Skip to content

Month: February 2006

Second Thoughts

by digby

When I saw that Cindy Sheehan had been arrested I was sort of disappointed that she’d decided to do any kind of stunt. My feeling was that she didn’t need to because she is a living symbol of anti-war sentiment all by herself and would have made a statement just by being there. This government is always so protective of their King and his pageants that I didn’t find it all that surprising that she would be removed for wearing a t-shirt.

This morning, while listening to president Bush spit the words freedom and democracy as applause lines, I read Glenn Greenwald’s latest piece, which reminded me that I’m beginning to lose my awareness of being a frog slowly being brought to a boil. Sheehan did not break the law, she has a perfect right to wear a t-shirt in the capital and her arrest was an outrage. These things matter beyond politics or strategy.

Sheehan was wearing a shirt that had the number of American deaths written on it. It was not vulgar or disrespectful in any way. It is as much an expression of support for the troops as the one for which Mrs Young was ejected (and for which she was not arrested, despite the fact that unlike Sheehan she resisted and called the police “idiots.”) And all this concern “for the troops” plays out as this failed president used them as both a prop for his unpopular policies and a cudgel to silence his critics:

Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison . put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country . and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress: however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our Nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American
military in its vital mission.

Nice trick. Speak with candor as long as you support me. It’s the same trick that rhetorically conflates dissent with treason, using the phrase “aid and comfort.” In this case, his speechwriters very deftly forced the entire congress to leap to its feet to applaud their own irrelevance — they ended up cheering the assertion that “second-guessing” in “hindsight” is unpatriotic and that their only option is to do as he orders. Nice democracy we’ve got here.

Rick Perlstein reminded me that it was Coretta Scott King who raised Martin’s consciousness about the war in Vietnam. She was speaking out about it for two years before he was, marching in her first peace march in 1965. Perhaps it was because she, like Cindy Sheehan, was a mother. Or maybe she was just more willing to expend moral capital on a cause that can be marginalized as unpatriotic.

From Perlstein:

In Taylor Branch’s new At Canaan’s Edge about that 1965 march: “Martin Luther King commended the draft of Coretta’s address, but canceled plans to speak himself. (She exhorted the crowd never to forget that democratic commitment made America a historic great nation: ‘This is as true in spite of the bombings in Alabama as well as in Vietnam.’).”

It is a sad irony that on the very day she died, the president cheaply invoked her great contribution at virtually the same moment his government was silencing the woman who carries her message today. Arresting Cindy Sheehan for asking how many more American troops must die on the same day that Coretta Scott King passsed away is perfectly emblematic of the bankruptcy of every soaring tribute George W. Bush makes to freedom and democracy.

.

Tristero Hearts Mahablog

by tristero

This is spot on:

There is another Left, one that is more serious about good government than it is about making posters. And that Left is serious about winning elections. It’s also serious about building progressive coalitions that can have a real impact on making and enacting policy.

The Left Blogosphere, more than anyone else, speaks for the mainstream Left. And we are the descendants of the Progressive Era and the New Deal. The GOP wants to make us out to be the same old New Left of the 1960s, and there are plenty of people (International ANSWER, Ralph Nader, etc.) who are ready to oblige and play the role of the cartoon “pinko commie left” in front of news cameras. But IMO that’s not who we are. Not most of us, anyway.

I anticipate getting comments about how we should support other lefties instead of Bush. But though its corpse is still twitching the New Left is dead. And its baggage is holding us back. Cut it loose, I say.

The point Barbara is making seems to me similar to one many of us, including most importantly Paul Krugman, an honorary Blogospherian, have been saying for years: Many of us out here in Left Blogosphere are actually moderate liberals. Angry as all hell, it is true, but moderate liberals nevertheless. We are “Left” the way anyone to the left of Louis XIV is Left. We have nothing in common with the Ward Churchills out there even if we wouldn’t quit ACLU if they defend him, just as we didn’t when they defended Oliver North).

We are not the radicals. To force women who wish to terminate their pregnancies – for whatever reason – to use coathangers – that’s radical. And unspeakably cruel. To refuse to recognize, both legally and publicly, a couple in love – that’s radical. And narrow-mindedly cruel. To base foreign policy on the president’s “gut” and an obviously untenable unilateralism – that’s radical. And stupid. To get a team of unscrupulous lawyers trained in the black arts of sophistry (ahem!) but ignorant of American history to gut the Constitution and argue that a president is just an ominipotent monarch under a different name – that’s radical. And utterly un-American.

That’s why I’m blogging. It’s not to advance a “leftwing agenda.” Unless preventing Social Security from being gutted by rightwing maniacs is considered a leftwing agenda. Unless demanding that the US president behave like the president of the United States is supposed to behave towards the victims of a devastating hurricane is a leftwing agenda. Unless insisting that the nation’s schools teach science and not cynical lies is a leftwing agenda.

These are some of my issues. If I thought marching and protesting could help them today, I would march and protest. But I think there’s something we can do that’s more effective to counter Bush and Bushism. That is to help build a genuine second-party that will stand up against these scoundrels and provide this country the intelligent, genuinely strong leadership it deserves. And that will require a different kind of left – the left of blogs like Mahablog. (And it will require a lot more than just blogs, to say the least, but we have to start somewhere!)

