Demosophia

Ted Rall, Trent Lott and Other Unoriginal Sinners

Well, I don't see a correction coming from Andrew Sullivan about his post on Ted Rall's Veteran's Day "Why We Fight" article. Nor do I see anyone else changing their minds or issuing retractions, though it certainly looked to me like they took the Rall article the wrong way. I have a disadvantage in that I wouldn't know Ted Rall from... well I probably do know almost any mortal from Ted Rall, but you know what I mean. The piece just looked like tasteless satire to me, and one simply has to pity those who can't tell the difference between what goes in and comes out. I understand there's a fine line between being abnormally tasteless for a normal human, and being tasteless "in the biblical sense." And I gather that most people feel that Rall shades over into the second category.

But it's fair to say that this satire could appeal to two kinds of people, effectively multiplying his audience. It probably appeals to people who are horrified by any violence, observing that any attempt by the US to use a public show of force against a small terrorist sub-population within a terrorized population might further terrorize them, and potentially alienate Iraqis in the section of Baghdad in question. And that is an up or down thing, because it could be rather heavy-handed. Sure. All most people saw here in the states was the bang bang. And I wouldn't have been too surprised to see some such satire coming from the "more-war-later" crowd, so I was willing to just shrug it off. There's a huge distinction between encouraging terrorism and discouraging actions that supposedly encourage terrorism. In fact, they're sort of the opposite.

And that's the satirical edge, isn't it? The drama created by implying the opposite of what you're actually saying is, under normal circumstances, the power of a satirical piece. But what the devil is Rall really saying? If we assume that he isn't in sympathy with the terrorists the piece certainly works as ironic satire. But can we assume Rall's intentions? The literary ambiguity certainly isn't resolved by any history of pro-American sentiment in Rall's past. And beyond that there's also the clearly intentional "meta-irony" involved in titling an article published on Veteran's Day: "Why We Fight" (emphasis added). Who is "we?" Here it's obvious that something more than irony is at play, something more like double meaning. Because the "we" is not just "our civilization" vs. the anti-civilization terrorists, but the "we" of the anti-war movement that's fighting the anti-terrorism of the US: a fact that is not only ironic itself, but shockingly foolish and misguided. And upon this point turns a larger interpretation of the article as unintentional self-satire.

These folks have never seen a terrorist they didn't like, except possibly Tim Mcveigh. So, at that meta-level the irony that's essential to satire begins to lose traction, and we can see that Rall may actually be in sympathy with the recruiters of terrorists. Instead of a nice crisp satire we begin to perceive a hall of mirrors.

And the question of whether or not there are a significant number of readers who would read Rall's piece and agree with the sentiments expressed in the recruiting pamphlet is probably, yes. The "We" in the title is, essentially, standing on the side of the terrorists insisting to see the world as they see it, no matter how distorted the image. That isn't irony, it's empathy.

Does the article work on that level, and simply maintain plausible deniability by hiding behind a claim to satire? Is there a kind of not-so-secret desire to see the US lose the war, by emphasizing one side of the inevitable tradeoff that's inherent in the fact that opposing the terrorists with force is bound to alienate some people? Are these potential recruits really all that rational to begin with, or are they just as likely to be set off by George Bush's Texas twang?

I think I've changed my mind. There's a lot here that ought to offend. Yes, on one level it's a bit like watching a mentally handicapped person masturbate in public. But on another level it's far uglier.

If it's fair to look into past actions and statements in the case of Trent Lott to determine precisely what he meant by his belated endorsement of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, it's fair to do the same with Rall's past journalistic diatribes, which he has never repudiated, as Michele Catalono does here and here:

Don't bother to tell me that I read Rall's column wrong, that this was satire or tongue in cheek or parody or whatever word you want to use to defend him; based on Rall's past columns and comics, one can safely assume that Ted wrote this from his bitter heart.

Look at that paragraph I quoted. Does Rall really believe this? Does he honestly think that most Iraqis would rather live under Saddam than make progress towards democracy with help from the U.S.? He is taking the issues of a small percentage of Iraqis - those corrupt individuals who flourished under Saddam's totalitarian regime - and projecting their ideals onto the rest of the Iraqi citizens.

After all, Trent was just going for the laugh too... and it was surely tasteless "in the biblical sense," because it betrayed the desires and longings of his heart. And while I'm not personally competent to judge whether Rall is similarly afflicted, because I don't really know him from... well, Adam--the meta-irony of the title is something I can't overlook. It looks like Rall not only took a big ol' bite of a corrupted fruit, but actually went further than Lott having chewed it up, and "swallered it." And that wide-eyed look of innocence really hides a vengeful snarl. It's certainly fair to say that he and many of his readers apparently liked the taste of the forbidden produce, and that it might not only be a sin in the biblical sense, but on a biblical scale. (Hat tip: Glenn)

UPDATE: Eric Scheie has an extensive post with lots of links that speaks to Rall's character, or lack thereof.

Posted by Demosophist at November 15, 2003 12:30 PM | TrackBack