Victor Davis Hanson defends Jim Webb over Smutgate
posted at 9:52 pm on November 3, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I don’t get it. Doesn’t he want the GOP to win next week?
Doesn’t he know that granny votes?
[T]his silly controversy reminds us to respect the boundaries between make-believe and reality. In this age of global, instant and technologically sophisticated communications, we are often left bewildered over what is true and what is made up…
And now we are supposed to believe that an imaginary story — and that is what a novel is — must be an accurate moral litmus test of its creator?
Novelgate raises another issue: Rather than condemning candidates who are skilled in artistic and literary expression, we should welcome them. America needs more diverse politicians — people who are neither lawyers nor millionaires who so often win office through equivocation or through the power of money.
Colorless would-be politicians whose past legal and commercial training has taught them to raise money and say nothing of consequence cannot be expected to show courage and candor when they assume office. In the past, when flamboyant generals, inventors, builders, actors, teachers, pilots, doctors, farmers and, yes, novelists participated in democracy, the richer became our political ideas and oratory.
Whatever you think of James Webb, he at least brings a different background to politics. He wrote about human depravity because he had apparently seen a great deal of it and wished to warn his readers. Webb’s past life proves that he is a far different, far better person than many of the warped characters he feels he must create. And we should know and appreciate such a distinction — while also restoring the critical fault line between art and reality.
Exit question: who’s a bigger traitor to conservatism, VDH or Michelle? You can’t vote for me; we’ve already established that I’m the biggest traitor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Victor Davis Hanson is right.
Christoph on November 3, 2006 at 9:57 PM
So how does Stephen King fit into this?
Because this is getting to be a scary frickin place.
shooter on November 3, 2006 at 10:06 PM
I said it first.
Victor Davis Hanson is channeling me again!
Michelle on November 3, 2006 at 10:10 PM
I think we all know who the biggest traitor is.
Scot on November 3, 2006 at 10:14 PM
Its always difficult to take issue with Hanson, however, I will in this instance because the above quote sees that weird fiction in a vacuum. Does he find this to be the appropriate moment to weigh in on one side of this campaign without mentioning the ridiculousness surrounding the invention of the macaca slur, and the Koz Clown’s assault on the Allen campaign, and the predatory nature of both of these incidents by proponents of the Webb campaign?
cms on November 3, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Put away the noose, no traitors that I can see. It’s a question of tactics. One person’s righteous dig is another person’s cheap shot.
infidel4life on November 3, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Yeah, whattaya expect? After all, Victor Davis Hanson is a Democrat.
Seriously, though:
Of course not. I don’t believe that, VDH doesn’t, MM and you don’t, and William F. Buckley doesn’t.
But granny does.
I just don’t think that with everything going on out there in this race, and in others, this is quite worth the outrage everyone’s still working up about it. It’s based on facts, it doesn’t appeal to racism or homophobia or hatred of wealth or attack anybody’s kids. I’ve said every time I’ve discussed this that the accusation is dumb–but it’s only that, dumb–not vicious, slanderous, or dishonest.
P.S. AP, who’s this calling you the “biggest traitor to conservatism?” Come on, you’re not even in the top, oh, nine.
see-dubya on November 3, 2006 at 10:37 PM
Sometimes you take on an issue because it is something you abhorr. That is what being a conservative is about, taking on issues that are not right. Just not watching the polls and taking on the issues that will get you the most votes. Webbs facination with sexual encounters with young boys is abnormal. Character goes beyond the vote a congressman or senator makes.
right2bright on November 3, 2006 at 10:45 PM
See? Thanks, grandma!
see-dubya on November 3, 2006 at 10:45 PM
You’re all traitors in my book, and will be the first up against the wall when the revolution’s revolution comes.
frankj on November 3, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Exit question: who’s a bigger traitor to conservatism, VDH or Michelle? You can’t vote for me; we’ve already established that I’m the biggest traitor.
Damned right. And don’t you forget it.
Oh, who are we kidding? The biggest traitor to conservatism is Rich Lowry. He’s got small hands.
Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 10:55 PM
What would MKH say?
She would agree with Grandma
ICKY.
Ever notice that Michelle and VDH are never in the same place at the same time.
…
Just sayin’ is all.
Kai on November 3, 2006 at 10:58 PM
You’re all traitors in my book, and will be the first up against the wall when the revolution’s revolution comes.
Nope. First against the wall will be people who insist on backing into parking spaces, and pedestrians who cross against the light.
We can worry about the political traitors after that.
Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 11:00 PM
My earlier post is right under the goddess herself! You know you’re all jealous!
Scot on November 3, 2006 at 11:11 PM
Let me just try to frame this a little differently. Sometimes, you remain silent for the good of the country. It’s that simple. If Republicans were in the lead and the risk of losing one or both Houses was small, by all means, fire away. That’s not the case here. They are on the edge of losing both.
