Naomi Wolf, Book-TV, and BDS
Charles Krauthammer, the clinically trained psychiatrist turned conservative columnist, whimsically announced a new mental disorder back in 2003:
“Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
Krauthammer defined the condition as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush.”
Consider this recent example of BDS:
“I am writing because we have an emergency.”
“There are ten steps that are taken in order to close down a democracy or crush a pro-democratic movement, whether by capitalists, communists, or right-wing fascists. These ten steps, together, are more than the sum of their parts. Once all ten have been put in place, each magnifies the power of the others and of the whole.”
“Impossible as it may seem, we are seeing each of these ten steps taking hold in the United States today.”
So writes Naomi Wolf in End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, which reveals that the Bush administration is using the events of 9-11 to destroy democracy in America and institute a fascist police state. Most alarming, in her view, the Bush conspirators are not patiently sowing the seeds of a future or incremental conservative coup; Wolf expects a major crackdown on dissent (like locking people up in gulags) within the year.
What of Naomi Wolf and her call to arms?
A celebrated feminist writer and thinker, Wolf is currently director of the Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership. She emerged as a superstar in women’s studies in 1991 when she published her first monograph, The Beauty Myth, which argued that the patriarchy intentionally placed a premium on female beauty to maintain oppression against women. Several books later, she quietly advised Bill Clinton to be a “father figure” to the country and may have coined the term “soccer mom.” She entered pop culture consciousness as Al Gore’s high-priced image consultant for his 2000 presidential campaign, when TIME Magazine reported her suggestions that the candidate wear more “earth tones” and assert himself as an “alpha male.”
Back in the early 1990s, commenting on the Beauty Myth, Camille Paglia offered the following withering analysis of Wolf’s literary debut:
If you want to see what’s wrong with Ivy League education, look at…Naomi Wolf. [She] is a woman who graduated from Yale magna cum laude, is a Rhodes scholar, and cannot write a coherent paragraph.
Paglia also asserted that Wolf proved completely incapable of performing “historical analysis,” was “full of paranoid fantasies,” and “completely removed from reality.”
Unfortunately, Paglia’s frank assessment from fifteen years ago remains apropos to this current work. In terms of pedaling “paranoid fantasies,” disappointingly, Wolf is at it again.
Over the weekend, I watched Wolf on AfterWords, a very smart C-SPAN2/Book-TV program that spotlights authors and their recent books. AfterWords features a guest author interviewed by a guest host, who is always another consequential public figure with some connection to the author or the subject matter of the new book.
For example, last weekend, Viet Dinh interviewed Wolf regarding End of America. Wolf views the USA Patriot Act as a primary component of the Bush plan to subvert liberty in America. Viet Dinh is a superstar of conservative legal scholarship who served as Assistant Attorney General for George Bush from 2001-2003. He is generally accepted as the dominant intellectual force behind the Patriot Act.
Naomi Wolf appeared one other time (that I know of) on AfterWords. Back in March 2006 she interviewed the eminent Harvard philosopher and conservative public intellectual, Harvey Mansfield, who had recently published a book called Manliness. You see the tension. The beautiful and brilliant feminist luminary (and Yalie) pitted against the distinguished gentleman scholar of the traditionalist persuasion, who happens to be arguing that the world would be a better place if men acted more like men.
Of course, AfterWords works best when the two potential antagonists are not adversarial. For example, Viet Dinh proved courteous, interested, and deferential to the author in his stint as guest interviewer. I did not put a stop watch to the exchange–but my sense is that Wolf won “time of possession” handily. Wolf has a tendency to monologue, filibuster, and use questions as platforms to make quasi-related boilerplate statements. Her answers to his queries most often mirrored passages in her book nearly verbatim.
In contrast, in her previous role as a guest interviewer, Wolf mostly debated Harvey Mansfield.
Time-Out for Full Disclosure: at some point, for the record, it is incumbent on me to state the obvious: I do not admire or respect Naomi Wolf very much. In terms of her intellect: what Camille Paglia said.
In terms of her prowess as an historian: she is sloppy, facile, and completely misguided in re the role of history in society. She makes an elementary mistake in advertising history as a tool to predict the future and too often ham-handedly manipulates the past to illustrate whatever particular political point of view she supports in the present.
Moreover, I dislike her personal style. She is all smiles and winks, using every ounce of her humanity (and femininity) to give off the impression of collegiality and civility. But there are flashes of anger, petulance, and superiority lurking always just below her strained mask of placidity.
She feels free to interrupt whenever she takes a notion–but she snaps curtly, “excuse me,” and continues on when the interviewer attempts to intervene for a pertinent follow-up question in the midst of one of her harangues.
She deals almost exclusively in the currency of broad logic, sweeping statements, guilt by transfer, scare tactics, and hyperbole.
George Bush is following Hitler’s playbook.
The White House is studying Goebbels for keys to success.
The student whom authorities tasered in Florida was really silenced on the orders of Jeb Bush (even if he was no longer governor at the time of the incident).
