|
|
||
|
Columns
/ Current
Issue / Goldberg
File / Nota
Bene / Subscribe
/ Ad
Info / Washington
Bulletin / Home
|
||
|
5.01.00 4.28.00 4.28.00 4.26.00 4.24.00 4.22.00 4.14.00 4.07.00 4.05.00 4.04.00
|
|||
| 5/01/00
4:30 p.m. A Stray Thot The public's position on Elian is understandable, but simplistic and ill-informed so is Chuck Hagel's. By Rich Lowry, NR Editor |
|||
|
1) In his column today, the estimable Robert George conflates making a prudential judgment about how hearings into the Elian raid would fare (poorly, probably), with bemoaning the "politicization" of the case in general and urging against timely hearings on that basis. The latter is what Chuck Hagel did in the New York Times Friday. The proper response to which is: of course the case has been politicized, because it is a public-policy dispute involving two sides with different values and visions of the public good. Letting the administration short-circuit the case as it works its way through the courts which was exactly the point of the raid without uttering nary a peep wouldn't "de-politicize" the matter, it would let one political side win uncontested. 2) Robert also confuses the understanding that the public is on the wrong side of the Elian controversy because of its unreflective regard for law-enforcement and family values, with actually having such unreflective views oneself. Again, the latter characterizes Hagel's op-ed. In a piece last week which Robert cites I argued that the public's position on Elian is understandable, but simplistic and ill-informed. Well, so is Hagel's. Representative government at work! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
Columns
/ Current
Issue / Goldberg
File / Nota
Bene |
||
|
National Review 215 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10016 212-679-7330 Customer Service: 815-734-1232.
Contact
Us.
|
||