007
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — August 7, 2007 @ 7:34 am - August 7, 2007
Re: Ian’s #7: It’s interesting when the mask slips and the left shows how they really feel about the troops. But if our troops really were the psychotic amoral murderers Ian and others make them out to be, then Scotty “Mindthoughts and Soulpatterns” Beauchamp wouldn’t have had to make stuff up, would he?
Comment by V the K — August 7, 2007 @ 8:02 am - August 7, 2007
So he’s officially admitted he lied? Thanks for the link LNC (gods, I’d love to indeoduce you to my mom, blow her mind). Bets on when gil will say he was waterboarded into signing it?
I’m wondering though, can his unit, as individuals, sue him for libel?
Comment by The Livewire — August 7, 2007 @ 8:34 am - August 7, 2007
Oh snap.
For more, browse Allah… he has some good questions about the timeline here.
This proves that Scotty is a liar (I’m looking at you here, gil), the only question is who he’s lieing to. Allah and armylawyer bring up a good point in that regard. Spreading lies about the military is not a criminal offense and Scotty boy couldn’t be punished really. But lieing under oath can get 5 years. So who is he going to lie to? TNR who can’t do anything but sulk, or the military who will lock him away for 5 years if he lies?
___
P.S. – Wow, #7, you’re completely right! Everyone attacked STB because he’s “critical” of the war! (“Critical of the war” is a funny euphemism for “archly anti-war, anti-military fabulist with history of leftist war-porn” but as you like…) It could not possibly be that his stories were ridiculous on their face and were printed in a venue that has a history of “too-good-to-be-true-too-perfect-to-check-but-too-delicious-not-to-print” stories that fit flawlessly into the Metanarrative.
Yes. That’s it…
Comment by DoDoGuRu — August 7, 2007 @ 8:35 am - August 7, 2007
If I’m not mistaken, Ian: that, right there, is an outright lie, tending to make you something of a liar.
Not for the first time. But – my purpose right now is to analyze the present, so I won’t pursue that thought.
A lie is an intentional falsehood. The evidence is all around you – right in front of your very eyes – right in this thread (starting with GPW’s article) – that conservatives have attacked Beauchamp, not because of his reservations about the Iraq war (even partly), but rather, solely because he fibbed and attempted to slander our troops.
Since you are swimming in that sea of evidence, how can your falsehood not be intentional? There are only a few ways:
– if you misunderstood the discussion around here, and on other conservative blogs, because you were just about the dumbest person who ever lived;
– if you are just about the most intellectually dishonest person who ever lived (i.e., you didn’t mean to tell a specific lie about conservatives, but, massive accretions of dishonesty in your method of apprehending facts inevitably drove you to a false conclusion / statement;
– if you are clinically insane.
Those, I admit, are “possible” in the sense that they do not violate the physical laws of the universe. But – to use gil’s method – I hereby posit the alternates “unlikely” (or choose to credit you with a bit of sanity, intelligence, etc.). To use Occam’s method: the simplest and most straightforward explanation, Ian, is that you uttered your falsehood intentionally and knowingly.
Other of your claims / implications in #7 are equally as mendacious; but I don’t “have all day”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2007 @ 9:55 am - August 7, 2007
P.S. Is it just me, or are the board lefties running wild? I mean, completely melting down? Anyone else enjoying the spectacle?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 7, 2007 @ 10:25 am - August 7, 2007
The war is starting to go better for America, which means badly for the left. Even the MSM is hedging its bets a little bit. The left sees the chance that America might actually win this war and they are crapping their pants.
Comment by V the K — August 7, 2007 @ 10:51 am - August 7, 2007
#14: Beauchamp was attacked before conservatives knew anything whatsoever about him. The anecdotes he recounted seem quite trivial compared to the other incidents I cited yet those incidents never provoked the conservatives’ ire like what Beauchamp’s did. Why is that? I contend it’s because Beauchamp was critical of the war. So far, you’ve remained silent on that.
Comment by Ian S — August 7, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - August 7, 2007
#16:<blockquote>The war is starting to go better for America,</blockquote>
Sure it is. And the Iraqi Parliament? Oh yeah, it just started its vacation. And Maliki’s government is close to collapse. Yeah, things are going great over there.
[GP Ed. Note - Since Ian didn't notice, the United States Congress is also on a one-month vacation. I guess we should withdraw from the USA??]
Comment by Ian S — August 7, 2007 @ 2:55 pm - August 7, 2007
Even more than that, the entire DNC, congressional leadership and all the “useful idiots” like Ian, TP, keogh etc. are melting down. The big McGovern moment comes next fall though.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 7, 2007 @ 8:14 pm - August 7, 2007
#5 gil “the office of public affairs is an institution that has participated in the proliferation of uncertainty before.” Participated in the proliferation of uncertainty. Now if that isn’t a Clintonista turn of a phrase I don’t know what is. hehe
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 7, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - August 7, 2007