William Safire, an appreciation

I admired William Safire. When he died last week it saddened me. I, of course, did not know him personally or even as anything about him other than his writing and basic biography but I appreciated him nonetheless and was saddened by his passing.

There have been countless obituaries, and I won't repeat most of his credentials; they are easy enough to look up. But I will talk about one. He was a speech writer for Richard Nixon, and when Nixon's vice president Spiro Agnew was under investigation for tax fraud, he went on the offensive calling those who were attacking the Vice President "Nattering nabobs of negativism." Agnew ultimately resigned proving his critics correct, but regardless, Safire's illustrative articulation of alliteration became an icon and even though he was acting as an advocate, Safire's critics could not avoid appreciation at his facile use of English language.

After Nixon resigned, Safire became a columnist at the New York Times. Not a cozy spot for a conservative commentator, yet Safire was able to earn admiration from New York Times loyalists even though he regularly did not spout the company line. Perhaps the greatest benediction regarding Safire's commentary was articulated by Kenneth Davis a New York Times reader from Scotch Plains in his September letter to the editor published in the Times: "William Safire will be sorely missed." Davis wrote, "Although I often disagreed with his politics, I always enjoyed reading his column...While reading his work, I felt the intellectual pleasure of having my views challenged by a worthy opponent."

Safire was a political minority inside an ethnic minority...a Jewish Conservative. But he never towed the party line and he always gave his readers something to think about. As someone who has a bit of a contrarian streak myself, I admired Safire as a thoughtful iconoclast. Politically, I agreed with him more than I differed with hin. Religiously, it was the reverse.

I did have one personal encounter with Safire. He was the featured commencement speaker at my graduation from Syracuse University in 1990. In a long line of boring speeches his stood out. He spoke about the virtues of editing and till today I remember the topic: the ten, scratch that, nine rules of Speaking. Always speak as briefly as possible was the main subject. When fewer words will do, don't add extra. Classic Safire. If I received no other words of wisdom that day, that was enough. I took Safire's advice to heart. And to this day I try to get my point across in the most precise manner possible.

Many have noted the demise of benevolent debate for the sake of thoughtful argument, without personal rancor. His manner would not fit with today's preferential manner of political argumentation espousing I win if you lose. Saifire was not a proponent of zero sum gain. He was more likely to view success if he could persuade you rather than beat you in submission. It is a lesson that perhaps we should all take to heart. While the true believer may not be turned on by his low key reasoned manner of political persuasion. Safire's articulation of argument is still more like to persuade the great muddle that is the middle of American political thought. We are all more likely to win as a society not when a small majority believes they have beat the minority into submission, but when a plurality believes that the resultant outcome allows all sides to be heard and comes to a consensus taking as many accounts, as reasonable, into consideration.