Because He Could: Partisan Reviews
Politics
| October 26, 2004
| Tim
Was just browsing the Amazon customer reviews on Dick Morris's Because He Could -- Morris's answer to Clinton's My Life, which even sympathetic reviewers panned as a ficticious, self-absorbed revisionist history.
While the positive reviews are interesting -- including a few from people who say they liked Clinton, but just couldn't stomach My Life -- it's the negative reviews which are the most interesting. And telling.
Typically, the negative reviews give he lowest score possible, are often only a sentence or two long, and don't explain what they found deficient in Morris's writing or recounting of history:
[1/5 star rating] I don't get it., October 18, 2004
Reviewer: DivaDome.com "Support The Anti-Bush Movement @"
Why are people buying this? At least buy it used if you must.
What's wrong with Morris's book? We don't know -- this reviewer just didn't "get" it. Several hundred pages of text, lots of inside anecdotes and all she could say she just didn't "get" it. We should probably take her word and assume that what's she's saying is true: That she never even "got" (bought) this book.
The pans general seem to focus on two lines: (1) This book supports the "right wing" view of the world, and (2) How dare Morris betray Clinton? Almost universally they seem to omit any comment about the writing style or content.
It's that second complaint, the charge of Morris's betrayal, which I find so dear, so cute, and so precious: It wasn't a problem for Clinton to repeatedly betray his wife. (Who are we to question or judge?) It wasn't a problem for Clinton to break his many campaign promises to us, the voters, such as his promise to isolate, not promote, the Chinese -- in light of their inarguably horrible human rights record. Human rights aside, it wasn't a problem for Clinton to betray even his country, by giving such a dictatorship sensitive military secrets.
Ah, but dare to question or speak ill of Clinton, and suddenly "betrayal" is a very powerful concept indeed. It's amazing how one-sided this analysis is: Clinton can dump or screw his former friends left and right -- no problem! But if one of them reports it -- how dare they!
We all owe Clinton loyalty. And he owes other people... what? Nothing?
I find this psychologically fascinating. What is it about these people who drive them to so endlessly defend a man who, even his political supporters will admit, is a deeply flawed guy? Look, you only voted for him twice, it's not like he's your son or something.
One thing is clear: Clinton certainly seems to have latched onto some kind of fanatical loyalty in a subset of the population. How this works, I do not understand completely, but, from some discussion I've had with friends, it seems he was able to make people, particularly blacks, feel like he was "one of them".
Yet, to a man, these people had much better values than Clinton did -- if he truly was one of their close friends, in real life, they'd have been all over him for his behavior years ago. Many of them wouldn't put up with even a fraction of his behavior from their own kids.
Go figure.
In contrast, positive reviews seem to come from a variety of ideological points of view, including a few who purported like Clinton but were off-put by his one-sided My Life and found this a valuable counterpoint.
Well, I'm down to blogging about one-sentence book reviews. But hey, it's the zenith of the political season, I don't feel like writing about Bush-vs-Kerry at the moment, and when you have your own blog, you can write whatever you'd like.
I found this site while searching for information on what exactly Dick Morris's gripe against Bill Clinton is. I wanted to know why he seems to hate him so much. I just viewed "Fahrenhype 9/11" because I thought I would be better prepared to handle the challenges issued by Republican bloggers that are based on that movie if I had seen it. This, I should say, is more than they seem to do. Many have a vehement hatred of Michael Moore, but cannot say that they ever saw "Fahrenheit 9/11." Having said that, Dick Morris is the driving force behind the Fahrenhype 9/11. I didn't know that. Throughout, he interviews himself and is one of four writers of the film.
I liked Bill Clinton, and I only read part of "My Life" before I had to return it to the store because my family, suffering under Bush like so many working class families, had no money and in order to get food our our kids, my husband and I had to return this book he bought for me as a birthday present. Therefore, I will not defend it or debate the anti-Clinton book issues in this post, but I can comment on Dick Morris and what the difference is between Clinton's betrayals and Morris's.