I think the timeframe we have to create such a party is vanishingly small. Even the NY Times editorials are sounding like an hysterical blogger from a few years ago, hinting of the dangers to America of totalitarian rule, fascism, whatever you want to call it from Bushism. In any event, the US democracy may, just may, right itself when Bush’s presidency is over. But if the next president is anything like this one… God help us.

Another president like Bush and even the most cautious amongst us will be forced to conclude that the project of American democracy – or at least the version of it I learned about and, yes, admire – is over. That would not be a Good Thing. Barbara’s clear insight gives me some hope that good, substantive ideas about what to do – and good people to do them – are percolating up to a place where they can have some genuine impact.

[Update: This post has elicited some angry comments. To respond briefly, I’m genuinely puzzled. I fail to see how one could understand what I wrote as casting aspersions or caricaturing folks on the left who fought the Klan, or got their heads bashed in protesting the Vietnam War. How could I? I, too, marched, but to mention that sounds ridiculously patronizing. And to say “the left did great things” is to say something so obvious, it’s even more insulting. Of course, that’s true. And for me to fulsomely praise those who personally confronted the Klan? Praise doesn’t go far enough, certainly not my praise. In a just world, those encomiums would come from 1600 Pennsylvania.

But the problem in the US today ain’t about left vs. right, at least not as I see it. It’s about the extreme right versus everyone else: left, right and center.

I’m amazed that this is so difficult to express without infuriating people who are some of the very last people to whom I would address any disparaging comments. Did I really imply that the Democratic Party should move even more to the right? I don’t think so, I think that’s a terrible idea, in any event. How could one find that in what I wrote? I thought I implied that the politcal discourse in the US is so far right already that even moderate liberals like Krugman are considered too far left to be taken seriously.

In any event, the strong negative reaction in comments was truly unexpected and therefore fascinating. If its purpose was to spur second thoughts about what how I perceive the present mess in the US, considered me so spurred. I doubt I will change my mind much, but I’ll try to understand your points a little better. That may sound like mushy liberal hogwash, but I can’t see what good purpose either ignoring or disparaging what you wrote could possibly serve.]

Dean’s World (The Blog) Hearts Andres Serrano

Thanks to the always useful bag ‘o links at the Daou Report (and his own blogging is great), I came across this most amusing post:

Remember “Piss Christ,” the piece of “art” consisting of the image of a crucified Jesus Christ submerged in the author’s urine (with a government grant, no less; your tax dollars hard at work!), and how upset Christians got about that?

Well, compare and contrast.

[Link to the recent uproar over the caricatures of Muhammad on display in Denmark.]

You know, the art community is always congratulating itself for being “daring” by mocking Christ, but this is territory that’s apparently a bit too scary for them, as art mocking Muslims is exceedingly rare.

First of all, as a card-carrying (well, we don’t have cards, but you know what I mean) member of the downtown New York avant-garde scene, I do indeed remember Serrano’s Piss Christ with a tremendous amount of affection – that’s right, affection. Who wouldn’t look back fondly to an issue and a time when one of the Great Questions Of Our Age was whether it was right for the NEA to fund an artist who peed on a crucifix and took a picture of it? (Not that the NEA actually funded Piss Christ, they didn’t. See below.) Can you believe that once – before Monica, before impeachment, before Bush and the attendant horrors – anyone had the mental space to give a damn? Those were the days…

Back then, Serrano was one of those mediocre artists who was more tolerated than respected. He was an indifferent craftsman, as someone once noted in print, that is, his photographic technique was pretty amateurish, given his own aspirations. And his subject matter was pretty lame – a big pic of a nude woman in bondage, wow, how original! – but which gained a certain offensive je ne se quois when a SoHo gallery chose to display it in their window and created a ruckus (Tris, you spoke French, Cara mia!).

In short, no one cared too much what he did. Until, that is, he, Karen Finley (whose career at the time was not doing terribly well), Robert Mapplethorpe (conveniently dead) and some other naughty, naughty artists were made into a cause celebre by the Jesse Helmses on the right (I still remember Helms describing a Mapplethorpe print: “A black man is making love to a white man on a green marble tabletop.” Well, yes. And the problem? Would you rather the marble pink?). Prices for their work skyrocketed and the rest of us, while rallying immediately – and rightly – to their defense, couldn’t suppress quite a bit of private grumbling into our beers when late at night down at Puffy’s: hey, man, why does fuckin’ Andres deserve all that publicity?

In other words, “Piss Christ” is a construction of the rightwing, who elevated one unimportant artist’s photograph from just one more passmeby at an obscure gallery into an Important Statement. Talk about strawmen!

