If you saw the link to this Philosoraptor essay over at Atrios and skipped it, don’t. It’s the most satisfying takedown I’ve read since John Holbo read David Frum. (Digby had some related thoughts on a different subject.)
I’ve been starting a lot of posts recently and deleting them before I finish, because I judge them to be too bilious to stand behind. I’m sure that it will pass. I’ve been thinking about a bitter, prescient essay by John Montoya, written in October 2001 called “Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics.” I’m reposting it here; I hope that he doesn’t mind.
(In cheerful news, I should mention that I saw School of Rock tonight, and it was just terrific. It washed the taste of the Matrix Revolutions right out.)
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
by John Montoya
Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.
Of course the World Trade Center attacks are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.
It would be a fitting memorial.
{ 29 comments }
crayz 11.10.03 at 6:29 am
ahh…jsm, adequacy. memories
Sebastian Holsclaw 11.10.03 at 7:26 am
Yup, clearly the 9-11 atrocity couldn’t have meant anything. Can’t use it an argument because it is too emotional. Everyone just go back to sleep now, everything is going to be just fine.
bad Jim 11.10.03 at 9:28 am
Actually, this is a perfectly adequate rationale for the invasion of Iraq, and in no way inferior to any other rationale heretofore proffered.
julia 11.10.03 at 9:45 am
you know, Sebastian, it does our hearts good, we New Yorkers, to know that somewhere out there, usually way out there, there’s someone who understands what happened to us that day, although I understand we have to kill a lot more people before y’all explain it to us.
Or, you know, you’d probably have to kill us or something. I’m sure it’s a pretty classified thing.
Nabakov 11.10.03 at 1:31 pm
“Can’t use it an argument because it is too emotional. Everyone just go back to sleep now, everything is going to be just fine”.
T’was the lullaby sung for Iraq in 1991, for Chile, for Afghanistan, for Yugoslavia, for Cambodia, for Somalia, for Angola, for Rawanda – for so many countries ending in ‘A” and starting with “We’ll never forget. We’re here for the long haul.”
And is still the lullaby sung by all the people who said “that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.”
What’s yer definition of “emotional” Seb?
tristero 11.10.03 at 2:19 pm
“Yup, clearly the 9-11 atrocity couldn’t have meant anything. Can’t use it an argument because it is too emotional.”
Straw man, my dear Sebastian.
“Everyone just go back to sleep now, everything is going to be just fine.”
The only folks asleep were Bush and Co., who were obsessed with Star Wars Redux and let surveillance of bin Laden, et al go to pot for 9 months. See The Age of Sacred Terror.
Sam TH 11.10.03 at 2:20 pm
Humorously, the “John Montoya” that wrote that essay is also Daniel Davies, member of Crooked Timber.
Jeremy Osner` 11.10.03 at 2:22 pm
Yep, that philosoraptor essay is great. When he was comparing Wilson to Crockett, a thought started running through my mind… “Yeah, but Wilson didn’t have a gun — he wasn’t shooting at Hussein.”
Brooklynite 11.10.03 at 2:48 pm
Sounds like Montoya stung you pretty badly, Seb! Get over it; you’ve got lots of company.
Grand Moff Texan 11.10.03 at 4:03 pm
Is irony dead, or does the mere mention of 9/11 create a temporary, irony-free zone?
The freepers on this thread don’t seem to recognize how their regurgitations only make great punchlines for Montoya’s essay!
“9/11 is a blank check. I can write whatever I want and America will pay. We’ve been writing about finding a pretext to take down Saddam so we can break the back of OPEC. Now’s our chance. Just tell anyone who points out the total non sequitur that they must just secretly want something like 9/11 to happen again. Oh, and country music. We’ll need lots of country music. Gentlemen, start your graft.”
I keep waiting for Weird Al to lampoon “Have You Forgotten?” with something like “What? Are You Fucking Stupid?”
Zizka 11.10.03 at 4:12 pm
Sebastian took it personal. Wonder why?
There’s a germ of truth in what Montoya says, except it’s me, not him. And I knew this well before 9/11.
People hate me because I’m right all the time.
Charles Lawrence 11.10.03 at 4:41 pm
Almost as insightful as Swift’s commentary “A Modest Proposal” unless I am incorrect in assuming the author is a register Republican ; )
Charles Lawrence 11.10.03 at 4:41 pm
Almost as insightful as Swift’s commentary “A Modest Proposal” unless I am incorrect in assuming the author is a registered Republican ; )
Athenae 11.10.03 at 4:45 pm
I don’t know what I find more offensive, people who use 9/11/01 to justify their political ambitions, or those who use it to “give their lives meaning.”
I heard this cant a lot from my co-workers: “Oh, this has made my life mean so much more!”
And almost every time I wanted to scream, “What the HELL is wrong with you? Why didn’t your life mean anything before? It takes the death of 3,000 strangers to give your life meaning to you? And isn’t that a terrible amount of pressure to put on New York, to give meaning to YOUR life?”
I mean, whatever brings you to the party, I guess, but you shouldn’t announce proudly that you’re late.
A.
Matt Weiner 11.10.03 at 4:53 pm
It’s the most satisfying takedown I’ve read since John Holbo read David Frum.
…three whole days ago. My, the blogosphere moves quickly. (Still, it’s not faint praise–Holbo is hard to top, and deserves the extra link.)
Tim 11.10.03 at 5:19 pm
That essay only makes sense if you replace “me” with me.
Tongue Boy 11.10.03 at 5:37 pm
The last line makes me almost think Robert Byrd wrote the essay.
Pacific John 11.10.03 at 6:36 pm
jsm’s Sept. 12 essay tosses a nut in the right garbage disposal. For every faithful legion of Holsclaws, you can find someone who can cobble something like this together.
… and we do need “What? Are You Fucking Stupid?â€
John Isbell 11.10.03 at 6:39 pm
julia sticks the knife in.
I also like the Weird Al song title.
I also find it healthy to read the “me” in this essay as me, right here. Which is what it says. Ouch.
Alex 11.10.03 at 7:35 pm
When I first saw “jsm”, I thought somebody misspelled “jism”.
Brilliant essay though.
james 11.10.03 at 8:14 pm
sebastian,
either you’ve missed a trick, or I have.
Surely it is applicable to left as well as right – the reaction lampooned is shared by many people from Noam Chomsky to Jerry Falwell via lots others.
Ricky 11.10.03 at 8:21 pm
Pretty good, except that there weren’t bombings at the WTC (unless the Oct. ’01 article pertains to the bombing – singular – in ’93).
radish 11.10.03 at 9:33 pm
Sebastian: Ouch.
You’re not really mistaking a critique of exclusively self-centered interpretations of 9/11 for a critique of trying to find any meaning at all in 9/11, are you?
I think I’m gonna assume that was a sly joke, caricaturing people who, literally unable to conceive of any interpretation of 9/11 other than their own, feel like any discussion at all is an invitation to take their marbles and go home…
that is what you were aiming for, right?
David 11.10.03 at 10:12 pm
I agree with Montoya that many on all sides of the issue have used 9/11 to justify their particular world view.
However, it’s a fallacy to believe that just because a proposition OFTEN holds, it ALWAYS holds. Some interpretations are unarguable.
E.g., nobody can deny that 9/11 showed us that the US is threatened by organized terrorsts who are willing to devote their lives to killing large number of Americans.
julia 11.10.03 at 11:06 pm
E.g., nobody can deny that 9/11 showed us that the US is threatened by organized terrorsts who are willing to devote their lives to killing large number of Americans.
True ‘nuf.
It’s entirely possible, though, that someone could make a case that since those terrorists were almost exclusively financed by Saudi Arabia as part of their longrunning initiative to pay off their own militant religious fundamentalists and keep from being made to pay for their rapine of their own resources and people, attacking a crippled secular regime in the region was not necessarily the way to go.
Particularly since the destruction of that country was one of the top 5 goals of the guy who sent the planes into the World Trade Center.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge that it’s a bit much to ask George Bush and his administration to take a stand against paying off militant religious fundamentalists to keep from being made to pay for abusing the people and resources of a country one wasn’t, strictly speaking, asked to run.
serial catowner 11.10.03 at 11:28 pm
C’mon, admit it, the only thing that could have improved that essay would be Sebastian showing how much truth there is in the humor.
Thank god Sebastian exists, only Kurt Vonnegut could invent him.
Pacific John 11.10.03 at 11:45 pm
Great post Julia. I have it on good authority some people were already saying that sort of thing when Montoya posted his humorous essay.
The irony of this Devil’s dance is that an attack on secular liberalism gave our own fundamentalists the excuse to throw their weight around. (Please pay no attention to the ideology of domestic terrorists, please).
…and the Philosoraptor post was brilliant.
CathiefromCanada 11.11.03 at 12:56 am
Some philosopher once said “whether you get an idea from looking at a sunset or a beehive has nothing to do with its merits.” Whether a politician uses 9/11 to advance a political position has nothing to do with its merits — but as Montoya’s satire implies, the test is whether the politician insists that his view should not be open to any debate or disagreement because of 9/11.
Germain 11.12.03 at 11:16 am
When I first read Montoya’s essay, it sounded all wrong…totally ridiculous, in fact. Then I read it aloud and pretended I had written the words, and it was absolutely the truest thing ever said or thought in all of human history.
Comments on this entry are closed.