![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oct. 8th, 2003
wow some more
Oct. 8th, 2003 10:29 amfrom Mickey Kaus' essay on Slate Why I Voted for Arnold
The difficult problems with Schwarzenegger have to do with his character--not even his credentials or abilities. He's certainly smart enough--if you interview enough politicians, you realize that a) they're not so brilliant (Willie Brown is an exception) and b) you can be a good leader even if you're not brilliant. Schwarzenegger is also, by all accounts, geniunely funny, with an instinct for honesty. (Can you imagine Bill Clinton saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" when confronted with sexual harassment allegations?) But Schwarzenegger has two really troubling characterological defects.
a) He's a crude serotonin victim who enjoys bullying men and women alike. Everyone knew there were stories like the LAT presented last week. I've heard more. He's not a groper the way Clinton was a groper--Schwarzenegger seems to actually have a cruel streak. He enjoys humiliating others. With women, there's a sexual component--but there are plenty of stories of him humiliating men. (And at least one of the groping incidents seems designed to humiliate the woman's husband more than the woman.)
b) He may not even be a social egalitiarian. This is one way to reconcile the accounts from famous actresses of "Arnold the Gentlemen" and the repulsive stories told by "below the line" film personnel. Of course Schwarzenegger's charming to the people he needs to be charming too--such as fellow movie stars. But he lords it over people he can lord it over when he can get away with it. Let's just say this hierarchical behavior is not un-Germanic. But it is un-American. You'd think it would be especially troubling to someone, like me, who proclaims social equality the distinguishing goal of liberal politics.
O.K. It is troubling! Schwarzenegger puts to voters, in a particularly sharp way, the same question Clinton put to voters: Can you separate personal failings from performance in office. Except that in Schwarzenegger's case the dilemma is worse, because--as an LAT editorial perceptively noted--Schwarzenegger's flaws are the very things that might actually help him perform better in office. Maybe a governor who is manipulative and mean is just the man to subdue the unions, the casino tribes and entrenched, free-spending legislators.
I'm willing to take a flyer on that possibility, given the possible upside virtues, comforted by the knowledge that--thanks to the Constitution--Schwarzenegger can't use his governorship as a steppingstone to the presidency. It's only a state we're talking about! (That's another reason the poli-sci argument against mid-term ousters of temporarily-unpopular leaders doesn't apply with much force.. We're not talking about booting a Lincoln in the middle of a Civil War. We're talking about a car tax.) If Schwarzenegger flies into a fascistic, steroid-fueled rage--well, he doesn't have his finger on the button. He can't suspend the bill of rights.
In a perverse way, I think Schwarzenegger's character defects may even serve as a valuable protection against the dangers of his ascendancy. It's not just that he will be on his best behavior toward women, or that he will take special care not to come across as an authoritarian who disrespects the "little men" and "losers." It's that the defects in all their ugliness are now visible to everyone--they've done their damage, making it impossible for him to think about building the sort of cult of personality his Nuremberg-rally fantasies might otherwise tempt him to build. We know he's a pig. We're not going to love him. If he's going to keep our loyalty it will have to be by producing actual results: a slimmed down government, a balanced budget, better schools, a better business climate, etc.
I don't find this particularly comforting.
The difficult problems with Schwarzenegger have to do with his character--not even his credentials or abilities. He's certainly smart enough--if you interview enough politicians, you realize that a) they're not so brilliant (Willie Brown is an exception) and b) you can be a good leader even if you're not brilliant. Schwarzenegger is also, by all accounts, geniunely funny, with an instinct for honesty. (Can you imagine Bill Clinton saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire" when confronted with sexual harassment allegations?) But Schwarzenegger has two really troubling characterological defects.
