June 29, 2004

Perhaps a Mirror Might Help

Andrew Sullivan rightly rips William Raspberry for demonizing President George W. Bush in Raspberry's positive review of Fahrenheit 9/11, concluding:

Now let's summarize Moore's "conclusion": that the Bush family was, by its close financial ties with the bin Laden family, passively complicit in 9/11; that the administration did too little to apprehend the perpetrators of that massacre; that it invaded Afghanistan primarily to get an oil pipeline built; that it shifted the nation's resources to Iraq solely in order to appease oil interests and to enrich its own members; and that it lied about all of this. If William Raspberry really believes all this, then he should tell us why and how. But if he doesn't, he should have the basic integrity to say that Moore's movie is not just "sly" but a fantastical piece of malevolent propaganda whose only connective thread is a pathological demonization of the President of the United States. Raspberry cannot have it both ways. And the fact that he tries to get away with it says a lot about how corrupted the left has become in our national discourse.

Of course, Andrew has himself been just as guilty of demonizing said president himself lately:

Isn't it telling that the Bush administration wants McCain, Arnold and Giuliani as prime-timers for the convention? They're the three Republicans least in sync with the Bush administration. McCain is as close to a dissident as you can find. And Arnold keeps Bush at arm's length. A more representative selection would be: Santorum, DeLay, Ashcroft. And then you see why the Bushies won't let them hog the limelight. Too much honesty could wreck the campaign.

Gee Andrew, it must be frustrating every time President George W. Bush doesn't kowtow to your proffered caricature of intolerance. Of course, President Bush hopes some of their popularity will rub off on him, but McCain, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani could have said no. Could it be that these fine men actually support President Bush and want to see him reelected, even if President Bush is in favor of the FMA? Isn't it possible that President Bush and the Republican Party actually support a big tent and diversity of opinion? If you want a convention and a party where dissenting voices aren't allowed, may I suggest the Democratic Convention where the crushing and silencing of dissenting voices has become infamous. I also have no doubt that you will be able to find many more single issue gay marriage voters there.

Oh, and John Kerry opposes gay marriage as well, or at least he did last time I checked. Perhaps he has a more nuanced view of which I remain unaware.

Posted by Charles Austin at June 29, 2004 09:33 AM

I expect Kerry's more "nuanced" view runs along the lines of, "I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, but I don't think it's appropriate to impose my private religious beliefs on others."

Posted by: Jon at 11:41 AM

Hey, I had similar thoughts when Sully (whom I love to read, the other 3% of the time when he's not advocacy blogging) actually tried to compare Mel Gibson & Michael Moore.

He asked what about the "intelligent viewers"?

My immediate thought was "having dinner with folks against gay marriage who are NOT bigots"?

Posted by: Ricky at 04:00 PM

I was startled by his conclusion that Gibson's movie was for the far-Right, while Moore's was for the far-Left.

I have a number of friends of varying religious (and political) stripes who went to see The Passion. Most were affected by the violence, some thought it gratuitous. But most also thought it was quite a movie, most thought it was worth seeing (I haven't seen it myself, yet).

But few went because they were far-Right or Opus Dei type Catholics or whatever Andrew thinks is the typical viewer. A number went primarily because they were curious about the movie (given the controversy). They stayed because they thought it was decently done (and none converted or became more zealous).

I think he's mistaken the kinds of folks who might go see "The Passion," and those who WILL go see F9-11.

Posted by: Dean at 05:29 PM

I'm guessing that if Gibson had come out for gay marriage & embraced Sullivan's version of catholicism, the review would've been quite different (yep, I'm charging premeditated discrimination).

Posted by: Ricky at 06:51 PM

OTOH, if Gibson had come out for gay marriage and embraced Sullivan's version of Catholicism, I seriously doubt he would have made the movie he just did.

Posted by: Jon at 11:57 AM