Demosophia takes the recent broadcast of "Angels in America" and sees in it a revelation its creators did not intend: Wishing al Qaeda Away, with Pixie Dust
Andrew Sullivan describes Angels in America as a "leftist screed," but I don't think that's really accurate. There are only a few screed-like passages, at least in the Nichols adaptation, and their tone is self conscious rather than self righteous. Ignoring the dimension of homosexuality, which obscures what my personal revelation was about, the screen adaptation (because I never saw the play) is more a kind of documentary about how the left viewed itself, in the 9-10 era. My moment of self-revelation was about the fact that I know most on the left are good people. But I no longer think they're quite as good as they believe they are, nor do I think any longer that they're the only "good people." My views on that score have changed drastically, and I doubt that I'm alone....Posted by Vanderleun at January 1, 2004 11:06 AMAngels in America is an historical and cultural dramatization, but it's not about America. It's about a bygone era that was literally blown to bits on Sept. 11, 2001. So of course the issue isn't defeating al Qaeda, because its existence was never acceptable. The best remaining option is to wish it away. And any sort of pixie dust will do, because the substance is in the belief, not the quality of the dust. And that encapsulates the tragic descent of the left since 9-11-2001.
Could you perhaps be confusing pixie dust with the rose petals we were supposed to be showered with in Iraq?
Talk about wishful thinking.
Posted by: Emphyrio at January 1, 2004 11:32 PMAs Michael Crichton would say, Emphyrio has advanced a testable proposition. The coming year will show who was wishful and who was thinking. What odds would you lay on the Ba'athist insurgency?
Posted by: wretchard at January 2, 2004 12:41 AMCould you perhaps be confusing pixie dust with the rose petals we were supposed to be showered with in Iraq?Talk about wishful thinking.
This is the sort of revisionism that concerns me. Of course there was a good deal of hope that things would change quickly after the fall of Saddam, but almost everyone of substance know it would really be a long hard slog. And that includes everyone in the administration, from the President on down.
And the impression of opposition sewn by the media simply gives little clue to how much we are actually accomplishing in the country, where we apparently have the support of over 80% of Iraqis. If the "insurgents" are a concern, it's not because they have broad public support, but because they can command western media attention by blowing something up, and that displaces a more accurate perception of what's going on. And because it's always easier to destroy than to build, a fact that has kept the Middle East down since the 17th Century.
I heard a well-respected CNN reporter make the statement the other day that the "insurgents" have killed an average of two US soldiers a day since the "end of active hostilities." Well, that's just remarkably bad reporting, because the death toll is more like two a week rather than two a day. What amazes me is that no one seems to hold these so-called "professionals" accountable. As soon as it starts costing them viewers, they'll put a stop to it.
Posted by: Scott at January 2, 2004 8:12 AMWhen I heard a reporter claim that 2 americans a day had been killed since the end of active hostilities, I reflexively shouted "That's a lie!" Of course reporters these days almost never admit it when they are wrong.
I thought this passage was quite good:
My moment of self-revelation was about the fact that I know most on the left are good people. But I no longer think they're quite as good as they believe they are, nor do I think any longer that they're the only "good people."
It fits our modern leftists to a tee. Thanks.
Posted by: RB at January 5, 2004 4:49 PM
HOME