- The Washington Times - Friday, June 1, 2001

With the bizarre shuffling of leadership in the Senate, Utahs Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, he of the colorful neckties, is about to be replaced as chairman of the Judiciary Committee by Vermonts Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, he of the spotless reputation for fairness.
That last estimate comes from William Safire. During the recent jihad by the Judiciary Committees Democrats against the nomination of Ted Olson for solicitor general, Mr. Leahy rode the lead horse. He charged Mr. Olson with lying to the committee about the extent of Mr. Olsons involvement with an American Spectator reporting project. He wanted to see the magazines documents.
Mr. Safire wrote a hortatory column from his op-ed redoubt at the New York Times, charging the senator with "trampling on the First Amendment." He urged Mr. Leahy not to persist in "waving a vacuum cleaner at an editorial office" my editorial office. "Come back to the Constitution, Pat," Mr. Safire implored his friend. The vacuum cleaner reference was to a letter Mr. Leahy had written to me demanding that Mr. Olson and I "provide copies of the internal audit, board books and minutes … and all notes and records of Board discussions of the audit." My response was the same brief reply Gen. Anthony McAuliffe made to an earlier generation of brutes that time at Bastogne: "Nuts."
Mr. Safire called Mr. Leahys letter an "outrageous intrusion" on First Amendment rights. Yet Mr. Leahy persisted, warning, "should that request be declined, the committee as a whole should take appropriate action to obtain the information." To that threat I noted that the senator was making "friendship a misdemeanor and journalism a felony" again, "nuts." Now, of course, Mr. Leahy is no longer in the minority on his committee, and he can harass writers who practice amused resistance (an improvement on passive resistance, no?) with subpoenas. I do not think this bodes well for the First Amendment.
I say this based on more than the brute behavior of Mr. Leahy. Other journalists, namely the rebarbative Joe Conason and his sidekick Gene Lyons, were egging him on to pursue government investigations of fellow writers and of a lawyer who had offered legal counsel to a magazine they did not like. Nor did the literary and journalistic communities rise up to join Mr. Safire in his defense of the First Amendment. The only support came from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times and from columns by the excellent Seth Lipsky on the Wall Street Journals on-line magazine OpinionJournal.com and by Dave Shiflett on National Reviews NationalReview.com. Beyond that, only the American Civil Liberties Union was preparing to jump to the First Amendments defense.
Said Laura Murphy of the ACLUs Washington office upon seeing Mr. Leahys letter, "The ACLU does not think that a newspaper or a magazine should be compelled by Congress to turn over anything about their editorial process." Bravo, Miss Murphy. You may have to jump to the defense not only of the American Spectator but also of other writers. Writers are not popular with large numbers of Americans who apparently do not see why writers should be immune from the general litigiousness of the country. The American Civil Liberties Union finds in the polling it reviews a general impatience with First Amendment rights by many Americans.
Frankly, I am willing to put my trust in the population at large. I am confident that, given a chance, I can make a case with the average American for freedom. It is the writers and politicians who worry me. After Mr. Olson was confirmed and Mr. Leahys committee lost interest in me, Bill Clintons former director of speechwriting, who now roosts at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, Michael Waldman, wrote approvingly in the New York Times of the Democrats sudden acquisition of the subpoena power "to seek detailed information from more witnesses on whether Mr. Olsons account of his role in The American Spectator magazines 'Arkansas project was accurate."
It turns out that it is the writers and politicians who wish to pollute the atmosphere of freedom with coercion. Accurate testimony before Congress was never so important to Mr. Leahy and Mr. Waldman during the Clinton administration. Even lying before grand juries was understandable. Moreover Mr. Olsons truthfulness and mine for that matter was attested to by all but one person at the Spectator during the Senate proceedings; and that turncoat is a clearly conflicted witness. No, the animus against Mr. Olson and the American Spectator was clearly motivated by the articles we published about Mr. Clinton, articles that have never been disproven and have gained in validity with every passing day of Mr. Clintons presence in public life. Which brings me to a question I have always wanted to ask the journalists who oppose me: "Would I be a better journalist had I stifled my knowledge of Clintons corruption?" Would neglect of the truth have made me a better journalist?
Apparently they think so, which is one of the reasons all Americans have a stake in the First Amendment.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the editor in chief of the American Spectator.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide