- BIG NEWS:
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
- Bobby Jindal
- |
Whose America Now? Not Gore Vidal's
I recently interviewed Gore Vidal, one of the last old-school aristocrats left in this country, and asked him how he felt about the state of the American republic -- the subject that has fired his political radicalism and a large portion of his literary output over the past half-century.
Vidal, now 83 and in indifferent health, bemoaned the lack of a transcendent figure to match the political skills of a Franklin Roosevelt or the oratory of a General MacArthur. When I asked him about Barack Obama, with his formidable rhetoric and cool temperament, he gave me a look of pure contempt and uttered perhaps the most reactionary single comment of this election season.
"Slaves have a hard time making poetry," he said, relishing the shock factor, "unless it's got a beat."
Vidal, like many of his generation and social standing, clearly cannot fathom how the son of a single mother from Kansas and a Kenyan father could presume to occupy the Oval Office. And while he expressed his distaste with an extraordinary degree of frankness, not to mention racial venom, he is far from the only one.
We've had Republicans on the campaign trail talk about the "pro-American" parts of the country -- as though Obama and his cause were somehow antithetical to what America stands for. In the presidential debates, John McCain seemed to marvel at his opponent's presumptuousness, when he could look at him at all. During the primaries, Hillary Clinton betrayed a similar sense of indignation at this improbable novice upending her carefully laid plans.
In truth, next Tuesday's presidential election is not just about Obama beating McCain, or the Democrats retaking the White House. In a deeper sense, it is about who gets to run this country.
For too long, both major parties have worked from an assumption of entitlement. Between them, they formed a tight-knit little club which alone decided who could be part of the establishment and who could not. Between them, they courted the 50-something per cent of the electorate they felt they could count on, and roundly ignored the rest. For the most part, of course, running the executive branch has been a rich white man's game.
Obama alone won't change everything, but he is transforming the rules quite spectacularly. In the South, black voters are no longer the political dead weight the Democrats have so often taken for granted, and that the Republicans have managed to trounce at the polls time after time. Now they are spearheading a new Democratic coalition in which the divisive politics of race have, at last, taken a back seat to the broader cause of progressive ideas. Across the country, young people are being energized into political activism in ways unseen since the Vietnam War and -- in contrast to the counter-cultural movement of 40 years ago -- given real reason to suppose the future belongs to them.
There is, of course, a backlash. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are far from the first political figures to suggest that "their" America -- the parts of the country that subscribe to their political ideology and conform to their idea of how society should function -- is the "real" America. And it is no accident that Republicans desperate to find solace in the electoral disaster that awaits them are crying foul about the non-existent scourge of individual voter fraud -- essentially, casting aspersions on the legitimacy of hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters whom the old guard barely recognizes as part of America's political process at all.
Vidal's reactionary bile is part of a clear historical pattern that has, at different times, condoned the slavery he alludes to; espoused open prejudice against immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and the industrial working class; and embraced the notion that democracy is somehow too precious to be entrusted to more than a small fraction of the people governed.
We can be glad, though, his brand of entitled snobbery no longer holds sway. A new America is being born.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Langston Hughes, off the top of my head. Lincoln, the book, for Gore Vidal as a bright, insightful light on human beings and power during the civil war. Are you sure you heard him right?
NO! Truth.
As a long time reader of Vidal, and a great admirer of his political essays, the one thing I'm certain of is that there is no racism in this man. On the other hand, the reference to Americans as all slaves of the one party system permeates his thought. Aging or not, the greatest wit in America did not make the mistake of forgetting that Obama has no family history of slavery.
So, even if the quote is accurate, this is THE explanation. To believe that a man who has spent a long career arguing for fundamental equality of all humans (but also has been far from shy about discussing the great differences in intellect within people) harbours some sort of anti-African-American bias is just ridiculous. Read his work, then you won't make this sort of kindergarten response to remarks that plainly mean something else.
Meh, he also likes to shock and damn the consequences. At his age he probably doesn't give a roden't rectum who quotes him.
So....what is that something else?
"Greatest wit" is a highly subjective term. Generally when someone calls someone else "kindergarten," the caller is actually the kindergartener.
Of course Gore Vidal can understand it. It's just that aspires to be another Oscar Wilde. Also, this so-called aristocrat seems to doubt his own breeding. Otherwise why does he always bring up the subject?
^ Thank you, agreed.
Gore speaks in poetic terms, that goes for his criticisms. He was saying something deeper than the mere sum of the words, if this quote is correct. I think it was lost on this interviewer. Slave is not just a noun, but can be a verb, perhaps he was criticizing Obama for being centrist, and not a full populist like FDR figure? It wouldn't be the first such criticism of Obama by the progressive side of the party.
Vidal likes Dennis Kucinich, but understood he wasn't likely to win the nomination. He then supported Hillary, who he knew and liked personally. Obama was largely a unknown to him, talking in vague terms about hope. It wasn't until he heard and was impressed by Obama's speech on race, after the Rev. Wright fiasco, that he switched allegiances and gave his support to Obama.
I have also read accounts that Gore was very impressed and pleased by Obama's acceptance speech. Vidal seldom gloats over any political figure, in modern life, left or right, he did about Obama following that night, by a second hand account.
Continued from above:
I've heard and read many a angry misunderstood interview with Vidal. And from my prospective, those failed interviews stem from ignorance of the interviewer, to make the basic cursory effort to learn of their subject before hand. He quickly becomes annoyed when interviewers, ask rudimentary questions which he must explain himself over again, when had the interviewer bothered, would already know such information. He assumes for example, you understand his grandfather was the first Senator of Oklahoma , or that his father was head of the FAA in the 30's.
You can sense his fatigue, in having to explain himself, it's as if the interviewer had no clue who or why he was assigned the interview in the first place. He doesn't suffer fools lightly, and he knows his time is limited.
He wrote a blog piece two days ago, attacking Mc Cain and his campaigning tactics, and in no small part comes to Obama's defense.
Link:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081027_mccain_in_the_echo_chamber/
Please also check article of Oct 9 in Pasadena weekly - which is to the contrary of what is stated here - and i wonder why?
www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/a_time_to_think/6471
Quote:
Q: Does Obama give you any real hope in terms of bringing peace, limiting corporate power and reversing erosion of civil liberties?
GV: Yes, I’m all for him. He’s a bit hard to defend to a people who’ve been trained that the less education you have, the more of a good person you are, because otherwise you might be an elitist or you might even be a snob — who reads books! The hatred of education, which has become one of the hallmarks of the American citizenry, is very alarming. ...
etc - check it out.
"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out" Robert Graves, Claudius The God – The Emperor Claudius
The last time I saw Vidal being interviewed, he looked and sounded terrible, and that was months ago. He is clearly in very bad shape and at the end of his life. I think it is unfair and sad that this regrettable utterance has seen the light of day. I prefer to let the corpus of the literary work of a fully intact, vigorous Gore Vidal speak for itself, and I'll try to not let my memory of him be tainted by the absurd quote Gumbel attributed to him.
Just as we attribute a variety of virtues to good-looking people, we also anticipates that geniuses will be similarly blessed. In addition to knowledge, we expect that geniuses will be self-aware, even self-actualized. We expect them to have a view of the world that is unerringly accurate and revelatory. We expect that they will excel in fields where they might have no gift or expertise, simply because they are good or perhaps great in their particular areas of study. The fact that the genius's vision can be as blurred or even more blurred than our own puts the onus on us average folks to discover what great insight they might have that we don't. If Vidal is a racist or has racist tendencies, it makes him no better or worse than the rest of us and it does not make him any more or less a genius. Certainly, whatever genius he may possess does not make his perceptions of anyone more accurate, not simply because of his writings nor because of some IQ test score.
Gore Vidal's comment is utterly bizarre. It's sad way to address a fellow human in the year 2008.
Doesn't Gore Vidal know that Obama does not have a slave background? Remember? The Clinton camp was claiming Obama "wasn't black enough" because his ancestors did not go through the slave experience? Maybe Vidal is bemoaning that Obama and Michelle do not have a monied aristocratic backgrond like himself.
Gumbel may have been right about one thing. Obama has changed the political scene. That doesn't mean Obama will honor the will of the people. Too much money and influence involved to represent the people. Hope I'm wrong.
Great to see a minority elected though.
It's unlikely that Gore Vidal is a racist. Let's just say it was a misunderstanding.
How about if we just say it was idiotic and downright mean? I am surprised by the contortions of these apologist posts. The man said something utterly vile. Period.
Totally agree.
Hope you're wrong ,too. But you express MY apprehension. Hard to believe that all those bucks come from small donors. Hollywood (to be expected) but--what corporate powers can be
hedging their bets behind the scenes...?
As an AA who has been a fan and purchaser of Gore Vidals many books, I regret his perspective -- which to me is antithetical to what I thought I knew of him. What a shame to make this statement the epitaph to a long and respected career. Finally, as a gay American who had to live in Italy to escape American bias for most of his adult life, I find the statement curious at best. AAs not only helped build America, our ancestors were actual commodities underpinning the American economy for centuries. I think they paid enough dues to warrant Senator Obama's run for the Presidency -- with all they had. Nevertheless, thank you for providing this clarity, and for Mr. Vidal -- for his honesty. Just goes to show you - you never know.
Vidal does not see himself as a racist. As other posters have stated, he has placed himself on the anti-racist side in previous interviews.
What is truly bizarre about this is that there is no link between Obama and slavery except on the Dunham side, where there was a touch of the small scale slave owning class.
Assuming that Gumbel did not quote Vidal out of context, then one has to ask why Vidal would link a question with Obama with slavery unless he were racist. If you are liberal and progressive, then by definition you are excused from being racist, right?
Perhaps the real question to ask is not whether he is racist, but whether he is ignorant of the fact that poetry, by definition, has a a beat.
If the statement is accurate, Mr. Vidal wasn't making a connection between Senator Obama and slavery. He was making a connection between ALL Americans of African descent -- and slavery. He was defining slavery as the singular identity from which to determine value -- and, default for ability, relevance and talent sufficient to reach beyond our prescribed place.
A very sad epitaph to an illustrious career -- and, a slap.
Since America is a Republic, and Mr. Vidal's landowning ancestors wanted limited privileges for non-elites, despite our mythology. If this is true, then Mr. Vidal is watching America transition into a more Democratic State. First, we had to bail out our betters' investment to the tune of ONE TRILLION OF OUR DOLLARS. So, we are ALL still commodities (slaves?) for the investor (non-labor) class -- perhaps, for the last time.
If this is true, and I sincerely hope it is not -- Mr. Vidal can join Lady Rothschild and commiserate about the good old days when we ALL knew our place.
i too am shocked by the comments from gore vidal as stated in this article. regardless, times, they are a changin' and for the better. no, obama isn't the second coming but he does give me hope, seriously. i see in him an unflappable, stately, educated, thoughtful man. those are admirable qualities for one leading the free world.
Vidal is not a racist. His sarcasm can be withering. To him, Teddy Roosevelt
is a "sissy" and the Kennedys can be called "the holy family." He didn't think
much of Jefferson having sex with Sally Hemmings, calling biographer Fawn
Brody's writing "psychobabble." Then came the DNA. Vidal had praise for
Lincoln, but apparently entertains homosexual notions about Lincoln.
Vidal seems to consider himself homoerotic as opposed to homosexual.
Vidal was a friend and admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt, whose pro-black
sympathies are evident.
Obama does not reach the inspiration in the rhetorical style of Lincoln or
Roosevelt. But he is better than most and can pronounce "nuclear."
I would love to be able to ask Lincoln what he thinks of a black man
becoming president 145 years after the Emancipation Proclamation
and 143 years after black citizenship, when 147 years ago he had
doubts about there being any United States at all.
In some ways, Vidal is the biographer of the United States. His writing is
long and the subject is complex. It is unfair to reduce him to a remark in
a single interview.
His opinion is of little value. I don't care a whit about his "illustrious" career. I've read most of his stuff. Much of it is garbage. The issue here is the fact that he simply needs to be more respectful of others who live in this democracy. There is no call for a public figure to utter what, even on it's face, can be misconstrued (unfortunately this comment WASN'T misconstrued) as flagrantly racist. For someone adept in the use of the language, he should know better.
http://latenightpizzas.wordpress.com
"A new America is being born."
I hope in this new America we have some government-funded program to take care of the irony-deficient and the overly earnest.
And I hope in this new America one is no longer an instant moralist simply because he has the nerve and shameless ambition to drag a higher intelligence down to his emoticon level.
View From Across the Pond:
barkingdog -- Having read all today's comments (so far) I thank you for your singular clarity.
I believe it's the principal reason Vidal lived in Europe all the years that he did:
The sad truth is that America simply doesn't "do" irony.
Mr. Gumbel, I tried to visit the interview you reference, but the site it takes me to is www.revistavanityfair.es/ - it doesn't take me to your interview with Gore Vidal.
The statement you quote is shocking, and even more, bizarre. While I understand Vidal has always been provocative and has produced controversial interpretations of the history of race in America, as well as some very weird stuff on race in general, he is also a great critic of the political right, American hegemony, and social control. I don't see how there could be a mitigating context to the statement you chose to share with us all, but if there is, you owe it to Vidal and us to share it in anything you write about your interview with him. At the time, did you call him out on his statement? If so, how did he respond? Finally, is there any chance Vidal was fuzzy headed? He is getting on in years, has already made his contribution to political discourse and is not, after all, running for any kind of political office.
Mr. Gumbel, now I have done a web search for your interview, using the following terms: "gore vidal" and "andrew gumbel". I can't seem to find anything relevant, except that you seem to have gained a certain amount of traction from Vidal in the past. This seems to be a case of blogging gone wrong. In this unusual case, I would think that your work should be legitimized somehow in the mainstream media, before you spread it around. It is not a simple opinion piece. I think this would be a situation where you would want to get right into this comment forum and offer some clarifications. Where and when did the interview happen? Is it being published? Where/When?
Huffington Post should have required verification before printing this kind of statement -- about Gore Vidal. And, now this man of letters (Mr. Vidal, himself), should provide more clarity regarding his thinking -- or challenge it. It would be a shame if he did not make this statement and a huge segment of the American population were left to believe that he did -- because of carelessness or worse on the part of the publisher and blogger.
HuffPo will want to remain viable after this Election cycle - largely exciting and profitable because of Senator Obama's Candidacy.
Yes, I second Louis Putzel. I too doubt the veracity of this quote. Except perhaps as a sarcastic bon mot to shock from the old, now harmless lion of a literary man.
Has anyone heard Gore Vidal speak about the things that matter to him? The man is a genius. While I can see how it would be easy to take his remark in a rather shocking way, I don't believe for a moment that that was how it was intended.
I saw Mr. Vidal on Bill Maher's show a while back, and he even shut up the Republican with his razor sharp insight and masterful use of language.
This kind of reminds me of something Scott Adams once said: "If someone smarter than me does something I don't understand, I figure the problem is probably on my end."
Exactly.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
