United 93: Some Minor Instapundit Bullshit
Conservatives like to portray themselves as rugged individualists, and liberals as effiminate whiners who can't survive without their nanny, the state, to take care of them. Now, though I'd like to see liberals reflect more on the virtues of rugged individualism, there's actually little--though not no--truth in the conservative stereotype.
Amid the torrent of BS that pours forth from blogs in general and conservative blogs in particular, it might seem weird to pick on this the bit that follows...but, heck, it's either this or grade finals.
Insty says links to these Amazon.com reviews, asserting that lefties there are "panning" United 93, and suggesting that this is because it has a message of self-reliance and active self-defense. The words that offend liberals are, he suggests: "No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves."
Now, I've known some extreme lefties--very few--who would squawk about such an idea. But a vanishingly small percentage of American liberals would do so. Interestingly, if you actually look through the reviews to which Reynolds links, they fail to support his assertion. There are three or four negative reviews from conspiracy nuts (reviews which might, I suppose, be spun as lefty, but only because they think that the administration was in on the conspiracy), a couple of negative ones which might plausibly be called genuinely lefty, and at least one negative review by a righty complainig about "liberal Hollywood." The non-conspiracy-related negative reviews are mostly about the film's alleged lack of artistic merit, not it's alleged politics. There's no lefty consensus against the movie, and I found no complaint about its message about self-reliance whatsoever.
It might also be worth noting in passing that it's a bit weird to promote this we're-all-on-the-front-lines message. I mean, I want to kill me some al Qaedians as much as the next red-blooded American male, but the likelihood of me encountering one in North Carolina or Virginia are not very good. Almost none of us will ever see a terrorist. Now, of course many of us want to help, and tried to get the government to tell us how after 9/11. Their answer: go shopping. Hell, even our government isn't fighting the terrorists, so even joining the military is unlikely to put you on the frontlines against the relevant bad guys. Instead of going after al Qaeda, the Bush administration elected to persue unrelated projects and invade Iraq. I guess if you joined up and managed to get to Afghanistan you might stand a fair chance of getting on the relevant front line...but I'm not sure.
To summarize:
Self-reliance: Good.
Liberal aversion to self-reliance: No.
Liberal reverence for self-reliance: Probably not quite sufficient.
Lefty plot against United 93: Unsupported by the proffered evidence.
Instapundit: More of a conservative hack all the time, but redemption still possible.
Conservatives like to portray themselves as rugged individualists, and liberals as effiminate whiners who can't survive without their nanny, the state, to take care of them. Now, though I'd like to see liberals reflect more on the virtues of rugged individualism, there's actually little--though not no--truth in the conservative stereotype.
Amid the torrent of BS that pours forth from blogs in general and conservative blogs in particular, it might seem weird to pick on this the bit that follows...but, heck, it's either this or grade finals.
Insty says links to these Amazon.com reviews, asserting that lefties there are "panning" United 93, and suggesting that this is because it has a message of self-reliance and active self-defense. The words that offend liberals are, he suggests: "No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves."
Now, I've known some extreme lefties--very few--who would squawk about such an idea. But a vanishingly small percentage of American liberals would do so. Interestingly, if you actually look through the reviews to which Reynolds links, they fail to support his assertion. There are three or four negative reviews from conspiracy nuts (reviews which might, I suppose, be spun as lefty, but only because they think that the administration was in on the conspiracy), a couple of negative ones which might plausibly be called genuinely lefty, and at least one negative review by a righty complainig about "liberal Hollywood." The non-conspiracy-related negative reviews are mostly about the film's alleged lack of artistic merit, not it's alleged politics. There's no lefty consensus against the movie, and I found no complaint about its message about self-reliance whatsoever.
It might also be worth noting in passing that it's a bit weird to promote this we're-all-on-the-front-lines message. I mean, I want to kill me some al Qaedians as much as the next red-blooded American male, but the likelihood of me encountering one in North Carolina or Virginia are not very good. Almost none of us will ever see a terrorist. Now, of course many of us want to help, and tried to get the government to tell us how after 9/11. Their answer: go shopping. Hell, even our government isn't fighting the terrorists, so even joining the military is unlikely to put you on the frontlines against the relevant bad guys. Instead of going after al Qaeda, the Bush administration elected to persue unrelated projects and invade Iraq. I guess if you joined up and managed to get to Afghanistan you might stand a fair chance of getting on the relevant front line...but I'm not sure.
To summarize:
Self-reliance: Good.
Liberal aversion to self-reliance: No.
Liberal reverence for self-reliance: Probably not quite sufficient.
Lefty plot against United 93: Unsupported by the proffered evidence.
Instapundit: More of a conservative hack all the time, but redemption still possible.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:43 AM
3 Comments:
Winston. Please. Professor Lloyd Christmas is beyond redemption if anyone is.
You're right, however, about the reception of United 93. Check out Mary Riddell, a regular columnist in the UK Observer (ie the Sunday Guardian): "For the sake of humanity, I urge you to see United 93":
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1769591,00.html
Show me a guy born on third base that thinks he must have hit a triple, and I’ll show you a self-reliant rugged individualist. The kind of guy who doesn’t want to help bring in the player on second next time at bat, because doncha know, that player wasn’t good enough to hit a triple. As a Liberal I prefer the self-reliant team player thank you very much. I haven’t paid much attention to that movie, does Dirty Harry or Charles Bronson jump up and take out the bad guys single-handed?
I rest my case.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home