Gore Vidal: Lunacy Can Wither Him

War to Mobilize Democracy ^ | September 21, 2005 | Andrew L. Jaffee

[forty_years]

A headline on the UK’s Guardian today reads, “Age cannot wither him,” referring to Gore Vidal. The author, Emma Brockes, pays homage at the feet of Vidal, praising him as an “aristocrat, intellectual and prolific novelist, playwright, and essayist,” flattering “his ongoing radicalism,” and gleefully exclaiming that he “is as outspoken as ever.” But Vidal’s left-wing hubris and insanity does not completely escape the awe-struck Brockes… sort of.

Brockes interviewed Vidal at his “grand old palazzo” in Italy. She notes that Vidal just sold this palace for “£9.5m” ($17,173,147.00) so that he could move to another house he owns in Hollywood. This conspicuous wealth sounds like aristocracy. Oh, yes, the Guardian calls Vidal an “aristocrat” in the same article that describes his “radicalism.” Is Vidal redistributing his wealth to the poor? Sorry to sound cliché, but, “What would Jesus do?”

Brockes takes note:

It has always been hard to work out how much of Vidal's aloofness is genuine. He plays up to his image as the foremost American aristocrat, slow in speech, noble in gesture, with a confidence in his own opinion that derives as much from background - his grandfather was a senator, his father a founder of the airline TWA and he had a stepfather in common with Jackie Kennedy - as from expertise.

One has to wonder why Vidal is moving back to America – no less to the gleaming mansions of Hollywood:

With some pride, Vidal refers to himself as the neo-conservatives' "public enemy number one". His radicalism stretches across many issues, all of which come back to his basic proposition that there is no such thing as democracy in America. Neither, he says, is there freedom of the press nor political accountability and the last American election was rigged.

He offers a pathetic attempt at proving that, “the last American election was rigged:”

"Congressman John Conyers," he says, "Democrat for Michigan, went out to Ohio with a team of researchers examining the theft of votes on a huge scale. So Conyers made a report and published it. I wrote the preface. And I followed its lack of attention. Not one review of the congressman's book has been mentioned anywhere in the papers, or on television, not one. We are tightly censored and controlled and have been for decades."

Vidal must have been at his “grand old palazzo” during last year’s presidential elections, surveying the vote “rigging” from on aristocratic high. I was in Ohio. The Democrats made all sorts of noises, and had sent forth an army of lawyers into the state to investigate this “rigging.” The Dems quietly retreated from the Buckeye State precisely because they could find no evidence of any type of irregularities. On the other hand, the Defiance County, Ohio sheriff arrested a man on October 19, 2004 for filing 124 falsified voter registration forms "…in exchange for crack cocaine from a Toledo woman working on behalf of the NAACP’s voter registration drive." This was not widely reported, but documented nonetheless.

Dan Rather, the New York Times, the LA Times, etc., etc., would have certainly let us know if anything done by Republicans was found. Oh, but Vidal has an answer for everything:

Brockes helps Vidal first:

He may well be right about the malevolence of corporate America.

Then she leads us to “understand,” while taking pause at Vidal’s madness:

But like most conspiracy theorists, Vidal's beliefs are so grand - for example, that the New York Times, General Electric and the nuclear industry are in cahoots to hoodwink the American people - that they rely on a rather optimistic view of human competence. When Clinton faced impeachment, Vidal said that Monica Lewinsky was a plant introduced to the White House by the tobacco industry to bring the president down.

With such “answers,” Vidal can back himself into any type of theoretical corner – and still claim that he is “right.”

What is so frightening about Vidal is that droves of left-wingers believe his drivel. Conspiracy theories are fun to believe precisely because they are almost impossible to prove or disprove; just like watching the X-Files. It is a fantasy world that suits a particular personality type.

Unfortunately, this personality type is one of limited mentality. Not to say that there are no smart left-wingers, like Christopher Hitchens, but he is the exception rather than the rule. The Left has devolved into a cesspool of conspiracy theories.

