Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Armstrong Williams, the syndicated columnist who was busted in January for receiving $240,000 from the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind in his columns, is making a comeback as a talk-radio host in New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/arts/television/03arm.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

Guess his punishment didn’t last long. Last January, I wrote about Williams’ plight:

Armstrong Williams: Greed Goes Before a Fall

A Commentary by Devone Tucker

Unlike some African-Americans who are rejoicing in his downfall, I take no joy in

the plight of Armstrong  Williams, the conservative writer whose syndicated

column was cancelled by Tribune Media Services after USA Today revealed that

he received $240,000 from the U.S. Department of Education to staunchly

support the federal No Child Left Behind Act in his column and on his radio

show. However, my sympathy for him, while tremendous, is not without its

limits: he has lost the blood of credibility as a result of a self-inflicted wound.

Williams was one of my heroes growing up in Boston in the early-1990s. As a black teenager dispirited by the constant negative messages aimed towards blacks in the press and the popular culture–“You can’t make it,” “Whitey’s out to get you,” “Don’t even bother studying ‘cause the Man is gonna oppress you anyway”–I enjoyed reading the wise, inspirational articles by Williams and fellow black conservatives Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, and Ken Hamblin on the Boston Herald’s op-ed page. These four men articulated a message of hope, optimism, morality and courage–a message you couldn’t find in the nihilism of hip-hop and the pessimistic liberalism of the Globe’s op-ed writers.

                Williams may not have been as scholarly as Sowell, or as witty as Hamblin, but he always impressed me with his unshakable belief in the greatness of America. He forcefully repudiated black liberals who asserted that slavery was an insurmountable psychological barrier that prevented blacks from ever feeling truly comfortable in America. In column after column, Williams asserted that blacks should embrace patriotism, not shun it; that they should embrace current opportunities instead of bemoaning the days when opportunities were systematically denied to them; and that they should rely on themselves, not on government largesse, to get ahead in contemporary American society.

                Sadly, Williams has crushed his credibility when it comes to that last issue, agreeing to take part in a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer’s wallets to his savings account–all to promote No Child Left Behind in what now appears to be an ill-conceived effort to attract more black votes to the Republicans in the 2004 campaign.  To his credit, Williams has acknowledged his ethical transgressions, and in an appearance on the January 7 O’Reilly Factor, he appeared to be genuinely penitent. However, a bank robber who has an attack of conscience after demanding a sack with no dye pack from the teller is still a bank robber.

                If, in 1994, it was revealed that Bill Clinton paid Eleanor Clift to shill for HillaryCare on the McLaughlin Group and in Newsweek, conservatives would be calling for his head (no, not in that sense!), and rightfully so. I don’t see what the difference is between that hypothetical example and this all-too-real event.

                Newsmax.com has suggested that Williams is being targeted by the mainstream media because he is a black Republican. While this is true, the vendetta of the prosecutor does not excuse the guilt of the accused. If Williams knows he’s a target because of his conservative views, why walk right in front of the crosshairs?

                Is it stupidity? Of course not—no one who has seen this man on CNN, read him in the paper, or listened to him on the radio can deny his intelligence. No, Williams took the money because of good old-fashioned greed. A quarter of a million dollars would be too much for almost anyone to resist.

                Unfortunately, the revelation of his remuneration has damaged not only his own reputation, but also that of other nonwhite Bush supporters. His actions play right into the liberal stereotype of conservative blacks and Hispanics as greed-intoxicated “sellouts” itching to advance a right-wing agenda in exchange for a check that clears on time. Now, how many people will read Thomas Sowell or listen to Linda Chavez without wondering if their pro-Bush opinions have been surreptitiously underwritten by the Administration?

                Williams’s career, at least for the moment, is in a Jayson Blair-style shambles, as such outfits as David Brock’s Media Matters for America and the National Association of Black Journalists have called on the mainstream press to essentially blacklist Williams from cable shows and op-ed pages, arguing that his credibility has been irrevocably compromised, and that one can no longer read or listen to him without being concerned about whether his views come with a price tag. To be sure, MMFA and the NABJ are motivated more by partisan vindictiveness than by a genuine concern for journalistic ethics, but even Williams’ strongest supporters must acknowledge that he gave these groups the cudgel with which to beat him.

                As someone who looked up to Armstrong Williams years ago, I feel sad that his career has been severely hurt by this ethical embarrassment. However, the fact remains that when he was offered the cash to advocate No Child Left Behind, he should have been an adult and left the money behind. Williams is a bright, brave, black man who has spent the last decade criticizing unethical Democrats. He should not have acted like one.