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.
ahh…jsm, adequacy. memories
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.
Actually, this is a perfectly adequate rationale for the invasion of Iraq, and in no way inferior to any other rationale heretofore proffered.
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.
“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?
“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.
Humorously, the “John Montoya” that wrote that essay is also Daniel Davies, member of Crooked Timber.
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.”
Sounds like Montoya stung you pretty badly, Seb! Get over it; you’ve got lots of company.
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?”
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.
Almost as insightful as Swift’s commentary “A Modest Proposal” unless I am incorrect in assuming the author is a register Republican ; )
Almost as insightful as Swift’s commentary “A Modest Proposal” unless I am incorrect in assuming the author is a registered Republican ; )
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.
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.)
That essay only makes sense if you replace “me” with me.
The last line makes me almost think Robert Byrd wrote the essay.
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?”
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.
When I first saw “jsm”, I thought somebody misspelled “jism”.
Brilliant essay though.
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.
Pretty good, except that there weren’t bombings at the WTC (unless the Oct. ‘01 article pertains to the bombing - singular - in ‘93).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review