How can one lose an argument if that argument cannot be proved or disproved? How safe it is to know something for sure without having to think about it. “It is true because Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky said so.” Never mind that the two old codgers are lunatics. It suits the left-wing belief system so the acolytes believe it. It fits the simple-minded mentality to have one person, place, or thing to focus all mental energies upon – President Bush, in this case. Need Vidal's views on Bush be repeated here ("It's a corrupt administration -- as they have proven to the whole world.")?

Instead of being unified against Islamism, almost half the country is concentrated on hating President Bush, and has its collective head in the sand either rationalizing terrorism or pretending it does not exist.

The obsessive hatred of Bush is a pathological avoidance mechanism. Since the "opposition" to the war against Islamism is terrified of terrorists, it channels its fear into hatred for the president.

The Left somehow sees the war against Islamo-fascism as an extension of the civil rights movement; as some type of black (e.g., Muslims) against white (e.g., the West) conflict; the usual “rich vs. poor” story.

Since "liberals" like Vidal feel guilty about living their comfortable lives, cannot stand to bear the sight of the poor or oppressed, they lash out in all sorts of strange ways at the society in which they live so comfortably.

The "opposition" knows deep down that Islamism is a threat to the very fabric of civilization. But its fear of doing the right thing causes intense emotional conflict. In other words, the appeasers know they should act, but are afraid to, so they suppress the desire to act. The repressed feelings must be expressed though, so they are flung in Bush's direction. This avoidance will lead to the destruction of civilization, if its proponents prevail.

The only saving grace to all this simplemindedness is the fact that a majority of American voters are not so simpleminded. They elected a Republican congress and president. Hopefully, they will do so one or two more times.

http://netwmd.com/articles/article1183.html

[Zionist Conspirator]

Because the effete white elitists see "black fundamentalists" as charming tribal primitives performing folk art.

It's always amazed me how left-wing audiences will readily accept Christian music, e.g., if it is perceived as "folk music". Gospel, for example, gets enthusiastic applause from the Prairie Home Companion audience, while they would throw tomatoes at a preacher saying the same words.

You're right, of course.

[Blind Eye Jones]

"Vidal's briefs are so grand"

Like aristocratic Calvin Klein underwear I suppose?

[Blind Eye Jones]

"Interestingly, while "gay"-dom and the litterati are traditionally leftwing, there is the example of Tennessee Williams (who was both) but who, so far as I know, was not terribly political, at least publicly. How does one explain that?"


I think that politics wasn't that interesting to Williams who had a greater love for individuals and their tragic situations. I don't even think his "gayness" shows through his writing or in anything converted from the stage to film. He seemed to be the apolitical poet with longings that didn't fit into an established order but which never led him to the conclusion that the solution is something political in nature. In fact, he transcends the modern or postmodern politically charged hetero vs homo categories and looks at universal character types and their dilemmas within life. If anything, human solutions would border more on religious sympathies than anything political. The true poet is always on the outside of social norms and you just can't legislate something that makes him "normal."

[SpringheelJack]

Interestingly, while "gay"-dom and the litterati are traditionally leftwing, there is the example of Tennessee Williams (who was both) but who, so far as I know, was not terribly political, at least publicly. How does one explain that?

You don't need to be straight to just not care.

[Cincinna]

A brilliant, but decadent and morally corrupt old queen.
Makes his cousin, AL GORE seem almost rational by comparison.
The hate-America Left will welcome back and embrace one of their own.

[Billthedrill]

I thought Lincoln was a interesting portrait.

I thought it was brilliant. What a very strange fellow Vidal is - capable of that sort of insight toward Lincoln, a man who risked national and international opprobrium to save his country, and incapable of applying the lesson to the present day. I believe Vidal when he says that he is in favor of freedom for the masses, but I do not forgive him for acting against it.

[IronJack]

You're making me blush ...