Portrait of the Artist
I LIKED MATT LABASH’S review of Fahrenheit 9/11 (“Un-Moored from Reality,” July 5/July 12), but the distinction Labash drew throughout the piece–that Moore makes “fudge,” not art–is not precise enough.
All art is, to a certain extent, “fudge”–but it must be made from a consistent recipe. Moore’s failing is that he claims to make documentaries, which are journalistic by nature, rather than satires. Satires, while based in fact, are inherently artistic. In his early films, he is enough of a satirist that his particular slant is acceptable, despite the fact that some might find it disagreeable.
But ever since Bowling for Columbine, and especially with Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has ceased to be honest about what he is doing. As Labash rightly points out, his great failure is that he is dishonest. Certain people may consider his new anti-Bush screed an authentic documentary. But we should never confuse Moore’s pseudo-art with genuine journalism. If Moore were to call himself an artist, we’d have less of a problem with his mendacity. Unfortunately, he claims a journalistic pedigree while peddling utter “fudge” as truth.
Gregory A. Borse Peru, IN
HAVING JUST SEEN Fahrenheit 9/11, I am forced to agree with much of Matt Labash’s critique. The movie is filled with distortions and propaganda. However, as detailed and thorough as Labash’s article is, it somehow avoids any mention of the film’s central (and, to my mind, inarguable) point–that wars are consistently fought by the poor at the behest of the rich.
Ben Bartlett
Los Angeles, CA
I GREATLY APPRECIATED Matt Labash’s take on Fahrenheit 9/11. Since I have previously seen such Michael Moore “documentaries” as Bowling for Columbine and Roger & Me, I am not at all surprised that the filmmaker’s ego has once again trivialized the very subject he claims to elevate.
Bob McGovern
Atlanta, GA
Self-Parodying Times
IN WILLIAM KRISTOL’S editorial on the New York Times and Iraq-al Qaeda ties (“Good Times, Bad Times,” July 5/July 12), the nine-paragraph excerpt from Thom Shanker’s front-page Times article should have been on the NOT A PARODY page.
Shanker refers to Osama bin Laden, the leader of an international terrorist organization responsible for murdering thousands of innocents, as “Mr. Bin Laden” no fewer than ten times in the excerpt.
Mister bin Laden! You just can’t make this stuff up.
Jerome S. Shipman
Potomac, MD
Baptists and Marriage
I WISH TO APPLAUD Mark D. Tooley’s very encouraging piece (“Methodists and Marriage,” July 5/July 12) on the bold, unambiguous stand that the United Methodists took this year against solemnizing same-sex unions in their churches.
I must point out, however, that “the first mainline church to adopt a political stance on same-sex unions” was not the United Methodists in 2004, but the Southern Baptists in 1996. I am a professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and I drafted the “Resolution on Homosexual Marriage” that was passed enthusiastically by Southern Baptists at our convention in New Orleans that year.
Just because mainline Baptists took a political stand against same-sex marriage so early in the national debate is no reason their stand should be forgotten as another mainline denomination closes ranks today.
Daniel R. Heimbach
Wake Forest, NC
Lincoln’s Patriotism
ANDREW FERGUSON’S review of Why Lincoln Matters (“Cuomo’s Lincoln,” July 5/July 12) is masterful. But I would like to provide one correction and one clarification about Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to the Mexican-American War.
The war began in 1846, not 1848, as stated in Ferguson’s article. And while Lincoln was indeed opposed to the war when it began, he did not believe in launching vituperative criticism of a sitting administration while American soldiers were still in harm’s way.
Consider what Lincoln said on the floor of the House on January 12, 1848: “When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the president, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended.”
One wonders what Lincoln would have made of President Bush’s critics today.
Jose A. Hernandez
Coral Gables, FL
O for a Muse of Fire
NOEMIE EMERY’S article on Jimmy Carter (“The Muse of Malaise,” July 5/July 12) was fantastic, and much appreciated. Ever since the 2000 election debacle I’ve wanted to ask President Carter why he never traveled to Florida then to “observe” the election proceedings, as he has done throughout the world. Perhaps it was a case of faulty priorities. Or perhaps he didn’t want to visit Florida because he would have been forced to conclude that the Democrats were trying to steal the election!
