Year: 2005

Mark Gisleson at Norwegianity directed me to this James Wolcott post, What kind of a maniac puts eagles in a Christmas tree?, that I, devoted Wolcott reader though I am, somehow missed. Here are just three sentences of Wolcott on Matt Taibbi’s Time Person of the Year article to demonstrate why you should read this post:

The annual Whatzit of the Year allows the editorial brass to rise above the trendy transient and serve as clerks of posterity, judges of History. Without fail we get the same pre-announcement buildup to the big ho-hum moment. Items in the press about the deliberation process, the “lively editorial debate”–a euphemism that implies some hothead wiping the mustard from his mouth, tossing the crumpled napkin on the conference table, and flouncing out at the very idea of enshrining so-and-so on the cover.

Matt Taibbi:

The “Person of the Year” issue has always been a symphonic tribute to the heroic possibilities of pompous sycophancy, but the pomposity of this year’s issue bests by a factor of at least two or three the pomposity of any previous issue. From the Rushmorean cover portrait of Bush (which over the headline “An American Revolutionary” was such a brazen and transparent effort to recall George Washington that it was embarrassing) to the “Why We Fight” black-and-white portraiture of the aggrieved president sitting somberly at the bedside of the war-wounded, this issue is positively hysterical in its iconolatry. One even senses that this avalanche of overwrought power worship is inspired by the very fact of George Bush’s being such an obviously unworthy receptacle for such attentions. From beginning to end, the magazine behaves like a man who knocks himself out making an extravagant six-course candlelit dinner for a blow-up doll, in an effort to convince himself he’s really in love.

Definitely Metaphor of the Year.

(see 10 for introduction)

John Nichols didn’t make it, the streak ends at 109 Capital Times columns, it just wouldn’t be December 30th without him using the word “Israel” for the first time. Last year it was refusenik pilots, this year it’s Richard Ben Cramer.

In a new wrinkle, however, he defends himself. “Throughout the year, I kept buying copies of Cramer’s book and handing it to friends and colleagues, who in turn recommended it to book groups, discussion circles and friends and colleagues of their own.” Why, this rippling effect could turn into a veritable, well, never mind.

But if the book’s “that important,” if it’s “that important” that the U.S. has “‘never done squat'” to get Israel out of the occupied territories, why can’t John say so in the Capital Times, “Your Local Progressive Newspaper?”

And he never says why it’s “that important” that the U.S. has “‘never done squat.'” Israel with a soul is better than Israel without a soul and it would be great to see the injustice done to the Palestinians rectified and the truth of their suffering acknowledged, but the point of this countdown has been to draw attention to a disconnect—many of the same “progressives” who are outraged over how Bush exploits the public’s fear of terrorism are not willing to talk about a fundamental cause of hatred of the U.S.

I don’t know what’s in Cramer’s book, but a quick web search determines that he is more than willing to talk about this fundamental cause. It also brings forth a final convolution—Cramer plays the key role in an article which cuts to ribbons the same 9/11 Commission Report which I have used as both point of departure and cornerstone.

Philip Weiss sees the glass empty in 9/11 Report Misses One Crucial Point: Mideastern Policy, but I don’t. The reports states thats the “U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors…we can offer [Muslim] parents a vision that might give their children a better future.” Later it says our Israel/Palestine and Iraq policies must be “integrated with our message of opportunity.”

Let’s think positively, the decidely mainstream 9/11 Commission has done activists a tremendous service, advocating for a U.S. foreign policy steeped in morality, decency and justice. Now if only we could get “progressives” to give “a foreign policy steeped in morality, decency and justice” a prominent place on their list of “progressive values.”