Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer - Coursework Example

_________ Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer When syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer sits behind the desk while performing his commentating duties at Fox News, it is difficult to see his wheelchair. A non-discerning viewer may not even know that it is there. At least one blogger, when he learned of Krauthammer’s disability, said, “You could have knocked me over with a feather (Darling),” even though the blogger worked in the disability field and was familiar with disability issues. It is likely, based upon what Krauthammer has written about the FDR memorial, erected in 1997 in Washington, D.C., that he would probably dislike the above sentiment. In his column for Time Magazine (Krauthammer “Dignity”), written shortly after the memorial was opened, Krauthammer supported the decision to eschew the desires of many disability advocates and in a prominent sculpture, cover FDR’s wheelchair. Typical of Krauthammer’s writing style, he took the issue and transformed it into a scathing criticism of contemporary politicians’ penchant for self-exposure. This is something Krauthammer does often in his polemic style of writing: he starts out discussing one topic and adeptly switches it to another to effectively make his point, with wit and plenty of logic. A review of his most recent columns, published in The Washington Post and in 200 other newspapers and media outlets, demonstrates this technique. In another of his columns about the FDR memorial, for example, he starts off by talking about the movie “Pearl Harbor,” which he calls “an engagingly ramshackle mess of comical improbabilities, 40s clichés and dialogue so corny it must have been (was it?) deliberate” (Krauthammer “Campaign”). Krauthammer then uses a scene in the movie, which has President Roosevelt uncharacteristically open about his disability, to illustrate how both the movie and the memorial went against Roosevelt’s wishes to conceal his disabilities. It is an effective tool, one made more powerful when the reader remembers that the one using the tool is also a user of a wheelchair, and most likely holds the same opinions about disability as FDR did. While Krauthammer has never gone on the record expressing those opinions, his behavior and dignity would seem to support it. Krauthammer’s disability occurred when he was a first-year medical student at Harvard University, in a diving accident. In spite of this, he graduated with his class in 1975 and went on to a successful medical practice, with a wide range of publications in his field of psychiatry (“Charles Krauthammer”). He left medical practice in 1978, to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Jimmy Carter administration, and began to write columns for The New Republic. In 1980, he became a speech writer during Vice President Walter Mondale’s campaign, and joined the staff at The New Republic in 1981. In 1985, Krauthammer began writing a weekly column for The Washington Post; he won a Pulitzer Prize for one of these columns in 1987. He started out as a liberal, but as with most neoconservatives, became disillusioned with the left’s response to Communism and became one of the most important conservative columnists in the nation. He influenced U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan years and has become one of President Obama’s most vocal critics. As New York Times columnist David Brooks has said, Krauthammer is “the most important conservative columnist right now” (Smith). In spite of Krauthammer’s conservatism and often scathing criticism of Obama, he is not easily pegged. He does not hold many of the typical views of conservatives. He supports legalized abortion, opposes the death penalty, and advocates for embryonic stem cell research (“Charles Krauthammer”). Meg Greenfield, who has edited Krauthammer’s Washington Post columns for fifteen years, called his columns “independent and hard to peg politically.” Greenfield has also stated, “Its a very tough column. Theres no ‘trendy’ in it. You never know what is going to happen next” (Smith). Although Krauthammer was a strong supporter of George W. Bush’s administration, especially his foreign policies about the War on Terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his support of Bush was never unequivocal, showing Krauthammer’s independent thinking. For example, he was strongly critical of Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court in 2005. He called the nomination a “mistake,” and although he did not wish to see Miers go through the humiliating experience of failing confirmation by the Senate, he did not believe her inclusion on the Court would be “good for the country” (Krauthammer “Miers”). Krauthammer’s October 21, 2005 column, entitled “Miers: The Only Exit Strategy,” outlined the ways that Miers and the Bush administration could “save face” and avoid such humiliation. He reasoned that the majority of Miers’ constitutional experience, something he saw as an important qualification for a Supreme Court justice, was tied up in counsel to the president, so disclosing her opinions could potentially breach attorney-client privilege with the White House. This would leave no evidence of her legal philosophy, something the Senate would need during the confirmation hearings. As a result, Krauthammer maintained, Miers should withdraw herself from the confirmation process. Six days later, that is exactly what happened; Miers withdrew for exactly the reasons Krauthammer advised. Melissa Block of