A couple more things. Dave Price says art mocking Muslims is exceedingly rare. Well, I immediately thought, of course, of Satanic Verses (ironically, a co-blogger with Dave, Mary Madigan, has an entire post about the book), but one can also find numerous examples throughout European art. There’s Mozart/Schikaneder’s Moor in the The Magic Flute, for one. In C.S. Lewis’s Narnia, there are the Calormenes: “oily cartoon Muslims who wear turbans and pointy-toed slippers and talk funny.” I don’t have more examples, especially of modern art, simply because the subject matter – mocking Muslims – interests me even less than Piss Christ did. But trust me, Dave, you wanna find art mocking Muslims, you’ll find lots of it in Western Art.

Which brings us to Dave’s contention that modern artists are somehow only faux-daring because they mock Christ but ignore Muslims. I’m tempted to quip, “Not in Denmark newspapers they ain’t!” but let’s assume for the moment Dave is correct when it comes to modern American artists. The reason artists who wish to consider themselves “daring” may not bother too much with dissing Muslims is: the rightwing beat ’em to it! Remember the religious leader – invited to the White House, no less – who characterized Muhammed as a pedophile and Islam as a “gutter religion?” No, if you wanna be thought “daring” – always a good marketing idea in art since Beethoven – you go after (pardon the slightly homogenized metaphor) the sacred cows of your own culture, not others. And one of the biggest is Christianity and its iconography. Duh.

But in terms of art and the artworld, is an artwork like Piss Christ that daring? Not to anyone who knows the first thing about art. Bad art, yes. Poorly executed, yes. Interesting, well… maybe to some. But daring? Hardly. But I’ll go even further. Like most normal people in the West who aren’t trying to impress others with their self-righteousness, I”m indifferent to religious blasphemy. I’m just not gonna get, eh, pissed about it and start issuing fatwas; even if I found it patently offensive. It doesn’t matter like it did to the Ayatollah and Jesse Helms (did I just equate them? Bad Tristero, bad Tristero! ). Dave may find Piss Christ ugly, offensive, even blasphemous, but so what? Get over it, dude. If anyone’s religious faith is shaken by a photo of a cross floating in pee, then that faith is shaky to begin with, my friend. But if you wanna blame someone, blame Jesse Helms for rubbing your face in Piss Christ, without whose yeoman pr efforts, no one would have seen it.

Indeed, it comes down to this. The only people who consider Serrano a “daring” artist are the suckers on the right who make the mistake of taking him seriously – and the artist’s buddies and gallery, natch. A few years ago, the Village Voice published some of Serrano’s then latest work – nude photos of people with fairly unusual leisure time activities and concerns – and Richard Goldstein enthused about how astonishingly transgressive they were.* Oh? Apparently, Richard forgot Frank Zappa’s immortal “Mud Shark” from 1971, or Berg’s Lulu from the 1930’s, an opera about a venereal-diseased hooker who seduces and destroys everyone she meets until she’s finally murdered, to the tune of a blood-curdling scream, by Jack the Ripper and whose epilogue consists of a heart-breakingly beautiful love aria sung by Lulu’s lesbian lover as dies, infected with Lulu’s syphyllis. dies. It’s performed every few years or so at the Met (not often enough, imo). That, dear Richard, is fucking transgressive. That, my dear Dave, is daring.

Oh, and one more thing. It looks like Dave’s seeing his basic facts through a yelllowish-amber haze of stale urine. Turns out that Piss Christ was not funded with a government grant. Here’s the skinny for those who care:

For many years, the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, has hosted “Awards in the Visual Arts,” a national competition for individual artists. In 1988, Andres Serrano was one of seven winners. His prize was $15,000 plus a place in the group show exhibiting the work of the winners. The fund that provided the money for the cash prizes came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, private donors, corporate donors and the NEA.

Serrano’s submission to SECCA was a series of untitled photographs involving bodily juices, some of a crucifix submerged in various fluids, including milk and, for the controversial “Piss Christ,” “Serrano’s own urine. Serrano was not a NEA Fellow, nor did the NEA commission his work, including “Piss Christ,” in any way. The NEA was merely one of the “Awards in the Visual Arts” sponsors. Even this loose association, though, was enough to give the theocratic right a point of vicious attack on the endowment and its granting practices.

So in conclusion, thanks Dave, for reminding me of Piss Christ, not the artwork – that still fails to do much for me one or the other – but the huge flap-de-doodle. Face it Dave, don’t you, too, wish we could go back to a time when the country could afford to obsess over something so monumentally stoopid? Ah, those were the days, indeed.

*I love Richard Goldstein. What’s not to love about a fellow so oblivious that he panned Sgt Pepper’s in The New York Times when it first came out? The art world would be a lot more dreary without people like him.

And What Do Addicts Do When They Don’t Get Their Fix?

by tristero

Steal, lie, rob their grandparents (or grandchildren). They become irrationally violent. Uncontrollable.

In short, Bush just put the world on notice. For the next 20 years or so, America’s official policy is “Anything for Oil.”

Doing His Part

by digby

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another – and I will do my part.

Uh huh.

September 26, 2002

The [Democratic controlled] Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.”

Of course, that was a long time ago. He’s changed since then. He’s working hard to do his part now.

Ooops.

“I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy not comfort to our adversaries,” Bush said.

Oh. And “second guessing” is not a strategy.

.