a) He's a crude serotonin victim who enjoys bullying men and women alike. Everyone knew there were stories like the LAT presented last week. I've heard more. He's not a groper the way Clinton was a groper--Schwarzenegger seems to actually have a cruel streak. He enjoys humiliating others. With women, there's a sexual component--but there are plenty of stories of him humiliating men. (And at least one of the groping incidents seems designed to humiliate the woman's husband more than the woman.)
b) He may not even be a social egalitiarian. This is one way to reconcile the accounts from famous actresses of "Arnold the Gentlemen" and the repulsive stories told by "below the line" film personnel. Of course Schwarzenegger's charming to the people he needs to be charming too--such as fellow movie stars. But he lords it over people he can lord it over when he can get away with it. Let's just say this hierarchical behavior is not un-Germanic. But it is un-American. You'd think it would be especially troubling to someone, like me, who proclaims social equality the distinguishing goal of liberal politics.
O.K. It is troubling! Schwarzenegger puts to voters, in a particularly sharp way, the same question Clinton put to voters: Can you separate personal failings from performance in office. Except that in Schwarzenegger's case the dilemma is worse, because--as an LAT editorial perceptively noted--Schwarzenegger's flaws are the very things that might actually help him perform better in office. Maybe a governor who is manipulative and mean is just the man to subdue the unions, the casino tribes and entrenched, free-spending legislators.
I'm willing to take a flyer on that possibility, given the possible upside virtues, comforted by the knowledge that--thanks to the Constitution--Schwarzenegger can't use his governorship as a steppingstone to the presidency. It's only a state we're talking about! (That's another reason the poli-sci argument against mid-term ousters of temporarily-unpopular leaders doesn't apply with much force.. We're not talking about booting a Lincoln in the middle of a Civil War. We're talking about a car tax.) If Schwarzenegger flies into a fascistic, steroid-fueled rage--well, he doesn't have his finger on the button. He can't suspend the bill of rights.
In a perverse way, I think Schwarzenegger's character defects may even serve as a valuable protection against the dangers of his ascendancy. It's not just that he will be on his best behavior toward women, or that he will take special care not to come across as an authoritarian who disrespects the "little men" and "losers." It's that the defects in all their ugliness are now visible to everyone--they've done their damage, making it impossible for him to think about building the sort of cult of personality his Nuremberg-rally fantasies might otherwise tempt him to build. We know he's a pig. We're not going to love him. If he's going to keep our loyalty it will have to be by producing actual results: a slimmed down government, a balanced budget, better schools, a better business climate, etc.
I don't find this particularly comforting.
heh. indeed.
Oct. 8th, 2003 11:07 amJames Taranto, of the WSJ's Opinion Journal, assesses his staff.
"It wouldn't surprise me if a number of people go from blogging to careers in journalism or writing in some form or another," says James Taranto, the editor of OpinionJournal.com.
Taranto reworked a couple of essays that Steven Den Beste wrote for his blog, USS Clueless (www.denbeste.nu), and posted them on OpinionJournal.com. Den Beste is an eloquent and thoughtful writer, but then again, one might wonder how his background as a former Qualcomm engineer gives him the expertise to write about American foreign policy.
"Expertise cuts both ways," says Taranto.
"Sometimes the experts are all wrong. Don't forget, most of what we get through the news media is related by people who are not experts. I think [Den Beste] knows more than most journalists."
"It wouldn't surprise me if a number of people go from blogging to careers in journalism or writing in some form or another," says James Taranto, the editor of OpinionJournal.com.
Taranto reworked a couple of essays that Steven Den Beste wrote for his blog, USS Clueless (www.denbeste.nu), and posted them on OpinionJournal.com. Den Beste is an eloquent and thoughtful writer, but then again, one might wonder how his background as a former Qualcomm engineer gives him the expertise to write about American foreign policy.
"Expertise cuts both ways," says Taranto.
"Sometimes the experts are all wrong. Don't forget, most of what we get through the news media is related by people who are not experts. I think [Den Beste] knows more than most journalists."
As a MoveOn member wrote in an e-mail to Pariser, "I was also able to reach Rep. DeLay's office. There, I was interrupted in the middle of my first sentence, asked if this was about the FCC, and placed on hold. After a few seconds someone else answered and I learned that Rep. DeLay's office had forwarded my call to MoveOn.org. Evidently, they have no interest in the opinions of a citizen." Pariser has since changed the message on his cellphone, urging callers to try DeLay again.
According to DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy, MoveOn is getting what it deserves. "They like to generate the phone calls but they don't like to receive them," he says. "It seems to me that public debate is a two-way street." He dismissed the notion that, as citizens, MoveOn's members deserve to have their opinions heard by their government, noting that none of the calls came from constituents in DeLay's home district.
But since DeLay holds one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, doesn't he have an obligation to all Americans? Roy's response was a non sequitur. "Do you have an obligation to all Americans at Salon.com?" he asked.
The answer to Roy's question, clearly, is no, since Salon is an online magazine with a responsibility to its readers, and not a high-ranking official in a representative democracy. But the question of whether DeLay has any responsibility to hear the views of dissenting citizens rather than play tricks on them remains open.
If you want to ask him yourself, his office number is (202)225-4000.
According to DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy, MoveOn is getting what it deserves. "They like to generate the phone calls but they don't like to receive them," he says. "It seems to me that public debate is a two-way street." He dismissed the notion that, as citizens, MoveOn's members deserve to have their opinions heard by their government, noting that none of the calls came from constituents in DeLay's home district.
But since DeLay holds one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, doesn't he have an obligation to all Americans? Roy's response was a non sequitur. "Do you have an obligation to all Americans at Salon.com?" he asked.
The answer to Roy's question, clearly, is no, since Salon is an online magazine with a responsibility to its readers, and not a high-ranking official in a representative democracy. But the question of whether DeLay has any responsibility to hear the views of dissenting citizens rather than play tricks on them remains open.
If you want to ask him yourself, his office number is (202)225-4000.
the evil of banality
Oct. 8th, 2003 05:59 pmI don't know if you've heard that Arnold Schwarzenegger won the election in California.
One of these days you should rent Pumping Iron. A fair amount of the movie is dedicated to Schwarzenegger's attempts to sabotage poor Lou Ferrigno, which (to his evident glee) is that much easier for him because Ferrigno is deaf.
His explanation of the infamous Oui gangbang story was that he was trying to impress. He says he couldn't have played Nazi for the nice filmmakers (undoubtedly why he spent a million dollars on the outtakes) because he is anti-Nazi, much the same as he couldn't have said he admired Hitler because he gave money to the Wiesenthal Center (although I do believe less than he spent for the outtakes).
He systematically humiliates people who (for whatever reason) can't stand up for themselves, and he excuses it by saying that he was merely boisterous. His career is based on cheating (and yes, I consider taking steroids to be cheating for a bodybuilder) but it was just his Drive for Success. He worked illegally when he was on a visa which required him not to work, but he was never busted for it so it must not have been wrong.
Just good clean fun.
You know what? I believe him about Hitler. I even believe he fucked with the neo-jugend in Austria.
I don't think he gives a rat's ass about Hitler or politics or much of anything else beyond his own glorified self, and I think that's one of the reasons why California elected him.
The most popular shows on television are all about the public humiliation. Rush Limbaugh is enormously popular with people who don't agree with his politics but admire what he gets away with saying. Fucking with people who are naive enough to be fucked with is practically a religion on the internet.
It's the politics of the school yard - ultimately powerless people who have been so thoroughly convinced of their powerlessness that the only way they can salve their abraded feelings is to fuck someone just a little bit down the line of fish.
Of course, it's far safer to let someone else do it for you. More attractive to people who work entirely hard enough already, thank you very much.
Did Ahnuld and Bush get ahead despite being moral nulls? Could be they got ahead because of it. No-one fucks with them. They kick ass and take names. They hurt people. They don't give a fuck if anybody outside of their circle thinks they're a nice guy, although they'll pay lip service to it in public if they think it's warranted.
You're not ever going to beat these people by telling their voters that they're not good people. Their voters are their voters because their voters think "if the breaks had come my way, that could have been me" and their voters Know who the Good People Are (why not? Their politicians tell them so).
Laura gave Bush an ultimatum? Well, she's not looking too feisty now, is she. Maria kept her name and her career? I think we know who wears the pants in that family and who isn't allowed to.
You're never going to be able to convince their voters by proving that Bush and Schwarzenegger are bad people.
They'll sheer off in droves if you convince them that Bush and Schwarzenegger are losers.
These men lose very poorly, and every time they lose a few more of their voters smell the flopsweat of defeat and walk away. Hell, most of the poor bastards are out of work. They can get in touch with defeat without leaving the house.
Want to turn this thing around? Don't make them mad. Make them whine.
One of these days you should rent Pumping Iron. A fair amount of the movie is dedicated to Schwarzenegger's attempts to sabotage poor Lou Ferrigno, which (to his evident glee) is that much easier for him because Ferrigno is deaf.
His explanation of the infamous Oui gangbang story was that he was trying to impress. He says he couldn't have played Nazi for the nice filmmakers (undoubtedly why he spent a million dollars on the outtakes) because he is anti-Nazi, much the same as he couldn't have said he admired Hitler because he gave money to the Wiesenthal Center (although I do believe less than he spent for the outtakes).
He systematically humiliates people who (for whatever reason) can't stand up for themselves, and he excuses it by saying that he was merely boisterous. His career is based on cheating (and yes, I consider taking steroids to be cheating for a bodybuilder) but it was just his Drive for Success. He worked illegally when he was on a visa which required him not to work, but he was never busted for it so it must not have been wrong.
Just good clean fun.
You know what? I believe him about Hitler. I even believe he fucked with the neo-jugend in Austria.
I don't think he gives a rat's ass about Hitler or politics or much of anything else beyond his own glorified self, and I think that's one of the reasons why California elected him.
The most popular shows on television are all about the public humiliation. Rush Limbaugh is enormously popular with people who don't agree with his politics but admire what he gets away with saying. Fucking with people who are naive enough to be fucked with is practically a religion on the internet.
It's the politics of the school yard - ultimately powerless people who have been so thoroughly convinced of their powerlessness that the only way they can salve their abraded feelings is to fuck someone just a little bit down the line of fish.
Of course, it's far safer to let someone else do it for you. More attractive to people who work entirely hard enough already, thank you very much.
Did Ahnuld and Bush get ahead despite being moral nulls? Could be they got ahead because of it. No-one fucks with them. They kick ass and take names. They hurt people. They don't give a fuck if anybody outside of their circle thinks they're a nice guy, although they'll pay lip service to it in public if they think it's warranted.
You're not ever going to beat these people by telling their voters that they're not good people. Their voters are their voters because their voters think "if the breaks had come my way, that could have been me" and their voters Know who the Good People Are (why not? Their politicians tell them so).
Laura gave Bush an ultimatum? Well, she's not looking too feisty now, is she. Maria kept her name and her career? I think we know who wears the pants in that family and who isn't allowed to.
You're never going to be able to convince their voters by proving that Bush and Schwarzenegger are bad people.
They'll sheer off in droves if you convince them that Bush and Schwarzenegger are losers.
These men lose very poorly, and every time they lose a few more of their voters smell the flopsweat of defeat and walk away. Hell, most of the poor bastards are out of work. They can get in touch with defeat without leaving the house.
Want to turn this thing around? Don't make them mad. Make them whine.
shorter Grover Norquist
Oct. 8th, 2003 10:55 pmTerry Gross: Your estate taxes or your life.
Grover Norquist: I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
with apologies to the late Jack Benny
Grover Norquist: I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
with apologies to the late Jack Benny