I love Gore Vidal

[AslanC]

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php

Make what you will of it

[Ramage]

His latest book is VERY impressive.

The article here makes a nice snapshot of his major arguments.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace -- sounds like a good campaign slogan, neh?

[First of Two]

I think "To indure peace, prepare for war" is a lot older than Mr. Vidal... perhaps as old as Sun Tzu.

I also believe that interview contains at least one Urban Legend quality conspiracy theory.

[Dan Stack]

I'm confused. Interesting article, but what is it you love about him? Agree with every point he makes? Love the controversey he stirs up? An inquiring mind wants to know.

[Jabara Eris]

I have to admit that I'm not the most well-versed in Gore Vidal's previous writings, but after going through the interview (whose link you posted), I have to say I'm intrigued by the concept of his latest book.

If even half of what Vidal says is accurate, then his book should make for some scary (a.k.a. enlightening) reading.

Seeing the hoopla that other politically based postings have caused from the more polarized members of this board, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that there haven't been more responses to this thread, particularly in response to Vidal's evaluation of Bush's actions. Oh, well.

[Eric R.]

I think it should be noted here that in the past this man has said Lincoln was wrong to issue the emacipation proclaimation and was wrong in fighting the Civil War and said America should have never gotten involved in World War II. He pretends to know what he is talking about and passes hisself off as a historian but is nothing but a half baked crack pot passing off his old style conservative anti-interventalist isolationism to a new audiance. he has been totally rejected by the historical community. And his so called message always falls flat once your start to really hear what he is saying. I know, I have been there.

[Eric R.]

I still can't believe anybody cares what this senile old man has to say anymore. Did you really read what he said? He put forward the idea we were already going to attack Afganistan in October and they hit US first as a pre-emptive strike, thus in a rundabout way justifing the attacks of the 11th! Though he does not come stright out and say that beceause he knows no body will print his ramblings if he did. Further the so called pipeline has been proposed for years and each time ruled out due to to earthquake activity in the region and constant political instability. The Tailban did not take over with US support from the Russians. It overthrowed the government now back in power.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by Eric R.
I think it should be noted here that in the past this man has said Lincoln was wrong to issue the emacipation proclaimation and was wrong in fighting the Civil War and said America should have never gotten involved in World War II. He pretends to know what he is talking about and passes hisself off as a historian but is nothing but a half baked crack pot passing off his old style conservative anti-interventalist isolationism to a new audiance. he has been totally rejected by the historical community. And his so called message always falls flat once your start to really hear what he is saying. I know, I have been there.

Could you please point out why he said what he said and offer a link to his arguements? You have used the inflamatory remarks. He was against American involvement in WWII is a nice statement, and it will stir up reaction. But maybe he has good reason or at least his own reasons for saying it. You know Charles Lindberg was against being in WWII and he has a stamp. Lindberg was also an anti-semite, but is considered to be an American hero.

And how does his message fall falt? I've read him, seen him speak and taken classes where his books were cricitcally analyzed. His message about how the rich control you and your media (mine too it seems) doesn't fall flat on me. His talk of how American Foreign Policy has breed hatred of America the world over doesn't fall flat to me. When he talks about getting his news from other countries than American Media doesn't fall flat for me either. So you know, you;ve been there? Where have you been? Please explain, I am most curious as to what that cryptic statement means.

As for the "historical community". Who are they? Do they have a head office? Why was I taught Gore Vidal in college, by a history PHD? Such blanket statements are exactly what he is talking about. They is no historical community. There is concensus of history, which isn't always right, it is just what the majority thinks. Once upon a time the majority thought the sun revolved around the Earth, it didn't make them right.

Consensus is almost always created to protect everything. To not rock the boat. Consensus ruled Nazi Germany, ran the Deep South against the Civil Rights Movement and allows your current government to impose some of the most draconian legislation seen in years by a democratic nation.

