Shades of Gray
I’m quite disinclined to insert myself into the middle of the Douthat-Larison discussion (see here, here, here, here, here, and also – whew! – here) of Hollywood’s depiction of U.S. foreign policy, but I do want to make one small point that deserves some emphasis: namely, that narrating the push for war in a way characterized by the right sorts* of sympathy for the motives and actions of those behind it has the capacity to serve a powerfully anti-war function, too, by reminding us that not all unjust wars are the product of greedy business executives and lies and backroom dealings among warmongering neocons in the DoD. This is not to say that the drive to war in Iraq wasn’t characterized by well more than its share of that sort of thing, but we do well to remember that even the best of intentions – which I can say with great confidence were had by a significant body of war supporters – don’t make an action right, and so that we can’t immediately discern the unjust wars from the just ones simply by scrutinizing the honesty or inner purity of those who would lead us into it. It’s for this reason, I think, that the “Bush lied, people died” account of the Iraq war can be so unhelpful: not because it’s false, and not just because it’s polarizing or lacking in tragedy or ambiguity, but because it gives the impression that the lying – which is not that uncommon, mind you – was the primary place where things went wrong, whereas in reality the war in question would have been unjust and disastrously executed even if everyone had been perfectly forthright about why we were getting into it.
- Addendum: I should emphasize that “right sorts” is doing quite a lot of work here, since in a world where good intentions are commonly thought to excuse the wrong sorts of sympathy for certain of its subjects will quickly make one’s film into an anti-war one. It may just be that the lack of historical distance makes it impossible, or at least nearly so, to strike the appropriate balance; thus Christopher Browning’s account of the German draftees who carried out the “Final Solution” in Poland helps us see that these were men just like us without giving us any inclination to think that Nazism might not have been so bad after all, whereas any filmmaker’s attempt to sympathize with Bush & Co. will immediately be seized on by certain factions as a film that shows how the war was really all right. If this is all that Daniel is saying, then perhaps we don’t actually disagree.
First, neither this, nor Douthat’s response, accounts for the aspect of Douthat’s column that elevated it to the position of being perhaps Ross’s worst writing ever: Douthat attacked anti-war advocates for a lack of nuance and complexity, with no hint of self-awareness or irony. The same anti-war advocates, such as myself, who from day one were regarded as unpatriotic, were told that the world was divided between evildoers and defenders of freedom, informed that we were either with the US or against it, and told that there was an “Axis of Evil” that operated in the world and that everyone in power within it was nefarious and not to be bargained with. For those of us who opposed the war from the get-go, the accusation that we lack a nuanced or balanced vision of history is a bridge to far. It is Douthat and people like him who fell for the Manicheanism, supported it, and enforce it against dissenters for years. For him to turn around and put it on us is shameful.
Secondly, Douthat is ignoring the fact that Hollywood produces tons of pro-American propaganda that is utterly bleached of the nuance and complexity that he’s calling for, and yet on them, he remains silent.
It was always true and it remains true, finally, that claiming that you know something with certainty when you know it with considerably less than certainty is lying. The administration misrepresented the case and their evidence. We know, for a fact, that information Colin Powell presented at the United Nations had already been debunked to the administration, and yet they proceeded to present it anyway. That is not a mistake; it is not an error; it is not a lapse. It is a lie. And that’s to say nothing of the vast amounts of evidence that was being questioned by the United States’s own intelligence apparatus. The CIA was telling the administration, point blank, not to trust the information they were giving.
This new breed of war apologists, of which Douthat is apparently a member, is going all in on “they were being honest, so you can’t really blame them too much.” But we know of example after example where the administration represented something as true when it simply wasn’t true. And all of the angst on behalf of the people who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people— and against the people who were correct on the war from the start, but are the wrong sorts of people— is nothing but partisanship, moral midgetry, and ass checking. It’s shameful, and thank God someone like Daniel Larison exists to take his scalpel to it.
— Freddie · Mar 18, 01:11 AM · #
I feel a lot of sympathy for certain kinds of war supporters. In the run up to the war, I waffled a lot, tending to be anti-war, but without great confidence in that opinion. I’d have days where I thought we should go to war. By the end, I participated in the march on washington, but never felt as if the case was open and shut. Since I could have ended up supporting the war, I have a lot of sympathy for voters or even some pundits who supported the war.