Frankly, I have grown weary of all this silliness.
The Bottom Line:
Crying Wolf in this particular manner has been with us from the very beginning in American politics. Jefferson did it to Adams. Clay did it to Jackson. In 1858, with a straight face, Abraham Lincoln asserted that a “slave power conspiracy” intended to impose slavery on the “free” and sovereign states north of the Mason-Dixon line. And he named names. Lincoln (a Republican) charged that the cabal included two presidents (both Democrats), a Supreme Court chief justice (a Democratic appointee), and Stephen A. Douglas, who happened to by his Democratic opponent for the Illinois senate race that year. Southerners reciprocated by demonizing Lincoln as a wild-eyed abolitionist bent on destroying their “peculiar institution” post haste (and convinced themselves so thoroughly that they seceded from the Union upon his election as president in 1860). And the beat goes on. We did it to Clinton. And Naomi Wolf and a host of others are doing it to our current president.
Are these ravings healthy for the body politic? Reasonable people will disagree—although it mostly depends on whose ox is getting gored. So far, at least, this tendency has never caused any irreparable damage to the system (although the aforementioned Civil War came dangerously close). Regardless of the larger debate, inarguably, this constant chant that “Republicans are evil” and “Bush is Hitler” poisons the well.
The people who ought to know better vex me the most.
Politicians, party hacks, and conspiracy theorists do what comes natural. But public figures posing as intellectuals and historians must meet a much more rigorous standard of responsibility. Disingenuous propaganda and inflammatory demagoguery is not worthy of their higher calling. Naomi Wolf and her cohorts should demonstrate greater respect for the truth, love the nation more, and hate George Bush less.
What should be done? Nothing. Just as the freedom to burn the flag proves that most of the reasons for burning the flag are completely misguided, the fact that the “Naomi Wolfs” of our world don’t get carted off to federal detention centers in the middle of the night for reasons of national security proves that we maintain extraordinary latitude in criticizing (slandering) our government.
Cross-posted on The Bosque Boys.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
The derangement of the left today is thoroughly corrosive to the political environment our leaders are trying to work in. They will tell you it started with President Clinton's impeachment for having sex ( a willful distraction over charges of obstruction of Justice), and continued when Bush 43 stoled the election in 2000 (a lie that has damaged America's belief in it's own integrity). The bitterness continued eight months into Bush 43's first term as he was unable to build his government over Democratic legal and political challenges, but the new president came into office boasting of being a man who could work with both parties as he had done in Texas. Liberal behemoth Ted Kennedy joined him to write the "Leave no Child Behind" education bill, and many Democrats from the previous administration kept their jobs despite the power shift. George Bush has since angered his own base embracing things entirely nonconservative, a maverick trait that has cost him support. After 9/11 it was not so much the Democratic party that turned their focus from fighting terrorism to fighting Bush's "so called War On Terror." It was its far left base - so extreme and hyper delusional that in another era no one would have paid attention to them. Elections passed and no one did - until frustrated party leaders themselves starting paying deference to them in order to build a base for the 2006 election. That stamp of credibility has unleashed a swarm of angry, thoughtless uber-partisans that often eat their own when in the midst of a ideological blood lust. One only has to look into Harry Reid's face to see the effect that these political anarchists have had on him. Bush Derangement Syndrome is the sickness that cries out at the loss of privacy and attacks on civil liberties - a charge both exaggerated and born of ignorance. The malady reduces the opposition to dishonest platitudes like "Bush lied," and "War for oil," and accuses America of being "colonialistic" and "Imperialistic." If we were such things I expect that gas would not be headed for four dollars a gallon! The subtle antisemitism of blaming neoconservatives for the war in Iraq and the frenzy over Abu Ghraib that drove the left to convince other nations that those who participated in that horror are emblematic of the average American soldier - are all symptoms of a political malice so rank it has predictably turned its red eyes on its own country - and professes now there can be no pride in being an American. The left today seethes. It writhes in perpetual outrage, lashing out recklessly looking for any way to satisfy an angst unquenchable. But we haven't seen anything yet. The Democratic party embraced the hard left - with its MoveOn.Org and it's Code Pink and its ANSWER because it is willing to lasso the tiger for a chance at the grand prize - the presidency. The fact that Hillary Clinton would not denounce their despicable ad should be proof enough that the future promises vitriol darker than anything we've seen yet…
Thank you once again Waco for another thoughtful and interesting article. And thanks to Evrvigint for that intelligent and well-reasoned reply. I agree with Evrvigint's analysis. This time around the issues involved are much more important than partisan infighting. The issues concern the degree with which we are able to protect ourselves and wage this defensive war against our sworn enemies. If the obstructionists from the far left — or what is now increasingly becoming the center left — win this battle, America will be unable to protect itself and we will lose this great war.