Please don't fire back that education has gotten better, it has actually gotten worse. Less people read today per capita, than during the colonization of the American West. Why? Because they get all their "news" and info from TV.

Dan, as for what I love about him? His complete and utter resingment to say what he feels despite its popularity or th consequences of who he is saying it about. His constant condemnation of the media (not I do not call them journalists) and bi business.

While I may not agree with everything he says, I agree with most of it. So as a result, unlike Eric R here, I do not throw the baby out with the bath.

Like it or not, America has done some really really horrible things since 1945 (hell they even did some bad ones before that) and honestly it seems Americans on the whole (not all, just a terrifying majority) seem to think any cristicisim of the American government and forriegn policy is a critiscisim of the entirity of America. It refreshes me when I see Americans like Gore Vidal who understand that criticizing the system is not treason.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by Eric R.
I still can't believe anybody cares what this senile old man has to say anymore. Did you really read what he said? He put forward the idea we were already going to attack Afganistan in October and they hit US first as a pre-emptive strike, thus in a rundabout way justifing the attacks of the 11th! Though he does not come stright out and say that beceause he knows no body will print his ramblings if he did. Further the so called pipeline has been proposed for years and each time ruled out due to to earthquake activity in the region and constant political instability. The Tailban did not take over with US support from the Russians. It overthrowed the government now back in power.

Check your facts dude. Michael Moore even talks about how Chaney (Vice-President) sat on the Enron tapes because Enron was involved in the whole Pipeline business in Afgahistan. He also talks about how the Taliban pulled out of the whole negotiation a few months before 9/11.

And there was no single government after the Russian pull out in 1989. There were scores of factiosn that turned on each other and the Taliban simply came out the strongest (mostly due to support through Pakistan).

He says the US helped arm them, I don't know. That may be one of those things. It still doesn't mean I am going to throw out his entire set of arguements in the last 30 or 40 years becuase he believes one thing or two or even 10 things I can't prove.

There are plenty more that can be. Read up on the United fruit Company and Guatalmala someday.

[qerlin]

I'm not a huge fan of Vidal -- though I agree with his anti-intervention stance. Eric's right about his rep with historians (Finishing my PhD right now; he's a goof who makes a lot of stuff up.) However, his modern critiques have usually had a lot of insight.

As for Michael Moore...he's quite unimpressive. Unless you've got the ideological bent he does.

[AslanC]

Originally posted by qerlin
I'm not a huge fan of Vidal -- though I agree with his anti-intervention stance. Eric's right about his rep with historians (Finishing my PhD right now; he's a goof who makes a lot of stuff up.) However, his modern critiques have usually had a lot of insight.

Exampls senior. Anyone can say that, prove it please I mean I could say the same thing about anyone, but without proof it is just words.

Originally posted by qerlin
As for Michael Moore...he's quite unimpressive. Unless you've got the ideological bent he does.

And what bent is that? Big Business is killing the American middle and lower class? Corporations are out of control? America is addicted to oil and that's the way things are designed to be?

As for him being unimpressive. Here is a guy who stands up for the little man, has had everyone try and shut him up and still manages to get movies, books and tv shows made. That is impressive to me.

If more US Citizens took the time to learn about what their country is up to and what Big Business is up to, the way he did, there might be a change to the whole system.

Never forget this guy started out as a Flint Michigan guy wondering why the plant was closed in his home town, despite GM posting record sales and profit figures.

America needs more Gore Vidals and more Michael Moore's and less of the Bush family and that lot. People who would sell out your freedom, health and future for their own profit are just as evil as those who kill innocents. They just take a longer time to achieve the same (if not higher) body counts.

[qerlin]

"America needs more Gore Vidals and more Michael Moore's and less of the Bush family and that lot. People who would sell out your freedom, health and future for their own profit are just as evil as those who kill innocents."

Hmm...you mean anyone with a modicum of power? It's not just the corporations and Bush, baby...it's Daschle and the Dems, and if it wasn't them, then it would be someone else. But to put the government bureaucrats in charge of how much people can make, how business have to do thing, inevitably hampers business. In the worst cases, it strangles it, as per the Soviet uNion.

Moore is blatantly US 'liberal' with his critiques. Many are valid, but he never provides an answer that's any better.

As for Vidal -- hmm...I'll start bringing his books to work with me for when I get a moment to post. I vaguely remeber a lot of deconstructionist stuff about the civil war that didn't quite jibe with the fact.

As for the US citizens not knowing what our companies are up to, I find most are pretty aware of the situation. Corporations make money and the screw their workers, competition, etc when they can for a profit. The latest scandals are nothing new...it's been going on for a while. The problem here is that there are few press outlets that show how smarmy the alternate -- big goverment and an economy dependent on idiots in Congress that can't cut it out in the real world -- is.

This is one fo the reasons I've been getting irrate onthe boards recently; there's this picture of teh yanks as dumb hicks or duped retards that can't see what's going on around them. It's not the case.

And I'll reiterate...I think Gore is a good social critique. Hell, so's Moore...but Moore provides no alternative, and Vidal is, from what I remember of him, willing to fudge facts a bit to make things fit. Most authors do.

[Eric R.]

First off how can we give examples to your satisfaction when generally every college prof I have had and every other person involved in dealing with true history be, they left or right in leaning, roll there eyes when you mention his name or his books. And Micheal Moore is at least constructuve in debate and makes me think because his BS factor is very low and he proves his points with facts unlike Vidal who just blurps whatever the hell he thinks and says he right. He was popluar with the Anti everything crowd coming out of the colleges in the 60's and early 70's who went on to beocme prof. but they have proved to have had little impact on the field in general. Case in point the opinions on LBJ, Tet and other events of the war which have been turned upside down by both new research and perspective. Unfourtunately Vidal also suffers from the everything started in 1945 mind set of history ignoring trends and movements which still effect us.

And your understanding of Lindburgh is shallow, he opposed US involvement in World War II becuase he had been to Germany yes and it had scared the hell out of him and he thought there was no way the US could oppose Germany. He preached a basic American Isolationism before Pearl Harbor then afterward gave his body and soul to the war effort as did most of the majority of the pre war Isolationist movement which left either the true pacifist elements (Who I have no argument with) and the likes of the American Bund and other radical groups. Unfourtunately the Anti-Semetic streak was a syptum of his times and predominated in the class and circles he grew up in. Just as no one would say that Lincoln was a true believer in full equality of the races.

As to where I get my opinion from it came from watching interviews on the major networks going back to as far as the late 80's when after I watched NBC's Lincoln I sat out to find about the guy who I thought at the time might know what he was talking about, boy I learned otherwise. And I also read an occiasional newspaper article and review of his books.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by AslanC


There are plenty more that can be. Read up on the United fruit Company and Guatalmala someday.

Oh boy don't go there, I know more about US involvement in Central America then you might know. Ya, Guatalmala got the shaft no doubt it was one of those overactions the same as with Pinochet in Chile in 73. And by the way did you also know that the US owns the rights to building a second canal through Nic.? or that US Marines have set foot in each country except Boliva and Paraguary. That the US fought wars in Nic. Hati, Hondurus and on and on and on . . . . There is a recent book entiled simply Savage Wars of Peace which goes into detail on this matter and shows that it has been a constant thread going all the way back to Washington remember the quisi War with France and the brbery pirate when we decided not to pay ransom unlike the rest of Europe at the time. And big business played apart in all of them in some way if you expand the diff to the times

Well what you know an American who knows his country's history!

Don't Patronize me on History.

[qerlin]

I'm with you, Eric. As I said...I am a semester from my friggin' PhD in history. I was a friggin' intel officer. Mind the "you should read" crap; I wish I could get a break from reading.