Mike's Blog

Sid Blumenthal Review, part 1

So I've been digging my way through Sid Blumenthal's new book, The Clinton Wars and it is a very good read. Short bio: Blumental was a journalist who wrote for the Washington Post and the New Yorker before joining the Clinton White House in 1997 as Special Adviser to the President. Mostly he worked in communications.

There's some of Blumenthal's personal history in the book, but mostly the book's 800 pages focus on the bullshit psuedo-scandals that the GOP used to tar Clinton during his eight years in office (I've read about half of the book at the time of writing this. You can read the chapters in any order really, which I've done liberally). Whitewater and all the other "character" issues the GOP howled at are all brought up in this book, and all ripped apart.

So two things, 1) Blumenthal's position does not automatically make him a partisan hack. This is not the Left's version of Ann Coulter, i.e. it's a real book with real facts. It's not even Michael Moore. Too weighty to be thrown in the same category. 2) This is a very strong book with a few, a few, genuine flaws.

Some of my greatest anger is reserved for writers who always feel compelled to split the difference. Thomas Friedman comes to mind ("The Palestinians need to do this...and the Israelis need to do this...and here's where they're both wrong). Then there are always these other jerks who think they've come up with some kind of brilliant idea like,"It's not about liberal vs. conservative thought. Both sides have terribly flawed ideologies...." Then they propose some weak-ass theory that tries to make themselves look like they're above the partisan fray. Note to un-original schmucks: Nobody is above this shit. You may have a foot in each camp, or you might not give a damn, but no one's thought is completely independent. So stop pretending that you've found some new solution to politics.

I'm not saying that one needs to choose a side and stick to it, by damn. I'm not even arguing for consistwncy here. Just don't pretend that you've reinvented the political wheel.

I'm writing this now because I don't want to leave the impression that the book is a 50-50 split between its good and bad points. If I had to split it, I'd say it's 90-95 percent good (in my opinion, which I shouldn't have to indicate, it's my fucking blog so that should go without saying I guess). So now that I've lambasted some unknown spirits for employing the hackneyed "On the one hand..but on the other hand...." approach, I'm going to do something similar and list some weaknesses here. I'll save the strengths for part 2 (excited? Yeah I didn't think so.)

Blumenthal, for all his talents, every once in a while sounds like he's been sucked into the right wing's echo chamber. This is also his boss's flaw. In order to gather more public support, whether for issues or for individuals, Clinton often acts like his political theory just sprang up from the earth. He and Blumenthal are reluctant to credit past movements, particularly ones that the GOP has effectively smeared. As a result, we get Blumenthal writing of the "collapse of social democratic institutions," and "the old Left-wing." Walter Mondale is compromised by seeing politics through the "prism of the Minnesota Democratic Farm-Labor Party," and Michael Dukakis is faulted for being too stale. Ralph Nader, of whom I am no fan, is labeled "anti-Isreal." That's a flat out hatchet job and one of the most common slurs making the right wing circuit these days, used mostly to attack someone who is actually just "Anti-Sharon" or "Anti-Likud" or simply not a fan of some particular policy. "Anti-Israel" labeles someone an enemy of the entire country and makes that person sound like he doesn't believe Israel should exist. Ralph Nader is nowhere close to holding this kind of attitude. But I digress.

In all these criticisms, Blumenthal isn't attacking actual policies. He's attacking the ability to sell these policies. He seems to be saying, "Look, Mondale and Dukakis had it right, but they were useless since they were bad salesmen." Horseshit. They had it right and voters were misled by some of the dirtiest tactics on record. Blumenthal's whole outlook seems to be that a candidate's TV image is more important than his policies. Like I give a shit if Dukakis appears too stale, or if Gore appears too "wooden" (never got this one, look at the asshole he was running against and tell me that Gore was more wooden than that fraud.) If TV appearence is more important than substance, than we're all doomed.

Actually, that may be my biggest problem with the book. Blumenthal is an optimist, while I'm clearly....let's just say not an optimist. I don't think democracy as most Americans think of it will exist in 50, 75 years. Yeah, there will be political parties and voting and a lot of rhetoric, but it will be Tamany Hall type democracy, not the real deal. Whatever the real deal is.

But again, the book is great. Tomorrow part 2: the praise. Then some notes about butterflies and kittens. Maybe a rainbow or two. Yeah, and right after that happens I'll mail my campaign contribution to W......

Posted by mike at July 2, 2003 03:23 AM