I am 37-years-old, and in my memory, we have had no presidents who have not engaged in questionable activity in office. Republicans still laud Ronald Reagan as the greatest thing to ever happen to our country, yet he funded the Contras, innocent people in Nicaragua were tortured and murdered under them, under Reagan the crack epidemic exploded and Nancy telling people to "just say no" was the only answer to it, the AIDS crisis first appeared, and he did next to nothing to help the first populations to suffer from it, and as is always going to be the case with supply-side economics, the middle-class all but disappeared, the poor got poorer, the homeless population no less than exploded, and the rich, smiled, drank martinis and denied that it was all happening...much like now. No president is immune to making decisions in office in order to untie his hands in one regard that will tie them in another, and Clinton's dealings with the Chinese can and should be seen as part of a continuum of that activity. That does not obligate you to think it was perfectly fine. With regard to his marital infidelities, yes, that isn't our business, and furthermore, stop being naive. He wasn't the first, last or only president to engage in these infidelities, the was just the only one to be dragged through garbage this way for the fact that they happened. So why is Dick Morris's betrayal different? Perhaps it's because in this era where the political camps and sides are so sharply delineated, at this time when what side you cleave to is revealing of your ethics and worldview, and marks you like a blue or red do-rag marks a gang member, it is a particularly abhorrent professional breach to sell yourself to both sides. Not only did Dick Morris sell himself to both sides, he has made the switch, for now that is, to the other side by offering continual attacks on Bill Clinton in order to do it. In fact, in "Fahrenhype 9/11," a movie that has the sole purpose of debunking Michael Moore's movie and it's allegations against George Bush, Morris somehow manages to get hit after hit after blame after blame against Bill Clinton, a man who should be virtually irrelevant to the objective of the film.
A president or presidential candidate trusts his campaign advisors with everything, every secret, every bit of private material, and there is something particularly abhorrent about betraying that trust, particularly when it only seems to happen to the Democrats. Those who serve the Republicans get and stay with the party line and are in many cases afraid to speak, even if they desired to do so. Dick Morris is like that best friend you trust with all your personal issues who ditches you one day and tells everyone who will listen everything you told him. For personal gain, and for personal egomania, what wouldn't Dick Morris do?
Nicole,
Thank you for your well-written and intelligent response! It's a pleasure to have such a literate person comment in response -- thank you. But your many allegations bring questions and comments to mind. Sorry there are so many, but be patient, remembering that each is in response to something you said or alleged.
1. I'm sorry to hear your family is going through some hard times. Regardless of the cause, you definitely have my sympathy. But I'm open-minded and curious: how has George Bush specifically caused your suffering?
2. Crack cocaine is still being used. How was Reagan responsible for its appearance? What should Reagan have done about it? Should Clinton have done the same thing during his two terms? Did Clinton have a better solution? What was it? Explain.
3. Your statement about Reagan and AIDs is also false. By the time Reagan left office, AIDs was funded, per sufferer, more highly than any other disease. Follow the link to see the actual data.
4. The middle class shrank under Reagan because they generally moved up the economic ladder. Contrary to your assertions, the lower class also decreased in size. You find this a tragedy... why?
Or, if a growing lower class would have proved Reagan's economic policies were bad, would you then concede a shinking lower class proved the opposite?
5. Why does it bother you that rich people might smile and drink martinis? Are you aware these rich people were even more prosperous during the 1990's, an era with even more greed and stock market scandals? Or, again, do you feel these behaviors are atrocities under a Republican administration, but nothing to notice under a Democratic one? Just curious.
6. Are you aware of the Clinton administration's active role in permitting the aformentioned financial scandals to continue, where under Reagan Republican Rudy Giuliani had vigorously prosecuted dozens of them? Or does this new evidence make you suddenly disinterested in Wall Street fraud and greed?
7. What the Reagan administration did in funding the Contras without Congressional approval was wrong, and I won't defend it -- it was a bad thing to do. I'm also aware of allegations that the Contras performed torture in their early years, and won't condone that either. But I will note when they took power they behaved in an examplary, democratic fashion.
Now that I have conceded your points, will you join with me in condemning the Sandanistas also, and equally condemn the Carter administration who installed them and justified their behavior? Or does the fact the Carter-supported Sandanistas also committed torture -- not to mention mass imprisonments, genocide against ethnic minorities, suppressing the press, forbidding of political freedom and elections, denial of religious rights, and attacks against democratically-elected governments in other countries (none of which the Contras have done) -- not bother you to a proportionally greater degree?
(Again, just curious. Is this about principles, or are principles, for you, just a facade, less important and subservient to partisanship? What if your principles led you to oppose Democrats and support Republicans? To which are you more committed, your alleged principles or parties?)
8. How do you believe Clinton's alleged need to "untie his hands in one regard that will tie them in another" justify transferring top-secret defense technology to our top enemy in return for campaign funds? Why not simply say this was wrong? Or do you actually agree with the decision? Or do you think there is some mitigating factor which should make us not be too harsh in condmening what would otherwise be an act of treason? (The question here regards your judgement of the matter, not mine.)
9. You seem to imply that Republicans are never betrayed by their political advisors. Do the names Wesley Clarke and Paul O'Neil ring a bell? Or is political betrayal somehow only wrong if a former campaign advisor is involved? Or do you contend that all betrayers of Republicans (Clarke) are motivated by good morals, but all betrayers of Democrats (Morris) are motivated by greed?
10. If Morris's betrayal was motivated solely by greed and not disgust, then what of similar "betrayals" by George Stephanopoulos, Dee Dee Myers, and Mike McCurry? And if all of these were also motivated only by "greed", then aren't you implying that Clinton had the poor judgement to surround himself with greedy advisors?
11. You assert that Clinton was the "only one" to be dragged through the dirt about allegations of sexual infidelity. (a) Are you aware that such allegations were also launched against Bush, Sr. shortly before he lost the 1992 election? (b) Are you aware the same tactics were tried against his son also? (c) Are you saying the media was unfair to Clinton because he was a Democrat, but would have given a Republican who did the same thing a pass? (Does the name Bob Packwood mean anything to you?) Or would you instead concede the difference was that Clinton was actually provably guilty of such, when no contemporary Republican presidents were?
12. You allege that I'm naive, apparently because you imagine I think Clinton was the only president to cheat on his wife. (How did you conclude that?) Instead, I think you are the one who is naive: You seem convinced that sexual misbehavior by a president is his own private business. Do you understand what "blackmail" is? Do you understand that a CIA agent, military leader, or cabinet member would be dismissed as a security risk under similar circumstances? Why would such behavior be less problematic when it involved the supreme commander in chief? Or didn't that possibility occur to you?
13. I am still unable to determine what it is about Morris's alleged betrayal which offends you so, while you seem comparatively unconcerned by similar or worse behavior by Clinton. Your position seems utterly inconsistent.
Is it that Morris sold a friend up the river? Again, note that Clinton sold multiple friends up the river.
Is that, you allege, Morris acted out of personal gain and ego? Then what do you think of the fact that Clinton pardoned Marc Rich in exchange for millions in donations and support for the Clinton library? What motive was that? National interest? Why does one apparently bother you terribly you and the other, not at all?
Is it that betraying a friend and co-worker says horrible things about a man's charactger (Morris/Clinton), but betraying a friend, co-worker, and sexual partner (Bill/Hillary) does not?
Why do you have a right to be totally indignant about one personal relationship, but forbid anyone else to even consider the other? On what grounds? Sex? How does involving sex make it okay? Says who?
Is switching sides or sharing secret information for personal gain awful? Then why do you seem utterly unconcerned about allegations Clinton did the same to all of us with the Chinese, against whom he campaigned? Do you imagine that's somehow less bad than Morris striking a book deal or going on TV? How?
Again, I can't detect a consistent moral principle hiding here. Perhaps you can explain it, then explain why Morris is worse than Clinton when judged by that standard. To me, it looks as if every single allegation you could make against Morris indicts Clinton, and even more so.
And I'm no huge supporter of Morris (though I enjoy him on TV -- but I enjoy Clinton on TV too). I'm just mystified by Clinton's defenders -- like you, apparently -- and their seemingly odd, flexible moral judgements and standards.
Is this about a committment to certain principles, or about making sure "your guy" is always right, and then picking your principles to build the best possible case?
What happens when the evidence proves the opposite for a given allegation? Would you ever change your judgement? Or have you simply chosen your conclusions, and don't give a damn about the evidence or principles?
This is the curiosity I have.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Other People's Children |
Front Page |
Page Two
| The Nation: 100 Deceptions »
|
I found this site while searching for information on what exactly Dick Morris's gripe against Bill Clinton is. I wanted to know why he seems to hate him so much. I just viewed "Fahrenhype 9/11" because I thought I would be better prepared to handle the challenges issued by Republican bloggers that are based on that movie if I had seen it. This, I should say, is more than they seem to do. Many have a vehement hatred of Michael Moore, but cannot say that they ever saw "Fahrenheit 9/11." Having said that, Dick Morris is the driving force behind the Fahrenhype 9/11. I didn't know that. Throughout, he interviews himself and is one of four writers of the film.
I liked Bill Clinton, and I only read part of "My Life" before I had to return it to the store because my family, suffering under Bush like so many working class families, had no money and in order to get food our our kids, my husband and I had to return this book he bought for me as a birthday present. Therefore, I will not defend it or debate the anti-Clinton book issues in this post, but I can comment on Dick Morris and what the difference is between Clinton's betrayals and Morris's.
I am 37-years-old, and in my memory, we have had no presidents who have not engaged in questionable activity in office. Republicans still laud Ronald Reagan as the greatest thing to ever happen to our country, yet he funded the Contras, innocent people in Nicaragua were tortured and murdered under them, under Reagan the crack epidemic exploded and Nancy telling people to "just say no" was the only answer to it, the AIDS crisis first appeared, and he did next to nothing to help the first populations to suffer from it, and as is always going to be the case with supply-side economics, the middle-class all but disappeared, the poor got poorer, the homeless population no less than exploded, and the rich, smiled, drank martinis and denied that it was all happening...much like now. No president is immune to making decisions in office in order to untie his hands in one regard that will tie them in another, and Clinton's dealings with the Chinese can and should be seen as part of a continuum of that activity. That does not obligate you to think it was perfectly fine. With regard to his marital infidelities, yes, that isn't our business, and furthermore, stop being naive. He wasn't the first, last or only president to engage in these infidelities, the was just the only one to be dragged through garbage this way for the fact that they happened. So why is Dick Morris's betrayal different? Perhaps it's because in this era where the political camps and sides are so sharply delineated, at this time when what side you cleave to is revealing of your ethics and worldview, and marks you like a blue or red do-rag marks a gang member, it is a particularly abhorrent professional breach to sell yourself to both sides. Not only did Dick Morris sell himself to both sides, he has made the switch, for now that is, to the other side by offering continual attacks on Bill Clinton in order to do it. In fact, in "Fahrenhype 9/11," a movie that has the sole purpose of debunking Michael Moore's movie and it's allegations against George Bush, Morris somehow manages to get hit after hit after blame after blame against Bill Clinton, a man who should be virtually irrelevant to the objective of the film.
A president or presidential candidate trusts his campaign advisors with everything, every secret, every bit of private material, and there is something particularly abhorrent about betraying that trust, particularly when it only seems to happen to the Democrats. Those who serve the Republicans get and stay with the party line and are in many cases afraid to speak, even if they desired to do so. Dick Morris is like that best friend you trust with all your personal issues who ditches you one day and tells everyone who will listen everything you told him. For personal gain, and for personal egomania, what wouldn't Dick Morris do?
Posted by: Nicole E. on January 18, 2005 01:37 PM