William Safire died of pancreatic cancer today. He was 79. His obituary appears here. After retiring from the Times, he went to work heading the Dana Foundation, among other things supporting the work of the National Endowment for the Arts (and showing himself in gatherings to be an entirely unassuming guy). He wrote great speeches for Spiro Agnew, which I cited last year on Brainstorm here, but he turned into a hard critic of secrecy in government after learning that his boss Richard Nixon taped meetings he attended. And one of his best analyses of political secrecy appears in this op-ed on Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan. Remember when Jordan was asked about his and his superior’s role in obstructing justice in the Lewinsky case. I think the whole investigation was a waste of time and money, but the machinations of it all were fascinating to watch. Here is Safire on Jordan’s actions in helping the lady find a job:
“The defense boils down to this: The events are unrelated. Jordan helps a lot of young people and has introduced other White House aides to lawyers. Though he admits talking about the affidavit and the job in the same conversation, ”The affidavit was over here. The job was over here.” Monica agrees, even though she says Jordan told her to destroy subpoenaed evidence.
“As a longtime acquaintance of Jordan, I consult my mother wit to conclude (1) that because Vernon is, as he likes to say, ”no fool,” he gave no direction to Monica to break the law, (2) that he knew the legal importance of separating himself and the President from her affidavit, which is why he drove her over to another lawyer’s office, and (3) that his assertion that he asked Clinton if he was having sexual relations with this young woman, and was assured he was not, is fishy.
“These guys tell each other everything about women. When asked what he talks to the President about, Vernon has replied frequently and famously with a single feline noun. Why, then, was he eager to testify that he sought out Clinton to ask about sexual relations with Monica, and was told no?
“Answer: Because he needed not to know specifically about their affair. In order to act as Clinton’s agent in getting Lewinsky to retain a lawyer-friend for the affidavit, and to allow himself to arrange for something of value to her in the form of a job, Jordan needed not to be privy to the lying that was being sought and rewarded.
“Accordingly, he likely said he assumed no hanky-panky was going on, and the President took his cue to say of course not. Jordan was then free to act unburdened by guilty knowledge of the President’s intent to obstruct justice.
“That is the logical explanation for Clinton not boasting as usual about his latest conquest when alone late at night with his best male friend. These two attorneys, having practiced with taking care of Hubbell, know how to play the game.”
Compare this kind of analysis with what we get from Maureen Dowd these days.
6 Responses to William Safire
goxewu - September 28, 2009 at 10:16 am
Safire was good and, despite his being a long-time enabler of the worst aspects of Richard Nixon, I’m sorry to see him gone.But don’t compare Safire to Maureen Dowd, who’s simply awful (a fellow liberal, but shallow, in love with herself, too cute by half). Compare Safire to (or rather, with) Frank Rich, whose columns are meaty (would Safire have furnished all those hyperlinks had he had the tech?), unafraid (he criticizes Obama a lot), and–at least for a liberal–lots of fun to read. He goes after the same kind of Republican plutocrat (some things never change) that Safire used to try to make human by calling them by their leather-chair-at-the-club nicknames, e.g., “Bill” Simon, et al.The New York Times has had a lot of trouble getting a decent conservative columnist. It’s probably because it’s a token hire–the paper’s heart isn’t really in it. David Brooks washes out because he’s not really a conservative. On radio, it would have been hard to tell him from Mark Shields during the election campaign. William Kristol was a disaster, barely up from New York Post quality and a sort of more polite Ann Coulter without the legs. Ross Douthat is OK–intelligent, reasonable, pointed–but still a bit of a lightweight.So, whom would Prof. Bauerlein hire?
danbloom - September 29, 2009 at 12:04 am
Mark,I often corresponded with Mr Safire, and in fact, one of my letteres made it into on his language books in the 1990s. A great man, great writer. Just one thing, and please do not clobber me for this but I must ask: why does “an entirely unassuming guy” as you so well put it, and such a friendly avuncular man, why does he sport a combover in his later years when he was going bald? This is something I do not understand about American intellectuals. We all age, many of us go bald, there is nothing ugly and unbecoming about being bald. In fact, an older man who is bald on top looks great! (Me!) So why do highly intelligent people like Bill Safire and David Gergen, another very good man, why do they bother to “cover up” their heads with combovers that are completely visible to anyone watching them on TV or in lecture halls? Who do they think they are fooling? And if they are in the businesss of telling the truth and analyzing life, why do they “lie” to the public by covering up their bald heads? I feel it is a sorry sorry day when American politiicans and intellectuals feel they must cover up their bald heads with ridiculous combovers. Okay, so clobber me on the head for saying this. But I just saw an interview with Safire replayed again today on TV for this obit, and there he is in 2005 with the combover thing, and it looks dishonest. This is what bugs me about these combovers. Can anyone explain this? And please do not delete this message, I am asking an important question about American intellectuals.
