Tuesday, October 16, 2007

A Final Round on Ethics + A Verdict

A reader from Maryland:

You really must continue to blog on NRO. Yes, I would miss the bookshelf commentary — been trying to explain to my wife why it's so interesting. But, more importantly, as a pro-life conservative I really am quite conflicted on whom to support in 2008. Many of a similar mindset simply are not going to go to a campaign site to be convinced of the merits of Giuliani's candidacy, nor will we be swayed by soundbites in a debate setting. We depend on the free flow of informed ideas in a medium with the intellectual integrity of NRO.

Further, I fear many conservatives are so thoroughly disenchanted with the Republican Party that they will not appreciate the stakes of this election other than through such a medium as NRO. I believe you've properly disclosed your decision and now owe it to the readers to maintain your presence for the good of the conservative movement and to defend your decision, if need be, as it pertains to the good of the movement.

A reader in the archdiocese of Denver:

You should limit your discussion of the other candidates, except insofar as differences in policy can be confidently identified; but in the years in which I've read your articles and posts, I've never seen personalities enter in, so this "advice" is probably redundant.

And, now that we know you have the Mayor's ear, like one of your other emailers, I have a request for Hizzoner, too: "On national defense, on crime, on leadership, Mr. Mayor, you're the greatest. But understand, that merely a "cultural" Catholic identity is not enough. You are disappointing to those of us who take our Catholic faith seriously. It's not enough to promise appointment of more judges like Roberts and Thomas. The protection of the least among us is both a Gospel and human imperative. As a Catholic clergyman, I might ad that your relationship with God and Church may be at risk."

Yes, Mr. Frum, I know you don't share the faith or views of us "social conservatives" (I dislike the term), but let Mr. Mayor know that there are a bunch of us who would love to consider a vote for him if it weren't for his attitude towards Roe v Wade and other prolife issues. There are many who are pro-defense, pro-free enterprise, and, yes, pro-prudence (we may have to vote for your man in any case) — but he can't count on it.

A third offers a caution:

The relevant question in my mind is whether you are under any obligation to adopt the positions of the candidate and his campaign. If you are merely providing advice, then I see no conflict so long as you disclose that whenever you discuss the election; this is no different than any other blogger who supports a candidate (except that your candidate is somewhat more likely to listen to and heed your advice). If, however, you are adopting some of Giuliani’s positions, either because you are attached to the campaign or because it is politically expedient to do so, then you ought to cease blogging, at least as an independent entity, as in one way or another you’ve simply become a mouthpiece for his campaign (NB: this does not include adopting one or more of his positions because you believe he’s made compelling arguments).

A reader from France:

I just can't see what the problem is. The norm in France would consist in not stating publicly whom you support and fill your blog with falsely neutral points. During the [recent French presidential] campaign, the more honest bloggers declared their support for a candidate a very short time before the election/

A more liberal reader suggests:

Naturally, I think that you are a Crazed National Review Right-Wing Conservative Wackjob from Canada whose Views Not Only Are Anathema to All that Is Good But Also, If Followed-through to their Policy Conclusions, Would Destroy America and All We Hold Dear.

That being said, you should continue your blog because you are a good writer who has something to say that's worth reading.

You should have something on your blog that one easily can see and that says who you work for - volunteer or otherwise - so that they know when and whether to take what you say with a grain of salt.

But I think that you have the intellectual integrity to continue your blog, regardless of whether you also are assisting Rudolph Giuliani in his bid to become America's first Kaiser.

Seriously, though - keep up the good work and continue your blogging. I hope, nowithstanding the sadness you will feel in November when you watch Hillary Clinton give her acceptance speech, that you have a great time working with the Giuliani campaign. It sounds like a great opportunity.

And if Giuliani wins because Hillary gets caught with $10 million in Indonesian rupees funneled through a Singaporean-Japanese connection to Paramount Studios (to name only one of many possibilities), please don't let him yell at me. If I had lived in NYC I would have voted for him to be mayor as often as he ran.

On the pro-suspension side, a reader at the University of Michigan writes:

As a regular reader of your blog (i.e. at break time, I go straight to it to read the latest), I think that you should either put it on hiatus, change the focus, or have a big, permanent, honking disclaimer, as another correspondent said. I don’t think it’s just a matter of hyperlegalism (although that is a problem these days). If I followed the Handyman’s Helper blog and later learned that Handy Hal was a consultant for Home Depot and hadn’t clearly revealed it, I’d be a bit ticked off, even if I hadn’t set foot in Home Depot.

If you continue to blog and do any less than announce your consultant status in every column, many liberals will use that to try to discredit you and National Review, as they (wrongly) tried with Maggie Gallagher after Armstrong Williams was (rightly) dropped by Tribune Media Services. Whether you get paid by the Giuliani campaign or not is irrelevant. Serving as an advocate gives you just as much of an interest in a campaign as if you got paid. And even with disclaimers, they will likely accuse NRO of being a web informercial for Republicans. No matter what political issue you write about, there will be a suspicion, however unfair, that your writing is colored by your work for Giuliani.

David’s Bookshelf is a good potential blog topic during the campaign. (Full disclosure: I’m a librarian.)

Thank you to all. Here's the solution I am going to try. So long as the editors of National Review are willing to extend me the hospitality of their site, I will keep blogging. When I write on anything to do either with campaign 2008 or with US foreign policy, I will add an identifier at the end of the blogpost: David Frum is a senior foreign policy adviser to the Giuliani campaign. If there comes a time when my various obligations come into conflict with one another, I know I can count on the readers of NRO to let me know. I hope those readers in turn know how much I respect their opinions and judgment.

PS - I read and appreciated every email on this subject. I am sorry that the volume of mail prevented me from posting and acknowledging every email individually, but I tallied them all in arriving at this conclusion. Thank you once more!

10/16 07:12 AM