NPR reported, “Krauthammers scenario played out almost exactly as he wrote (“Conservative”).” It was almost as if Krauthammer gave the Bush administration a script for what they should do, and they followed it, to the letter. This situation demonstrates both Krauthammer’s good sense and his great influence. It also demonstrates his good will, since he stated in his column that although he saw the Miers nomination as a mistake because he did not think she was qualified, he wished her no ill will. While Krauthammer supported the Bush administration, he has been strongly critical of President Obama, from the beginnings of the 2008 campaign. Unlike other conservative columnists, however, Krauthammer has been fair and does not reject all of Obama’s policies off-hand. If Krauthammer agrees with Obama, he says so. For example, amidst the controversy that surrounded the president’s trip to India in early November 2010, Krauthammer wrote a column entitled “Why President Obama is Right about India,” which demonstrated Krauthammer’s fairness, even to an administration he has criticized. This column, published on November 12, 2010, also demonstrates Krauthammer’s wit. He knows how to use humor, and he does so adeptly in this column. He states, “Presidential visits are the highest form of diplomacy, and the symbolism alone carries enormous weight. No one remembers what Nixon did in China; what changed the world is that Nixon went to China” (Krauthammer “Why”). One paragraph in this column, which supports the high costs of an overseas presidential trip, demonstrates Krauthammer’s effective use of humor: I will admit that Indian authorities went somewhat overboard when they cut down the coconuts surrounding the Gandhi museum in Mumbai. I am no expert on this, having never been subject to a coconut attack, but it seems to me that a freefalling coconut is no match for an armored car built to withstand anything short of a small nuclear device. Now perhaps the enemy, always racing one step ahead of us, is working on the dreaded RPC - the rocket-propelled coconut. Im not privy to all the intelligence here, and, try as I may, I could get nothing out of the Coconut Desk at CIA. Nonetheless, to this outsider, the anti-coconut measures seemed a bit excessive. Krauthammer then admits, “But I digress,” and then emphasizes the importance of a presidential trip to Asia, and why India is an important part of American foreign policy. This demonstrates Krauthammer’s fairness, even towards a president he disagrees with deeply, on most issues. He uses a presidential trip to make his real point: the importance of Asia and India to America’s national interests. As he states, “…Obamas trip—coconuts and all—was worth every penny”. Another recent Krauthammer column, written in response to the controversy surrounding the security measures of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at American airports, must be included in a discussion of his recent columns. The column, entitled “Don’t Touch My Junk” and published on November 19, is classic Krauthammer. It displays his humor, wit, logic, and polemic writing. Inspired by the now famous response by the man accosted by TSA agents, he starts out his column by making some general and sweeping generalizations about the place of airports in our culture, and quickly switches his discussion to a call for saner airport security measures. There are some classic Krauthammer lines in this column. He quotes from another movie, the George Clooney film "Up in the Air," which Krauthammer calls “that ironic take on the cramped freneticism of airport life”. He considers “Don’t touch my junk,” a product of our modern age; as he puts it, “an anthem of modern man”. He continues: “Not quite the 18th-century elegance of "Don’t Tread on Me," but the age of Twitter has a different cadence from the age of the musket. What the modern battle cry lacks in archaic charm, it makes up for in full-body syllabic punch”. Krauthammer, as he often does in many of his columns, adeptly makes a statement about our culture while discussing the urbane issue of airport security. He again demonstrates his intelligence, humor, and writing skills that are part of most of his columns and commentaries. Even liberals respect his writing skill. In 2009, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein called Krauthammer “vastly smarter” than most other neoconservatives and described his “writing skills and polemical skills" as "so far above almost anybody writing columns today” (Smith). Unfortunately, Klein’s compliments were back-handed, for in the next breath, he explained away Krauthammer’s views as being a product of his disability and stated, “Theres something tragic about him…His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations hes writing about (Smith).” Not only are Klein’s comments insulting to the extreme, they also demonstrate that Klein knows very little about Krauthammer, or his views about disability. For Krauthammer, his wheelchair makes little difference in his writing style or in his views. As Krauthammer has said, his brilliant writing “speaks for itself (Smith),” with characteristic humor, wit, and intelligence. His influence on the American political world also speaks for itself. Works Cited Block, Melissa. “Conservative Columnists Miers Plan Played Out.” NPR.com. NPR. 27 October 2005. Web. 29 November 2010. “Charles Krauthammer.” Washington Post.com. The Washington Post Writers Group. 