Now forgetting everything else, everything, just think about what could, and likely will, happen to our national security. Do you think the Democrats, and more importantly, their leadership, will fight this war nearly as aggressively? If you answer “no,” then you owe it to the nation to restrain yourself until the danger has passed.
You either believe this war is for real or you don’t. You either think there is a real difference in how it would be prosecuted or you don’t. You either think the Democrats naive (non)approach will put Americans in danger or you don’t.
Perhaps you think intellectual integrity demands speaking out. Perhaps. But, is your intellectual integrity more valuable than the life of a single American? Is it so valuable that it’s worth risking real injury to the nation to maintain it? Do people with a megaphone have any obligations to the rest of us? Perhaps not.
TheBigOldDog on November 3, 2006 at 11:29 PM
But by all means, let’s continue to discuss Smutgate and criticize Allen for telling us what Webb wrote.
TheBigOldDog on November 3, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Sometimes, you remain silent for the good of the country.
Yeah, and sometimes you talk some smack in order to snap some sense into the GOP so that they focus on the actual issues.
Don’t underestimate the voters. This Webb thing is not doing the GOP any favors. Whenever serious issues come up, the GOP wins. Whenever nonsense comes up, Democratic spin has the edge on us.
sandberg on November 3, 2006 at 11:54 PM
That’s a big assumption and risk I wouldn’t want on my conscience. I guess I should be glad some are willing to take it on to keep the GOP on track. After all, what do they know about running campaigns and getting elected? And by all means, let’s shout the “smack” from every rooftop less they not hear it.
{insert lastest Foley Pic here}
TheBigOldDog on November 4, 2006 at 12:07 AM
And that’s the point of it.
I really don’t personally care what Webb wrote. And I recognize that by bringing it up in the way he did, Allen was effectively hitting below the belt. But in a campaign like this, where Webb went dirty (viciously so) from the very outset, where Webb has had the full force of the Washington Post behind his campaign, and where heretofore the only one that’s made any real attempt at discussing the issues is Allen, I say so f—–g what.
If it puts the ick factor in the minds of a few grannies and causes them not to vote for Webb, then I’m all for it. I’d much rather Allen win that way than lose by taking the high road, especially against a political mercenary like Webb who started the mudslinging on day 1.
thirteen28 on November 4, 2006 at 12:13 AM
i didn’t realize that smutgate lasted beyond the day.
i think it should survive only alongside “clue goo”* as a referential stinger (i.e.: “that puppy is so adorable i’d like to pick it up, flip it upsode down and put its penis in my mouth.”)
*i further propose that “clue goo” be formalized in reference to any any absurd assertion which could be charicterized as “truther” in reasoning and authorship. by way of this definition, the assertion that the playboy bunny in the corker ad was meant to stir racist fears of miscegination is/was “clue goo”.
jummy on November 4, 2006 at 12:39 AM
As much as I respect and admire VDH, how can we be sure that Webb is a different and better person than his created characters?
And does Webb know the difference between art and reality?
Putting words and thoughts into print gives certain ideas a potency and life they wouldn’t otherwise have had–Webb’s “prose” is almost a paean to perversion.
The sheer fact that Webb thought about it and wrote it is very troubling to me and speaks to the man’s character or lack thereof and is critical to his contribution as a senator and somehow who would be called to vote on a number of morality issues, a subject that Webb seems to think is flexible and variable depending on “culture”–His excuse for this sickness was “it’s the custom in Vietnam.”
“As a man thinks, so is he…”–the Bible
If Webb’s moral compass has a variable pole star, then what’s to guide him as a Senator?
The Allen people were quite right to bring this to the attention of the people of Virginia.
As see-dubya pointed out at this blog, it’s not as if this is the centerpiece of Allen’s campaign and he’s made his views on the issues and his record in the Senate the main focus of his campaign, whereas I haven’t heard anything from Webb about the issues, but instead only “macaca” and the outing of Allen as a Jew.
Whereas a broken watch is right only twice a day, people like VDH seldom make a misstep, but I think he’s just plain wrong about this…(and he backed Hillary for president some months back, too! Just when you think a former Democrat gets it, their mind snaps and drags them back into Liberalism!)
Jen the Neocon on November 4, 2006 at 12:45 AM
Heh… I thought the parking spaces thing was just a personal pet peeve of mine. It’s so retarded!
Don’t forget the worst, though! In parking lots (especially at malls, etc), people who legitimately cross the street as pedestrians, but do so at something like a 45 degree angle, ensuring the longest possible wait for the cars that were nice enough to stop for them.
Those people can die. Cross the street at a perpindicular angle to the sidewalk when cars are waiting, morons.
DaveS on November 4, 2006 at 1:01 AM
oh what-the-hell-ever.
your interpretation of the kerry remark was incorrect. don’t make a martyr case out of it. that would be lefty behavior.
jummy on November 4, 2006 at 1:06 AM
Maybe they’ve just been trained to always combat park. Either way, I’m holding out for the revolution’s revolution’s revolution.
ReubenJCogburn on November 4, 2006 at 1:30 AM
Yeah…. Well … That’s as close as you’ll ever get !!
And yes, we are all jealous. :-)
Maxx on November 4, 2006 at 2:11 AM
Neocons (abandoning the GOP now), and
Evangelicals
On the fiction-writings of Webb/Mrs. Cheney and others…good luck with (the p—s in the mouth and the lesbian scenes, etc.) writing or other forms of free art when we have no heads, or when those which do, have to wear burkas and dishdashas.
To be sure I’m for libertarian freedom for all, in all things, especially expression, but we have to first keep and defend being still free. I don’t see at all how the Pelosi/Reid team will do that.
Then you come back and say the current team is not perfect either. I checked – God said he/she is not available.
Entelechy on November 4, 2006 at 2:17 AM
I’ve said it before.
I differentiate between Webb’s fiction and Webb’s behavior. I do not believe his fiction is a reflection upon his own personal behavior.
However, if 30 year old comments, made by a man much younger and much less wise than he is today, can be used to attack his candidacy claiming that he is unfit, 30 years later to be a US Senator, then words written to appeal to an audience in a commercially marketed novel can be used too.
They started it.
They destroyed political comity.
It is what Democrats always do.
They sowed the wind and now they reap the whirlwind.
georgej on November 4, 2006 at 2:17 AM
Much ado about nothing.
msflea on November 4, 2006 at 7:59 AM
If you say Webb’s books are indicative of his moral character then apply the same test to yourself. I agree with Hanson, and if you have ever watched porn, laughed at blue humor, played video games such as GTA then you’d best not slam Webb as a lout because of his books. That would make you a hypocrite.
I don’t support Webb, but the Allen campaign shot themselves in the foot with this non-issue. If Webb is not moral it’s because of his beliefs, not his artistic undertakings of fiction.
Bellicose Muse on November 4, 2006 at 9:47 AM
Far be it from me to disagree with someone reflexively defending the privileges of their own art form.
In fact, VDH so convinced me with his arguments against making imaginary stories of authors a moral litmus test; of authors candor and courage superior to many others; and that no matter what else I may think of such people as Webb at least he brings diveristy that I cannot in good faith vote for such a mediocre specimen as Webb and shall write in the name of Ward Churchill for Senate.
Dusty on November 4, 2006 at 10:56 AM
The people who ran Allen’s campaign should be forever banned from political work. What a bunch of nonsense this is.
honora on November 4, 2006 at 10:57 AM
Question: Would you want James Webb leading your son’s Boy Scout Troop trip in the woods for a weekend?
Like the person who placed a Cross in a jar of pee?
DannoJyd on November 4, 2006 at 11:30 AM
There seems to be some pretense here that discussion of Webb’s fictional writings should be off the table.
I’m not hearing any critics say that his writings on any topic should be curbed, only that it is fair game when assessing him as a candidate for Senate.
Some will learn of it and not care, others like Granny will care a great deal.
MRegine on November 4, 2006 at 12:00 PM
…because Michelle Malkin made a “big deal” about Allen’s campaign ads a few days ago, — ads which questioned Webb’s integrity based on the content of Webb’s fictional books.
I gave Michelle the benefit of the doubt because she usually does an exemplary job of gathering ALL the facts. Perhaps Allen’s ads WERE out-of-bounds. Nevertheless, if I was voting in that district, I WOULD want to know about the contents of Webb’s books. Forgive me, but I am of the opinion that once a person decides to pursue a career in the public arena, he/she automatically forfeits his/her right to the same amount of privacy or “benefit of the doubt” that the rest of us “nobodies” take for granted. IMHO, for these people, EVERYTHING is fair game for scrutiny. Am I being nosy? I don’t think so. Ted Haggard is a classic example. It is ALL-TOO-EASY for politicians, preachers, and their ilk to literally fool thousands of people about who they really are. ANY hint, any shred of evidence, any whiff of impropriety should be carefully considered. I am not advocating witch-hunts. I just don’t want to be naive. The Ted Haggard episode is not unique. Over the years, we have witnessed many examples in both the pulpit and in public office where the person that was elevated to “god-hood” status or the person that was elected turned out to be “someone other than” the person that supporters thought they were.
CyberCipher on November 4, 2006 at 12:38 PM
I’m really perplexed at these commentators giving Webb a Pass.
Here are people not giving Webb a Pass
Nancy Reagan, Michael Reagan, Our President, Our Vice President and his Wife, The house Republicans, The Senate Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, and too many numerous others.
You have Michelle, John Gibson, Allah and now Victor David Hanson defending Webb.
You see, this isn’t the first time Webb’s gone off the deep end – also using his war hero status as an excuse to write porn into novels
Here are some war heros and authors who interviewed war heros that did not write porn into novels, nor degrade women and children in official writings
Admirals Nimitz, Halsey, King, Fletvher Spruace, Turner
Generals, Eisenhower Holling Mad Smith, Bedell Smith, Bradley, Mitchell, McArthur, Patton, Hodge, Wainwright
Marines like Chesty Puller, Vandegrift, and Pedro Del Valle
Authors who served or wrote about combat such as victor David Hanson, Stephen Ambrose, Ralph Peters, Tom Clancy (fiction and non Fiction), Toland, Churchill, and on and on
But we must give Webb a pass because, well Webb ran a dirty campaign and he wrote dirty unseemly things both as a high ranking military official and as a recent novelist.
EricPWJohnson on November 4, 2006 at 1:30 PM
The problem with certain Republicans is that they are the old-fashioned Republicans of our parents’ generation; they are too nice and get run over by Democrats. Look at George Bush’s administration being beaten down every night in the press and they can’t stomach fighting back. Ooh, you might offend a Democrat and someone in the MSM, and then they might get upset. We don’t want that!! Therefore, they are always on the defensive. We need to come up with a term for these type of Republicans who are too scared to get nasty with Democrats. How about
DhimmitudeDemmitude?Republicans getting all bent out of shape about Allen bringing up Webb’s smut are suffering from Demmitude.
It was effective, so why get so upset?
Prediction: Allen 52%, Webb 48%.
Here is an ad I got in the mail today. It talks about Webb’s smut:
“In James Webbs, women always have the same role-sex objects:
Something to Die For: There are no female characters who are not promiscuous.
The Emperor’s General: All female characters in this book engage in extramarital sex.
Lost Soldiers: In general, women advanced only if they used their bodies. They may be businesswomen, but that usually meant prostitution, either past or present.
A Sense of Honor: Women are depicted as mere sex object.
No Repect for Women. . .No Way He Should be Our Senator.”
Great ad! But it will be too much I’m afraid for those Republicans suffering from Demmitude.
Also, while I was raking leaves, four young women had the neighborhood covered; they were handing out George Allen material and flyers. If the polls right now say it is a tie, that is really bad news from Jim Webb.
januarius on November 4, 2006 at 1:54 PM
(Excuse the bad typing when I transcribed the George Allen ad. I should have proofread.)
Michelle, AllahPundit, and Victor Hanson Davis should be asking themselves: Why does a liberal like Honora so vehemently agree with my position on “Smutgate?” Is this a good sign?
januarius on November 4, 2006 at 1:59 PM
ayn rand’s female characters moved from one liason to another without so much as a dear john letter.
jummy on November 4, 2006 at 2:10 PM
i’m going to say the same thing i said when the msm pulled whosit della whatsisface out of their asses to “prove” something about the corker ad: who the fuck is that?
jummy on November 4, 2006 at 2:13 PM
jummy, you sure about that?
Both Dominique Francon (The Fountainhead) and Dagney Taggart (Atlas Shrugged) were both “one-man women.”
Ayn herself had that affair with Nathanial Brandon, but she was only human…and she wasn’t running for office!
Jen the Neocon on November 4, 2006 at 2:29 PM
I agree with MM and VDH. It is acheap sot by the Allen campaign. Win on issues. If they are the right issues they’ll work everytime.
billy on November 4, 2006 at 11:14 PM
The only part of this argument which pains me is those who think like this:
Don’t say anything against our side, even when you have a moral objection to something done by our side, because WE HAVE TO WIN! And then back that up with “AREN’T YOU TERRORIZED BY WHAT HAPPENS IF ‘THEY’ WIN?”
Commentators such as MM say what they believe about issues. If they only spoke when it suited “their” party, and keep quiet when it didn’t, they’d be no better than the spinning of the MSM we bash.
Michelle said what she thought about the issue. You don’t really disagree, but you are angry that she says it when the elections are on the line. Too bad. She has a spine, you don’t.
Freelancer on November 5, 2006 at 7:50 PM
“Webb’s past life proves that he is a far different, far better person than many of the warped characters he feels he must create”
There’s damned by faint praise if I ever saw it. Interesting that a careful writer like VDH would add the phrase “many of”…
I’ve only seen the quotes. If the novels are as VDH describes, warnings to Webb’s readers about the perversity in the world, I would have to see the excerpts in context. Which means I’ll have to read the damthing[s].
*sigh*
Off to the end of the Amazon list with ya’s.
Claire on November 5, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Comment pages: