Myth:  The “Liberal Elite,” which is used to refer to academics, Hollywood actors and directors, is a threat to the American public.

 

EVEN though it is nominally a science-fiction film about an alien invasion, Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" is, in fact, the first Hollywood movie about 9/11…The only real difference — a profound and troubling one — is that Spielberg's movie shows Americans turning on each other as the attack occurs. In real life, the attack on America caused people to band together, to commit extraordinary acts of heroism on a moment-to-moment basis and to join each other in comradeship

…Think how much more powerful, and meaningful, it might have been had Spielberg actually bit the bullet, ditched the aliens and gone for a movie about 9/11 itself. But he didn't, and therein hangs a tale about this country's pop culture and its response to the current war. Think about it. We are nearly four years into the War on Terror, and Hollywood doesn't know what to do with the central struggle of our time…No one would object to a full-scale recreation of 9/11 if it involved telling such an extraordinary story. The only real objections would come if a 9/11 film twisted the tale into one in which we Americans are the bad guys.  That, I suspect, was the original impulse behind the idea of a miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission report — since the story told by the 9/11 Commission largely focuses on pre-attack failings in the U.S. government. So the villains wouldn't really be bin Laden and his monstrous followers, but American officials too blind or lazy or turf-conscious to stop them.  (John Podhoretz, Hollywood’s 9/11 Problem, The New York Post, 07/01/05)

Reality

My gosh! “War of the Worlds” is a remake of a sci-fi movie from an H.G. Wells book. Were "Jaws" and "E.T", and for that matter every other film, book, magazine, or TV show ever made that didn't either glorify Bush's America, or exploit 9/11 un american? Or maybe the right has an unnatural obsession with Hollywood.  Podhoretz claims that “War of the Worlds” should really be a movie about 9/11, and the fact that it’s not exposes Hollywood’s anti-American culture. In other words, the fact that Spielberg didn’t completely change H.G. Wells’ 1898 novel into a story about 9/11 illustrates that Hollywood is uncomfortable with scripts illustrating American heroism?! (I guess we have to assume that U-571—a movie that falsely credits U.S. forces instead of British forces with seizing the Enigma coding machine during WWII—is an exception to the rule).

As convoluted and trivial as this argument is, it is actually important because it is consistent with the right wing media’s plan to convince the American public that the “liberal elite”/Hollywood—not North Korea, Syria, a lagging economy, etc.—is somehow threatening to the American public. It is a strategy that has become necessary for the radical right, particularly in the last 5 years. Identify an enemy for their followers to hate. Republicans controlling every branch of government and they have no Bill Clinton to blame, so they need something. The liberal media (like Fox?), academia, etc. That’s where Hollywood fits into the picture.  In the absence of any real threat to conservative power, Hollywood (along with the NEA, the Smithsonian, and college professors) functions as a lightning rod for right wing vitriol, a perceived threat that constantly re-energizes the conservative base.  Unfortunately, this smokescreen has been enormously effective.

Myth:  Barack Obama is conceited.

This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better.  ‘In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles…’  There is nothing wrong with Barack Obama's résumé, but it is a log-cabin-free zone. So far it also is a greatness-free zone. If he keeps talking about himself like this it always will be.  Mr. Obama said he keeps a photographic portrait of Lincoln on the wall of his office, and that ‘it asks me questions.’  I'm sure it does. I'm sure it says, ‘Barack, why are you such an egomaniac?’ Or perhaps, ‘Is it no longer possible in American politics to speak of another's greatness without suggesting your own?’  (Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, 06/29/05, )

Reality

If this unsolicited attack on Barack Obama is any indication, the emerging Democrat is starting to scare the radical right.  Obama’s thoughtful Newsweek essay last week on Abraham Lincoln actually suggested that Lincoln’s profound ability to move Americans 140 years after his death derives from his “humble beginnings, which often speak to our own.”  He then went on to describe how he has related to Lincoln in his own political career.  A black man from Hawaii, who began his career in public service as a community organizer in Chicago, Obama’s humble beginnings are well understood.  The charge that Obama thinks he’s “a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better” is nothing more than a silly cheap shot.  The essay was a compelling tribute to a man who helped to inspire Obama, as well as millions of others who overcame humble origins to make a difference in their societies. Noonan's vitriol belies a dark green contempt.

Myth:  The recent Supreme Court decisions with respect Ten Commandments displays encroaches on Christian religious freedom.

 

But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!  I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about ‘the establishment of religion.’ (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion — meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. We've been through this a million times (Ann Coulter, 06/29/05, www.anncoulter.com).

 

Reality

A reader of this article would undoubtedly come away with the false impression that the Supreme Court decision ruled against the Ten Commandments monument.  In actuality, the decision ruled 5-4 in favor of Texas’ monument to the Ten Commandments and against Kentucky’s effort to post the Ten Commandments inside the wall of the courthouse.  The Court determined that Texas’ 1961 monument “is a less blatantly religious statement tinged with secular historical and educational meaning…” (Charles Lane, Washington Post, 06/28/05).  In the first Ten Commandments case in 25 years, Justice Breyer cast the definitive vote, arguing that "This [Texas] display has stood apparently uncontested for nearly two generations. That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive". 

In fact, both sides of the Ten Commandments debate—the ACLU and the Christian conservative legal organization, the Center for Law and Social Justice—claimed victory in this case (Lane).  Furthermore, The Christian Science Monitor declared “The high court has carved out a middle position in this ongoing and increasingly heated debate” (Warren Richey, The Christian Science Monitor, 06/28/05). So clearly, any right wing attempts to bemoan Court’s decision as a major setback for religious freedom is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst.

Maybe someone should explain to Crazy Ann why the separation of church and state is seen as a safeguard against the development of a state established religion.