A reader did not care for the item I posted a few days ago about Anne Wexler, the former Eugene McCarthy activist turned Fortune 500 lobbyist. (My item cited a critical piece about Wexler by Michael Kinsley.) Fredrick W. Jackson wrote:
Ken Silverstein has the gall to praise Michael Kinsley’s defamation of Anne Wexler in your publication. I always considered Kinsley an out of touch “arch” liberal (emphasis on the arch), but his Op Ed piece was a new low. Those of us who have worked with Ms. Wexler over the years value her leadership and friendship– and mourn her passing. A much better analysis of her life is found in Robert Barnett’s piece in Politico (or, for that matter, in any of the many other articles about her).
What is it about folks like Kinsley (and, obviously, Silverstein) who cannot stand the success of those who have made it through the mine field of politics and business with their integrity intact? I view him as a coward for waiting until her death to launch his tirade– I gather he feels she is guilty of consorting with the enemy. This presupposes that there are “enemies” in public debate, a very Nixonion concept. He fits right in with the Karl Roves and Sarah Palins of our world, where victory goes to the loudest screamer.
Kinsley cannot do Anne’s reputation any damage– he only hurts what is left of his own reputation. Please pass along to him my contempt for his way of viewing the world, and for his attempt to besmirch one of the “good guys”.
For my part, I still believe Wexler was utterly amoral, which is far worse than being immoral.