In hindsight, what’s obvious is how important framing is. When the decision is put to you with a large set of advocates, some on the right, some on the left, it’s hard to say “there’s nothing here.” There mere fact that the topic is being discussed tends to give it perceived legitimacy. But that’s not the same as looking at the situation without that framing, and saying “Iraq is the problem.” Without that framing, the choice of Iraq looks like a case of having a hammer and looking for a nail. The choice of Iraq was senseless.
— Justin · Mar 18, 01:27 AM · #
Yes, but it’s also the case that even if they were being honest, that wouldn’t mean that we couldn’t blame them for their mistakes, and it certainly wouldn’t make their actions right. This, too, is a moral confusion that deserves to be exposed.
— John Schwenkler · Mar 18, 01:36 AM · #
Freddie,
Here’s the question: is it ok to promulgate bogus conspiracy theories about the conduct and run-up to the Iraq war? I would hope the answer to this question would be independent of:
a) the justness of the Iraq war
b) how poorly opponents of the Iraq war were treated
Would you not agree?
— Ben A · Mar 18, 02:05 AM · #
But bogus conspiracy theories aren’t what Ross was complaining about, Ben A; his issue was with a perceived lack of moral complexity in the overarching narrative in which those tales of conspiracy were placed. I think that this is a fair objection in its own right, but it’s importantly different from yours.
— John Schwenkler · Mar 18, 02:13 AM · #
Freddie: “With no hint of self-awareness or irony.” Don’t be so sure- for all we know Ross took fiendish delight in reminding his NY Times audience that they might not always be as nuanced or complex as they congratulate themselves for being. It is possible that he figured that the lack of nuance and other errors of war supporters have been sufficiently rehashed, including by himself, and did not feel the need to include a “to be sure” or “on the other hand” paragraph.
“All that angst on behalf of people…” I think Ross’s point is that a movie is better if it is creating more realistic portrails of people and situations than if it is just satisfying vindictiveness, however much the targets may be deserving of vindictiveness. In fact, to see the movie criticism as a war apologia is to regard art and art criticism as a simple extension of politics, and to miss the point of the article entirely.
— Aaron · Mar 18, 03:30 AM · #
I’m guessing Schwenkler is “disinclined” to insert himself into the aforementioned discussion because Douthat’s argument, the one with which Schwenkler sympathizes, is thoroughly— okay, excessively— dismantled by Larison’s.
On one hand, I agree that “Bush lied” is simplistic. Yet the itch to tell lies is not necessarily a hiccup in an otherwise cagey machine. In the case of the Bush administration the lies were an early symptom of tragic liabilities.
Specifically, I’m rankled whenever the Iraq invasion is ultimately sourced back— as it is by Douthat— to a situation that was allowed to “fester” by previous administrations. It’s unfortunate, but it seems that righteous— I know, shit, what does that mean anyway?— entry into a conflict often has to wait through embarrassing spits and slaps for the truly egregious blow. Yet Douthat is suggesting that Bush I or Clinton might have saved Bush II some criticism by rolling in the tanks/unmanned drones themselves in response to sporadic guerilla attacks.
Douthat implies that what was stuck in the Bush/Cheney craw was really stuck in everyone’s craw, the nation’s craw— namely, a need to strike Iraq. But I don’t remember it that way. I remember a collective will to crush al qaeda, but not a broad public shriek for just any Middle Eastern despot’s head. That hunger had to be whipped up. Iraq’s alleged role was willfully spun by Bush’s team.
So, while Douthat is perhaps humbled by his vulnerability to the Bush team’s political pitch, he’s also protective of it. Any fictional narrative that questions it is ultimately just an opposing pitch. This is strange to me, because I would guess that as a religious conservative, he is typically one who believes equivocations about moral purpose— traits of dissolute movie directors and alcoholic writers— are a dodge. Yet, in the case of the Iraq war, his faith is shaken. He resists a narrative that attempts to frame right versus wrong.
— turnbuckle · Mar 18, 04:15 AM · #
I thought Oliver Stone’s “W” was reasonably fair and mildly sympathetic to Bush.
— Steve Sailer · Mar 18, 06:05 AM · #
I never professed sympathy with Ross’s argument (though I imagine he’s right about the shortcomings of the films in question), but only observed that there’s a point in the vicinity of the one he was making that war opponents should be sympathetic to.
— John Schwenkler · Mar 18, 10:37 AM · #
I think Ross’s point is that a movie is better if it is creating more realistic portrails of people and situations than if it is just satisfying vindictiveness, however much the targets may be deserving of vindictiveness.
Right, which is why Ross is just as vocal about criticizing movies that are pro-war and pro-America, when they misrepresent historical events in a way that drains out nuance or complexity, like Saving Private Ryan.
Oh, what’s that? Douthat doesn’t do that? He only takes to the pages of the NYT op-ed section— not a blog post, mind you, but a print column in the paper of record— to denounce politicized movies when they are political in the way he doesn’t like? And you say that he has explicitly and consistently complained that Dana Stevens decides if movies are good or bad based on their politics, but then turns around and does it himself, all the time?
Funny about that. I’ll wait for the Ross Douthat column attacking a movie that is flattering to his right wing views for a lack of complexity and nuance.
— Freddie · Mar 18, 01:31 PM · #
Look, what Douthat wants are Iraq War films that make him and other war supporters out to be intelligent, noble and well-intentioned souls who, for reasons unknown, just happened to support a war tht turned out badly. The problem is that while Douthat and other war supporters may be intelligent, noble and well-intentioned as a general rule, those qualities were almost totally absent from their support for the Iraq War. I mean, at this point, the best thing you can say about the best sort of Iraq war supporter is that they were caught up in a messianic utopianism about transforming the Middle East and blinded themselves to all other considerations. But I don’t suspect Douthat would be any happier to see war suporters portrayed as those sorts of damned fools.
Mike
— MBunge · Mar 18, 03:24 PM · #
“Funny about that. I’ll wait for the Ross Douthat column attacking a movie that is flattering to his right wing views for a lack of complexity and nuance.”
Freddie, coming from you this is simply ridiculous. You hardly ever deal in anything but excessively partisan caricatures and hysterics. You can’t even summarize the arguments of people you disagree with fairly nor respond to criticisms in a balanced manner. There’s nothing, per se, wrong with that; partisans are partisans. But to then turn around and accuse Douthat (a vastly superior interlocutor in ever respect) of excessive partisanship – and treat it as a disqualifying flaw – requires a comical lack of self-awareness.
— jlr · Mar 19, 03:35 PM · #
“a vastly superior interlocutor in ever(y) respect”
Oh! This is snark, right?
— Socrates · Mar 19, 04:37 PM · #
Also, Freddie seems to not understand (or is now inclined to misrepresent) Douthat’s criticisms of Stevens – and they were hardly unique to Douthat. A certain Freddie deBoer has articulated similar criticisms of Stevens:
“I find her heavy-handed invocation of contemporary politics no less leaden, clumsy and aggravating than he (Ross) does.”
http://theamericanscene.com/2008/01/04/dana-stevens-and-the-movie-club
Stevens basically writes about all movies through a political lense; art, for Stevens, seems to be only one more way to talk about politics. It’s one thing to write about the politics of an explicitly political movie as Douthat does. Quite another to watch every single movie through a political lense, whether it deals explicitly with politics or not. Douthat is saying these movies are bad art, politics aside. Stevens gives the impression of not caring about art at all, except as a vehicle for politics. Freddie seems to have lost the ability to appreciate the difference between the two over the last couple years.
— jlr · Mar 19, 08:31 PM · #
Man, you have cracked the code. How long have you been sitting around thinking about this, exactly?
— Freddie · Mar 19, 10:39 PM · #
Nah – you cracked it yourself. I’m just repeating back to you what you’ve acknowledged elsewhere (both about your writing on politics and Stevens’s film criticism).
— jlr · Mar 19, 10:56 PM · #
thanx
— SesliChat · Mar 19, 11:03 PM · #