2010. Web. 29 November 2010. Darling, Bill. “The Wisdom and Strength of Charles Krauthammer.” Coral and Opal. 11 March 2009. Web. 29 November 2010. Krauthammer, Charles. “The Campaign to Undo FDR.” Jewish World Review.com. Jewish World Review. 18 June 2001. Web. 29 November 2010. ---. “The Dignity of Denial.” CNN.com. Time Magazine. 12 May 1997. Web. 29 November 2010. ---. “Don’t Touch My Junk.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 19 November 2010. Web. 30 November 2010. ---. “Miers: The Only Exit Strategy.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 21 October 2005. Web. 29 November 2010. ---. “Why President Obama is Right about India.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 12 November 2010. Web. 30 November 2010. Smith, Ben. “Barack Obamas Biggest Critic: Charles Krauthammer.” Politico.com. 20 May 2009. Web. 29 November 2010. Krauthammer columns: “A Return to the Norm.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 5 November 2010. Web. 29 November 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110406581.html. “The Campaign to Undo FDR.” Jewish World Review.com. Jewish World Review. 18 June 2001. Web. 29 November 2010. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer061801.asp. “The Dignity of Denial.” CNN.com. Time Magazine. 12 May 1997. Web. 29 November 2010. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/05/time/fdr.html. “Don’t Touch My Junk.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 19 November 2010. Web. 30 November 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111804494.html. “Miers: The Only Exit Strategy.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 21 October 2005. Web. 29 November 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001635.html. “Why is Obama Sending Troops to Afghanistan?” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 1 October 2010. Web. 29 November 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093004683.html. “Why President Obama is Right about India.” The Washington Post.com. The Washington Post. 12 November 2010. Web. 30 November 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111106072.html. Parody Column: “Don’t Call Me Shirley” I usually don’t write about celebrities, or the passing of them. The reason for that is, to be honest, I don’t know much about many of them. Unlike probably 80% of this country, and 98% of people under the age of thirty, I care less about TMZ and other celebrity gossip nonsense than I do about politicians and the intrigue that occurs in Washington. I find Washington gossip profoundly more interesting than the Hollywood gossip, which to me, is a colossal waste of time. The truth of the matter is that I know very little about Paris Hilton and Katy Perry and all those other rap artists. The only time I hear about them is in passing, as they’re reported on by the media outlets I’m around in the course of my days. The only reason I know that Jennifer Grey won “Dancing with the Stars” this year is because Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol came in third. Call me “fuddy duddy” or even out of touch with the times, but I simply don’t care. This week, however, marked the passing of a celebrity I paid attention to—Leslie Nielsen. Yes, I know that paying attention to the death of an elderly man who hasn’t acted in movies or television in decades doesn’t make me all that current, but it’s the best I can do. I paid attention to Nielsen because as I overheard the biographies that have been on the air about him this week, I learned that there are some uncanny similarities between he and I, some things that very few people know about. First off, Nielsen was Canadian. So I am, although I was actually born here in the States, in New York City. Secondly, we both had a sea-change in our lives and careers. Most people know Nielsen as a comic actor, in movies like “Airplane” and the “Naked Gun” series. He actually started his career as a serious actor in films like “Forbidden Planet” and “The Poseidon Adventure.” Me, I started life as a liberal, but changed teams after working for Vice-President Mondale. Of course, my switch is more understandable than Nielsen’s. The most important similarity between Leslie Nielsen and me is our life-long disabilities. Whereas I’ve sat in a wheelchair since I was a young man, Nielsen was legally deaf for most of his life and wore a hearing aid. Although I knew about him and as a movie buff, had enjoyed most of his movies, I never knew that before this week. People ask me all the time why I always sit at a big table when I’m commentating on television. Some assume that it’s because I’m ashamed of my wheelchair. That could be further than the truth. I just don’t think it’s all that big of a deal. It shouldn’t be the first thing they see. I don’t mind that people know, to use the horribly politically incorrect phrase, that I’m “crippled.” I just mind it when it’s all they see and all they want to see. I’m with FDR, who spent hours perfecting ways to deceive the public about his wheelchair. Yes, it was the times that drove him to do that, but it was also his philosophy about dignity. I’ve stated before that FDR would be horrified to see the statue of him at his memorial in Washington, D.C. As well meaning as the disability advocates who purchased it were, they disrespected his memory and wishes to retain his dignity about it. I suspect that’s how Leslie Nielsen thought about it as well. I suspect that his hearing impairment mattered little to him. I suspect that when someone learned of it and stated, “Surely you must be kidding,” he responded, like his dead-pan character in “Airplane,” “I’m not kidding, and don’t call me Shirley.” Read More