As a rule, I do not believe in political apathy. I think it is dangerous, or at least irresponsible, for those living in a democratic society to proclaim "not to care" about politics. Cynicism about today's political landscape is understandable; however, refusing to be informed or to reflect upon current debates because it is easier to do so is simply unacceptable! I can say this now, but I am rather ashamed to admit that when I was 18, I actually recall telling my parents I did not want to vote, because it was my "right" not to do so. My parents tried to drive home the point that voting was a privilege not afforded to everyone, and yet, in my teenage mind, it seemed easier to just "opt out" of politics. The first election I voted in was 1992. Yet it was really after 9-11 that I began to make politics a part of my daily life.
Perhaps because I have made the study of memory a part of my life as well, I am even more drawn to stories such as those that follow this introduction. Each of these reports suggest a bold, blatant - and, what is worse, initially uncontested -- erasure of one of most traumatic events in American history, 9-11. Such stories merit serious attention, and demand an explanation, regardless of one's political ideology.
Let's begin with the more recent story. Yesterday, on the TV program Good Morning America (see video below), former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed, in conversation with George Stephanopoulos, that "we had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama."
According to an article in the Boston Herald, Giuliani later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he misspoke. Stephanopoulos, a former political adviser under President Clinton and a veteran television news analyst, was later raked across the coals for failing to press Giuliani further. A report that appeared yesterday in the New York Times, however, focused less on the absurdity of Giuliani's claim, and more on "Stephanopoulos's red face."
I find Giuliani's statement less troubling for what he says, and more for what he doesn't. Just a few posts ago, I spoke about the construction of amnesia in the film The Headless Woman. In the television appearance, Rudy Giuliani actively engages in a revision of 9-11. In fact, it might be better to call this "revision" a non-vision. Spanish historians have argued, in recent analyses of revisionist movements in Spain, for a more suitable term; I agree that "revisionism" is a misnomer, for most revisionists do not seek to "re-vise" or "re-view" the past, but to erase an existing narrative and replace it with an earlier one, or to forge a new tale entirely by appropriating and manipulating existing narratives.
In the video clip, Giuliani -- significantly, for better or worse still the "face" of 9-11 for many Americans (he is still often referred to as "America's mayor") -- omits the naming of 9-11 entirely, opting instead to reference the fatal shooting rampage at Ford Hood (Texas) in November. Here, Giuliani counts on putting fear back in operation: under Obama, we are not safe, under Bush, we were. Giuliani's statement suggests, thanks to what he does not say, that 9-11 did not happen while George W. Bush was president. Giuliani, criticized by many on both the left and right for appropriating 9-11 for personal political gain, has here determined that 9-11 is "that which shall remain nameless." Giuliani's spokeswoman tried to patch over the mess by issuing a statement that the former mayor was "clearly talking post-9/11 with regard to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil." If that is the case, how do we explain the utter absence of 9-11 from the discussion?
One might say that perhaps we are taking the idea of "amnesia" or forgetting of 9-11 too far with regard to the Good Morning America video. And yet. . .just a few months ago, we witnessed an even more abhorrent statement, also issued in the wake of the Ft. Hood attacks, by former Bush White House spokesperson Dana Perino.
In an appearance on Fox News, Dana Perino stated: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."
Although Giuliani and Perino are Republicans, people in all political parties in this country ought to be deeply disturbed by their remarks, which are historically, factually incorrect statements! George Stephanopoulos, and the Fox reporters interviewing Perino, ought to be held accountable as well for allowing their interviews to proceed after their interviewees made such ludicrous statements. Yes, it is critical to make clear that 9-11 did happen under George W. Bush -- Stephanopoulos, the Fox anchors, and whoever else involved had an obligation to assert that information, publicly, at the moment -- not in a statement issued after the fact. By refusing to acknowledge 9-11, and by establishing the idea that domestic attacks "did not happen" under the previous president, Giuliani and Perino effectively wipe clean the slate of the past. They almost seem to be readying the landscape for a re-writing of 9-11, a time in which they might claim, as Mary Matalin does below, that 9-11 was "inherited" from the previous (read: Clinton) administration:
There are many, many other troubling stories about the re-construction of 9-11 in our current political environment. I would like to end with this quote from Marc Howard Ross, in the book Understanding September 11. Ross's chapter, titled "The Political Psychology of Competing Narratives: September 11 and Beyond," reminds us that we must not only look at what a narrative says but what it doesn't say:
Narratives can be analyzed in several ways. Of great significance to an analysis is what a narrative includes and excludes. Often opposing parties' narratives do not directly contradict each other. Rather, opponents draw on distinct metaphors, emphasize different actions, cite clashing motivations, and communicate opposing affect to such an extent that it is sometimes hard for a naive observer to recognize that the narratives protagonists offer are often describing the same conflict. On the surface level, narratives are stories about the unfolding of events. At a deeper level, they reveal something about the motivations and reactions of the parties. . .(304).
No comments:
Post a Comment