markbauerlein - September 29, 2009 at 9:49 am
Some good models of conservative columnists include, goxewu, Buckley and his three columns per issue in National Review in his last years and Richard Neuhaus’s columns in First Things. George Will, of course, Mark Steyn, Roger Kimball’s prefaces to each issue of New Criterion over the years, and over at the Wall Street Journal Noonan, Henninger, and Riley.And you’re right, the problem with Dowd isn’t her politics. It’s her cutesy triviality. As for the combover, danbloom, well, it’s a style.
goxewu - September 29, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Follow question, which is the same question a little more specifically put:Whom should be hired by The New York Times to fill the conservative columnist “slot” on their Op-Ed pages if and when Ross Douthat leaves? (I think the Times ought to have a conservative columnist, and a good one, if only to keep the liberals sharp.)Buckley is long gone, Neuhaus is too religio-philosophical (that’s what, of course, First Things is about), Kimball more a cultural critic than a political one. I know who Peggy Noonan is and have read (and heard) some of her stuff, but don’t know Henninger or RileyP (please don’t tell me it’s a misspelling of O’Reilly!)As to combovers–and they are a serious issue–none can match that of the former University of Illinois basketball coach, Lou Henson. The “Lou Do” had the part at ear-lobe level and his suspiciously black hair flowed up flat-to-the-scalp and then actually swirled around on top to covr the skin. The combover strands must have been three feet long and the glue was a miracle product: he’d jump up and down and scream and holler at the refs and the “Do” always stayed in place. danbloom has a good question: Are these weird aging-male hairdos peculiar to American intellectuals* and pundits (and basketball coaches), or do the Brits, French, Germans, Italians, et al., indulge in them, too? *Does Donald Rumsfeld count?
goxewu - September 29, 2009 at 3:12 pm
A follow question, which is the same question put more specifically: Whom would you hire to fill The New York Times’s “conservative” columnist slot if and when Ross Douthat goes? (I think they need one, and a good one, if only to keep the liberals sharp.)Buckley is long gone, Neuhaus is a bit religio-philosophical (which is, of course, the nature of First Things), and Kimball is a cultural rather than political pundit. George Will delivers the word from the mount in the Washington Post and probably wouldn’t want to try out at the Times. Noonan, I’ve read (and heard), but Henninger and Riley I don’t know. (Please don’t tell me that last one is a misspelling of O’Reilly!) Steyn seems like the best bet.But I do agree with danbloom that combovers are a serious issue. Who does David Gergen thinks he looks like with that ridiculous part and poignant little pompadour wave, Edd (“Kookie”) Byrnes? But neither he nor the late Mr. Safire can hold a jar of pomade to the former U. of Illinois basketball coach, Lou Henson’s “Lou Do.” The part was located at ear-lobe level and his suspiciously black hair flowed upward, flat to the scalp, to the crown of his skull where it then swirled to cover the skin. The strong-side strands must have been three feet long. But for all his jumping up and down and yelling at the refs, it never came undone during a game. Anyway, is this kind of idiotic coif peculiar to American intellectuals, pundits, basketball coaches, and high government officials (Donald Rumsfeld, anyone?), or do vain, aging men from other countries employ it, too?
goxewu - September 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Sorry for the double comment. There’s a yet another “Brainstorm” glitch in which, after one clicks “Submit,” a window appears telling you that “Brainstorm” is now longer available. I thought my comment had disappeared down the cyberhole, so I wrote it again, from memory (not bad, eh?) and resubmitted it.The lesson: The new “Brainstorm” requires PATIENCE on the part of its commenters. (See the comment posted four or five times on Gina Barreca’s latest post to see even worse consequences than my unintended malfeasance.)