And thank you Roger for kissing the ass of the other person who kissed the ass of the writer of this rather dreary and quite predictable story. It's the same ole song - people who despise bush are really deranged. DIdya ever think that maybe bush is the deranged one whom rational folks despise because they see the monster inside of the drunk? Just asking..
Here we go again. Is this supposed to be a comment? Or just another anonymous childish, obscene, name-calling hissy-fit?
NeoConSlayer: Seriously, what makes more sense? 1. Bush is in the tradition of 42 other presidents who does the best he can, takes on the tough decisions, makes his share of mistakes, does some things right, loves his country, and prays to God it all turns out okay. 2. Bush is a neocon Manchurian candidate. The dreaded neocons cultivated him throughout his rather average career, endorsed John McCain in 2000 to throw us off, stole an election to make Bush president, instigated 9-11 all so that we could end the American experiment and install a Christian-fascist regime? It's probably the monster, right?
A wise woman once said…the far-left kook fringe IS the Democratic Party's Center. Just look at your trolls comment. No facts. No alternative solution. Childish verbal abuse from an idiot. The more "they" lose their death grip, the more rank and vile they will become. The Ostrich Syndrome comes to mind. The very enemy of which we wage war against, in defense of our way of life, are the very ones these pathetic lambs of anti-establishment whores support, to their own peril. They support all the Islamo Nazis abhor. This fact, in all essences of reality, will be their doom should our home-grown idiots succeed in securing a defeat in this war. Very well stated article here.
He just proved the point on what the article was talking about. Not all of the people that don't like Bush are deranged, but the majority of them are. What are they going to do when Bush leaves office????? Are they still going to try and impeach him for lying and going to war with Iraq, or for being part of 9/11????? Not only are they looking like they are dersanged, but they are giving the enemies free propaganda.
He just proved the point on what the article was talking about. Not all of the people that don't like Bush are deranged, but the majority of them are. What are they going to do when Bush leaves office????? Are they still going to try and impeach him for lying and going to war with Iraq, or for being part of 9/11????? Not only are they looking like they are dersanged, but they are giving the enemies free propaganda.
Right on, Stix. And congratulations to you, NeoConSlayer. You and that previous anonymous poster have been the only two people to have introduced profanites into this debate. Do you think maybe that says something about you?
Your comments are absolutely ridiculous. The majority of people who do not support or even like Bush are not derranged but, rather; intelligent beings who see what a complete failure the Bush administration has been. Call a spade a spade.
Although NeoConSlayer's post is not well thought out I object to you automatically linking profanity and the degredation of discourse. Profanity is inherently neutral and can be used in a multitude of ways. A well place expletive can be extremely effective, funny, and positively contribute to one's argument. Attack the argument not the use of colorful language.
I actually agree with aaron; The Bush Administration has lost America's credibility, destroyed the Constitution, and weakened the military.
I actually agree with much of what you said. The Democratic party HAS been catering the far left. I think of the far left in the same way I do global warming deniers - a small but insanely vocal group.
True. A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with this president. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether he has a done a fair to admirable job in a very difficult situation. But what is just beyond rational thought is all this hysteria about Bush destroying the Constitution. Fact: The opposition oarty is running Congress. Fact: We are going to have an election is one year. The American people are going to hire a new guy (or more likely gal). This is not Germany in 1935. If you don't know that, you should read more. If you know that and say something else just to drum up politically beneficial fear–shame on you. S/FYI: America is much more credible today than we were in the 1970s.
True. A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with this president. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether he has a done a poor to fair to admirable job in a very difficult situation. Folks who say "poor" is not necessarily deranged. But what is just beyond rational thought is all this hysteria about Bush destroying the Constitution. Fact: The opposition party is running Congress. Fact: We are going to have an election is one year. The American people are going to hire a new guy (or more likely gal). This is not Germany in 1935. If you don't know that, with all due respect, you should read more and re-assess. If you know that and say something else just to drum up politically beneficial fear–shame on you. PS/FYI: America is much more credible today than we were in the 1970s, but I will give you the horrible deterioration of the military.
"S/FYI: America is much more credible today than we were in the 1970s." Only cuz Jimmy Carter was our president then, who was almost as bad Bush is.
I caught Naomi Wolf hawking this book several weeks ago on Fox News's, Fox & Friends Saturday. Her alarmism fits right in with the left's penchant for desiring to recreate the Soviet Union in America. Nearly everything she invokes in her that Bush is doing that will bring America to ruin, either has been or is being advocated by the leftsits. My own studies in Psychology were very brief and many years ago, but as I recall, that was listed as 'projection.' The only way America is doomed to failure is if we continue the slippery slide towards Socialism that has been being implemented by the Democrat party for decades now.
I agree that Naomi Wolf's arguments are wrong, but I believe her conclusions are right despite the stupidity of her reasoning. Habeas Corpus was lost in 2005, even Republican congressmen and senators admitted that and were disturbed by it. Posse Comitatus soon followed, via executive order. Those are two big linchpins of our republic, and to say that their absence isn't a major change is ridiculous.