Frances Puckett
Penney Farms, FL
Spinning Saddam
WILLIAM KRISTOL was right on with his editorial “Anti-anti-Saddamism” (June 28). The spin that much of the media placed on the 9/11 Commission’s preliminary report is deplorable, to say the least. Kristol’s insistence that John Kerry must clearly explain his position regarding the original decision to invade Iraq is quite correct.
In fact, Bush should challenge Kerry to do so, and at the same time issue a public challenge to the media to find a single instance where anyone in the Bush administration claimed explicitly that Iraq was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks.
Jack Ott
Lakewood, CO
Clinton’s War
IN FRED BARNES’S “The Shrinking Clinton Presidency” (June 28), I was surprised to read that Bill Clinton claims credit for the toppling of Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. He did no such thing. During the Kosovo war, his administration never made Milosevic’s ouster an explicit goal of U.S. policy. Clinton emissaries such as Richard Holbrooke instead treated Milosevic as a legitimate negotiating partner.
Although the administration kept repeating that “Milosevic is the problem,” the NATO operation was a limited war aimed at stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It was not aimed at forcing regime change in Serbia. Indeed, the war ended not with Milosevic’s surrender of power, but with his signature on yet another paper agreement.
The Serbian leader finally lost power in the fall of 2000 as the result of domestic political developments. Clinton may retort that the Kosovo war weakened Milosevic and thereby made him vulnerable to a domestic opposition, but this doesn’t appear to be true either. During the war itself, NATO bombing of targets in Belgrade caused the Serbian people to rally behind Milosevic. A whole year after the war ended, there was still no sign that Milosevic’s grip on power was weakening.
Eventually, it was President Bush, not Clinton, who successfully pressured the new Serb government to turn Milosevic over to the Hague Tribunal.
Mark Jubulis
Erie, PA
Mile-High Mischief
IN “ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIJINKS” (June 28), THE SCRAPBOOK correctly points out that the Bush reelection team should pay attention to a Colorado ballot initiative that would modify the state’s Electoral College allocation formula. According to the Constitution, state electors are chosen “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” which may or may not allow changes by popular vote.
As with the issues litigated in Florida in 2000, a controversy could arise over whether Colorado’s Electoral College rules can be altered retroactively after voting has already occurred. Indeed, this would presumably happen if folks went to the polls with a winner-take-all system in place and then the results of the ballot initiative certified a change to a proportional-allocation system. Perhaps the Bush administration’s lawyers should pay attention, as well.
Paul H. Blackman
Arlington, VA
A Punitive Legacy
KUDOS TO JAMES PIERESON for his essay, “Punitive Liberalism” (June 28). I have never read a more concise and insightful political history of the period since John F. Kennedy’s presidency. Piereson trenchantly describes the outcome of the left’s ascendancy during the Carter years.
A contemporary vestige of Punitive Liberalism is the doctrine of so-called multiculturalism, which similarly undercuts our national greatness. Some liberals have even tried to disseminate the idea that multiculturalism is responsible in large measure for our success, using slogans such as “it’s what made our country great.”
This seemingly benign slogan obscures the real reason for America’s greatness: namely, an ideology and a Constitution that promote and sustain freedom on every level, and a system that allows every individual to realize his full potential, no matter what his ethnic origins. Diversity is surely one of the results of our national greatness, but not the cause.
Mike Crone
Monroe, GA
Rebels Without a Clue
MATTHEW CONTINETTI’S narrative of “Progressive Summer Camp” (June 14) could form the framework of a telling novel on American decline. The befuddled people Continetti describes have no idea of their hard-won heritage or what brought them to such perverse, indulgent frolics. Hidden in the recesses of the Marriott Wardman Park hotel, now entertaining a pampered generation of leftists, are ghosts of citizens from earlier ages. That the historic old hotel is now used by errant young “reformers” dissatisfied with their lot and carving careers out of complaint says little for the material progress their ancestors bequeathed them.
W. Edward Chynoweth
Sanger, CA
