A Moss-Covered Rolling Stone

(Subtitle: "Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz, still carrying water for Democrats.")

According to Drudge, via Wizbang, Rolling Stone Magazine is planning a cover with President Bush in a duncecap, and a story entitled "The Worst President In History."  I scanned the cover, and something jumped out at me.  Sean Wilentz.  Professor Sean Wilentz.  Where had I heard that name before?

Oh, I remember.  In fact, I remember watching his testimony during the Clinton impeachment trial.  He gave some of the most preposterous testimony in defense of President Clinton, almost comical in its unseriousness.

In fact, following that bit of work, in November 2000 Professor Wilentz arranged for an appearance at Princeton by Mr. Clinton, and for that visit may have pressured the Daily Princetonian to refrain from publishing an anti-Clinton editorial by another professor, Robert George.

An editorial critical of President Clinton was pulled from The Daily Princetonian on the day of the President’s arrival at Princeton University, raising accusations that editors bowed to pressure from a conference planning committee composed of students, faculty, and administrators to kill the piece.

The charges stem primarily from the testimony the senior editor handling the article (whom the New York Times identifies as Dana Roper) gave to Professor Robert George, the author of the editorial. The day before his editorial was due, she came to his classroom to personally deliver the news that his piece would not be run on the day of Clinton’s visit. Roper told George that many people were very upset an anti-Clinton editorial was going to run in The Daily Princetonian (or Prince as it is called on campus) on the day of the president’s visit, and their pressure led to the editors’ decision not to run the anti-Clinton article.

In an effort to confirm what Roper had told him, George wrote up his understanding of the events leading to the cancellation of his article, and e-mailed it to both Prince editor-in-chief Richard Just and Roper.

"Today you informed me that the paper does not want to publish my piece on Thursday [the day of Clinton’s visit to campus]. You said that there are two problems: (1) the conference planning committee and the White House people say that the President’s visit is not "political," but rather "academic" and that a piece like mine appearing on the day of the visit would send the opposite message; (2) Professor Wilentz [the conference organizer, whose article was scheduled to run opposite George’s] concerned about the same issue, will refuse to publish his piece if either (a) my piece is published on the day of the President’s visit and speech, or (b) my piece is published on the same day as his even after the President’s visit," George wrote to Roper in an e-mail.

[...]

According to the Prince, George’s article was dropped because Professor Sean Wilentz, the orchestrator of Clinton’s visit to campus, withdrew from publication an editorial praising Clinton that was supposed to run opposite George’s negative piece. "With Wilentz trying to dictate the terms of how his (ed: pro-Clinton) column would be presented—and facing the prospect of having only one article to run in what we had hoped would be a carefully balanced debate—the editorial board made what we felt was the best decision: We refused to run either column," the editors explained.

Oh sure, I'm positive that his assessment of President Bush is completely objective.  Absolutely.

4/19/06 0620: minor edits

4/20/06 1100: Another good point from James Taranto:

In a forthcoming issue of a prestigious academic journal, Wilentz, described by the journal as "one of America's leading historians," takes the measure of President Bush. According to the Drudge Report, Wilentz's article declares that "George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace." The journal's cover carries the blurb "The Worst President in History?" and has a caricature of the president sitting in a corner wearing a dunce cap.

Oh wait a second. Rolling Stone isn't exactly an academic journal, is it? Wilentz, however, is a historian, and he has strong ideas about historians weighing in on current politics, as he explains on Princeton's Web site:

I do think that historians must always be careful that their history writing doesn't become infected by their politics. The minute you start with a political idea and try to find a version of history that affirms it, you're a bad historian. A good propagandist, maybe, but a lousy historian. (ed: my emphasis)

Now, one might argue that speculation about where the Bush presidency "appears headed" isn't history writing at all, and thus it is a completely extracurricular activity that has no bearing on Wilentz's reputation as a historian. But the magazine is trading on that reputation to peddle his piece of partisan punditry.

One would think that professional pride would restrain Wilentz from participating in such an exercise. But perhaps the academy is so politicized these days that such foolishness will only end up enhancing his reputation among his colleagues.

Comments

[Dave]

Even if everything you say is true, you still have not made one constructive attack of his opinions supporting the article...

Just a thought.

[Giacomo]

I haven't actually read the article. If and/or when I do, I'll critique it. On the other hand, this post isn't about the article, it's a caveat about the author. Though he's a historian, he has a significant history of partisan slant that must be considered. Even your own comment supports one of my contentions, and that's that what he's published are "his opinions," and I believe it's reasonable and appropriate to take them with a many grains of salt given the clearly partisan "opinions" he's expressed previously.