7.10.00
Gagged at the Globe

7.07.00
More on That Gore Plan

7.06.00
Thompson's Turn

7.05.00
Keating on Church and State

7.03.00
The Case for Bill Cohen

6.30.00
Another Gore Scandal

6.29.00
Bush's Disappointment

6.27.00
FRC Tightens Its Belt

6.26.00
Debate Prep

7/10/00 6:15 p.m.
Gagged at the Globe
A conservative columnist gets squashed.

By NR's John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru

he Boston Globe has asked conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby to resign and forced him to take a four-month unpaid leave. His offense: writing a recent column on the fates of the signers of the Declaration of Independence that resembled an item that had been circulating on the web. Renee Loth, editor of the Globe's editorial page, says Jacoby's failure to acknowledge this resemblance was "a serious violation of the relationship between the Globe and its readers."

Please. The e-mail contained erroneous information. Jacoby researched it and came up with a column reflecting the same idea — viz., that a lot of the signers had paid a price (or at least not been rewarded) for their convictions — but with accurate information culled from the historical record. A fastidious columnist would have mentioned that other writers had written similar accounts many times before, and that a recent item on the web had prompted his interest in doing it this time. But it's hard to see that he was under any great ethical obligation to do so.

(An aside about NRO editor Jonah Goldberg: He recently attempted the same thing as Jacoby, and in our view has no more to apologize for. His passing along the e-mail last year — while noting that he took no responsibility for its accuracy — strikes us as worse, but still forgivable in light of the looser conventions of the web.)

It would be easier to take the Globe's action against Jacoby at face value if a) the paper were not hyper-liberal and, as Michael Barone once put it, "as partisan as Col. McCormick" and b) Jacoby had not previously come under fire there for his conservative views. In 1997, Jacoby wrote a column suggesting that Christians who object to homosexuality are not morally equivalent to Nazis or Ku Kluxers. This inspired the paper's ombudsman to write a column calling the column "offensive" and "a high price to pay for freedom of the press."

At the moment, it looks like Jacoby's the one paying a high price for exercising that freedom.

The Globe's phone number is (617) 929-2000. The fax is (617) 929-2098. Letters (polite ones, of course) to the ombudsman can be sent via email to ombud@globe.com.

Bush in Baltimore
The most important thing about George W. Bush speaking at the NAACP convention today isn't that he'll be praised for going, but that he won't be attacked for skipping it, as Bob Dole was four years ago. Bush wasn't going to win any votes in Baltimore, and he knew it: "For those who support me — I see one or two here," he said, right off the bat. His goal must have been to avoid a cycle of bad press, and at this he will succeed.

The speech itself was lackluster. "For my party, there's no escaping the reality that the Party of Lincoln has not always carried the mantle of Lincoln," he said. (We understand the need for this sort of thing, but it would be nice if Bush could point out that Republicans were more solid in support of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats were.) The speech contained predictable throwaway lines: "Strong civil-rights enforcement will be cornerstone of my administration."

At least Bush didn't unveil any new spending programs. And he repeated what may be the best phrase Bush the candidate has uttered: "I will confront another form of bias — the soft bigotry of low expectations." Bush seems to understand that racism, although still a force in American life, is no longer the primary obstacle to black achievement. Family breakdown, crime, and lousy public schools are much more important stumbling blocks. Bush didn't say any of this directly, but he did talk about improving schools (albeit without reference to school choice), increasing home ownership, and promoting churches and faith-based organizations. The message was not electrifying, but it was much better than the dose of race-baiting NAACPers will get when Vice President Gore drops by.

No Habla Ingles
Colorado voters won't have the opportunity to repeal bilingual education this fall. The state Supreme Court today blocked an initiative — for which organizers were already gathering signatures — from appearing on the ballot.

Liberty Lobby
The Institute for Justice's Supreme Court liberty ratings are out, tracking each of the nine justices' stands on cases involving "individual liberty" since 1992. (The institute takes many cases involving economic liberty; it wisely avoids taking sides on issues such as abortion.) Clarence Thomas tops the group, with 85 percent of his votes on the Court labeled "pro-liberty"; Stephen Breyer finishes at the bottom, with 35 percent. In between are Anthony Kennedy (82), Antonin Scalia (77), Sandra Day O'Connor (71), William Rehnquist (67), David Souter (41), John Paul Stevens (38), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (37).

"The Court has been quite reliable in protecting individual liberties," says the institute. In the 45 cases it assessed, 35 of them resulted in "pro-liberty" decisions. But there have been plenty of close calls: More than half of these decisions were the result of 5-4 votes.

Of course, "individual liberty" can't be the sole criterion for grading the Supreme Court. But the Institute for Justice provides yet another reminder of how important this year's presidential election is, if only for the Supreme Court nominees Bush or Gore will get to pick.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home