[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens on Moore's flick

  • From: Stephen Straker <straker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:42:55 -0700

Scribe1865@xxxxxxx says: 
> straker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> "IF you insist that such-and-so is the case, THEN why are you so ineptly
>> doing x, y, and z which are so utterly contrary to your stated purposes
>> and, indeed, destructive of real American interests?  If you were
>> serious about dealing with such-and-so, you'd be actively doing a, b,
>> and c."
>
> I don't see this at all. Hitchens is simply requiring that people say what
> they mean without hiding behind spurious reasoning. This is advice all of us,
> including Hitchens, could use.

I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here. "This" (above) is *not*
meant to characterize Hitchens argument; it's meant to characterize
Moore's.

Let me try again, one more time.

*GIVEN* an argument (a typical "lefty" critique of the sort that
Hitchens takes on) having this form -- 

"IF they insist that such-and-so is the case, THEN why are they so
ineptly doing x, y, and z which are so utterly contrary to their stated
purposes and, indeed, destructive of real American interests?  If they
were serious about dealing with such-and-so, they'd be actively doing a,
b, and c" -- 

Hitchens launches into a diatribe about how hypocritical and cowardly it
is to advocate "such-and-so" and the program of "a, b, and c". 

The proper *reply* to Hitchens would be: "*I* don't hold such-and-so;
YOU DO! If I believed such-and-so it would contradict everything I've
said; but I don't. I am simply showing YOU the incoherence between their
stated belief that such-and-so and their actual conduct: a, b, and c is
what you do if you really believe such-and-so. There must be something
else going on."

So when Moore says, in so many words, "I'm not the one making a fuss
about waging a war on terror. They are. But if they mean it, how come
they arranged the hasty departure of all the bin Ladens in the days
after 9/11, many without interrogation, especially since most of the
hijackers were Saudis? They should have apprehended all of them." 

Hitchens comes back with, "In 2002 Mchael Moore couldn't care less about
apprehending bin Laden. Now in 2004 he's apoplectic that the bin Ladens
were not apprehended immediately after the 9/11 attack. What happened to
change his mind."  

Do you see how annoyingly this evades the point?

> The important point is that the motive to criticize precedes the criticism,
> and therefore adapts itself to changing circumstance.

If you are looking at things in terms of a framework that characterizes
Bush (or Clinton) in a particular way, you will no doubt be able to see
*evidence* for that view in places others might not easily notice. 

All things considered, I think Moore's antipathy to Bush is more
reality-based than the right-wing animosity towards Clinton was. I think
also the "people" agree. Clinton went steadily up in the polls (up into
the 60s I think) while the sex-crazed Republicans sought impeachment and
now it seems that Bush is sliding down (40s and below?). 

(This reminds me of one of the very best pieces of polemic written in
the last decade -- Gore Vidal on Ken Starr -- which is no longer
available  on-line so I am going to send it as a separate postin just a
minute. 

Stephen Straker 

<straker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>   
Vancouver, B.C.



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: