Let It Be
I was so close to writing about David Browne's Fire And Rain: The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, James Taylor, CSNY, and the Lost Story of 1970. But then, on page 332, almost the end, this bit stopped me short. In the epilogue, we're at a recent Rock and Roll Hall of Fame rehearsal with CSN and Taylor:
[Stephen Stills and Graham Nash] both laughed. Nixon was now just a bad memory--and a relatively harmless one compared to so many in his party who'd followed. (Wiretapping the opposing party now felt like a schoolyard prank compared to starting unprovoked wars.)
David Browne was presumably trying to write a timeless book about 1970, but still couldn't resist a cheap shot that will date it. In fact, he's trying to make a case about the importance of 1970, and in his rush to condemn Bush gives the impression that things back then weren't quite so significant.
Furthermore, what was going on then was plenty serious. Certainly the people back then took it as seriously as people take things today. Probably more so (as you can see documented in Browne's book).
And what's with this "unprovoked wars"? We hadn't quite settled our business with Iraq since Desert Storm--we'd been hemming them in with flyovers and Hussein was shooting at us and flouting resolutions against him. During the Clinton years, we adopted a policy of regime change, and the Democrats in Congress demanded the President take action. But even if you feel there was no justification for that war, what's with the plural? Afghanistan harbored the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. (And don't forget Bush got permission to attack these countries.)
Back in 1970, CSNY opposed Nixon, and that was long before they thought he was wiretapping anyone. They saw him as a man responsible for deaths on American campuses. (I don't recall Bush killing anyone on a campus.) And all those marches, the bombs, the talk of revolution--the biggest cause in 1970 was Vietnam. Let's talk about Vietnam, shall we?
Unprovoked? Many felt the stated cause for intervention was a sham. Deaths? American miltary deaths were more than ten times greater in Vietnam than Iraq, and deaths overall were in seven figures while deaths in Iraq in six figures. Results? In Vietnam we bugged out and communists took over the country. In Iraq, we took out a dictator and it's now a fledgling democracy
So in David Browne's stupid crack about Bush, and all the Republicans since Nixon, he actually undercuts his book. Too bad he didn't have an editor to wake him up.
4 Comments:
Debating political opinions of artists and arts industry affiliates is a losing game. These guys are all about perception. Although anyone, even a verified Bush-hater, who has investigated the Nixon era would be far more horrified by Nixon (though not necessarily by his results but by his actions and motivations at the time)
I have a pretty good memory for historical events, especially ones I've lived through. I anticipate with relish the ability 20 years from to see the general attitude towards the Bush II years mellow into a "he was a so-so president, who rallied the country after 9-11). If Nixon could be somewhat rehabilitated at the end of his life, George Bush certainly will join the pantheon of benignly regarded past Presidents as well.
The fact is, I remember clearly the detestation of Ronald Reagan after his election. And the dire predictions of doom from the press. Now Dems and Reps the same try to grab his mantel.
Oddly, Jimmy Carter's reputation does not seems to improve with age. he remains dumped with the likes of Hoover and Andrew Johnson. I'm not sure why.
Maybe it's the people you hang out with.
"I don't recall Bush killing anyone on a campus"
at a US university at least.
Post a Comment
<< Home