Fri, Jul 25, 2008

User login

THE CABAL
Crazy Like a Fawkes

There seems to me something unseemly, if not downright sinister, in allowing the public to believe its own most outré fantasies. To take the most obvious example of the past decade, it was disappointing that the Bush Administration made no serious attempt to explain why it was invading Iraq, though it could easily have done so just by plagiarizing a few of Christopher Hitchens’s columns. The result was that many of those opposed to the war got bogged down in a quagmire of “blood for oil” paranoia, to say nothing of the still more outlandish theories floating around the murkier margins of the Internet. You go to the antiwar rally with the facts you have, not the facts you wish you had—and chances are you’ll look like an idiot.

We as an electorate are no longer trusted to understand complex arguments. Since we’ve been steeped not in Tom Paine but in disaster movies, the Administration thought it safer to turn our own grotesque imaginations on us with talk of “weapons of mass destruction.” We as an electorate probably think we’ve wised up a bit since then, but Ron Paul doesn’t seem to think so:

Historians and British schoolchildren remember Guy Fawkes as the Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant rebel who on Nov. 5, 1605, tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Parliament. Supporters of the Republican primary campaign of the libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick.

On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $4.07 million in one day—approaching what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter—through a Web site called ThisNovember5th.com, a reference to the day the British commemorate the thwarted bombing.

Many fans of Mr. Paul know of the day primarily through a movie based on the futuristic graphic novel “V for Vendetta,” by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, in which a terrorist modeled after Fawkes battles a fascist government that has taken over Britain.

Many fans? Let’s think this through. Guy Fawkes Night has a fairly simple and unambiguous reason for being: to celebrate a terrorist plot that failed. Every British schoolboy knows the rhyme, which is worth knowing because you get to sing it while burning Fawkes in effigy and setting off firecrackers.

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow;
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match. 

By contrast, zero American schoolboys know the rhyme, because it has nothing to do with America. Nor does it, at first glance, have any resonance with an American political campaign. The only way the allusion, if that is really the word for it, makes any sense is if it’s an allusion to the worst movie of 2006. In V for Vendetta, you may recall, the terrorist “Guy Fawkes” is the hero, fearlessly battling a dictatorship that resembles a frustrated teenager’s dystopic vision of the Anglosphere. (Here’s what I wrote about V for Vendetta when I was unlucky enough to see it.) This allusion is clearly Mr. Paul’s intent:

ThisNovember5th.com includes video clips and the text of a speech by Mr. Paul, a 10-term Texas congressman. In it, Mr. Paul declares, “The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual.”

Mr. Paul has stood out from the Republican field for his opposition to the war in Iraq. In the speech he argues that the fight against terrorism is threatening American democracy.

“The American Republic is in remnant status,” he says. “The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into military dictatorship, and few seem to care.”

There’s cognitive dissonance and then there’s claiming, while participating in the democratic political process, that we’re headed for a “military dictatorship.” This kind of hyperbole is par for the course, but then that’s just my point. The scare tactics, the blatant pandering to our ignorance of anything but terrible pop culture—sounds like more of the same to me.



Stefan Beck is a writer living in Palo Alto, California. He has contributed to the Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and other publications. He also blogs for Commentary’s Horizon and The New Criterion’s Armavirumque.


More...

gogityershinebox


Cognitive Dissonance, Hyperbole'...

Hasn't that been part and parcel of all of the Presidential candidates?

Rudy G - We're gonna be attacked by terrorists.  Vote for me and I'll prevent that.

Mitt -  We are losing our conservative values.  Although I was governor of gay marriage land, I'm strong in my conservative values.

McCain - Veterans are not getting the support they need.  Vote for me and I'll ensure that we'll have more veterans (likely disabled) from Iraq that may or may not get the support they need. 

Hillary - I'm against the war in Iraq.  We are going to have a prolonged presence in Iraq (both said in the last debate).

And hey, Natalie Portman, who is an uber-cute Hebraic sister was in that movie.  There is a part of me that wanted to like it.  But yes, shame to say...it was a stinker.





Anonymous


Simple

there is only one reason the war in Iraq was fought - to further the hegemonic aims of Israel. No wonder every Jewish site and writer keeps defending the war.





Stefan Beck


Re: Simple

"No wonder every Jewish site and writer keeps defending the war."

No wonder. I guess you saw right through the ruse of referring to my Christmas tree in my previous (Daily Shvitz) post.





gogityershinebox


Re: Simple

I love when this anonymous guy proves my point on anonymous posting (plug for my blog).

Sounds like a Protocol of the Elders of Zion nut.

The hegenomy of which you speak is akin to the impact of Congolese singers to 80's hair metal.

 





Alex Porter


Hmmmn

Given that America wasn't, um, American, at least any more than it was British until, shall we agree to differ on, 1783, isn't it a bit present-tensish to say 5th November means nothing to Americans? Anglophone America, first planted in, what, 1607 (Virginia - 1585 for Roanoke; there were some other Eurodudes around before that, I'll admit, but as they didn't parlez vous le anglais, we'll safely ignore them) bowled along for some fair old time before the cunning French-masterminded plot of 1776. Thus saying Guy Fawkes doesn't matter to your common historical source is surely as silly as, say, the Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the Common Law or magna carta are oldsville irrelevances? It's certainly not an obviously conservative line to take. But perhaps I'm missing something?

 

Alex Porter

London





Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <i> <strong> <strike> <b> <cite> <code> <u> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

Captcha
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.