Oliver Stone's American Un-Exceptionalism

A month or so ago, Karen the Great over at Throwing Tomatoes Back at the Crowd wrote an article called Oliver Stone is a Retard in which she takes the film-maker to task for criticizing not America, but George W. Bush's foreign policy. Ms. the Great has several colorful suggestions about how Mr. Stone should comport himself given his political views. He should "...kiss [her] ass," and "...leave [her] country now..." She also communicates her hope that, should another plane fly into a building in this country, it would fly into Mr. Stone's house. She further describes the "Islamic extremist terrorists" as "...people with no regard for innocent life whatsoever", which is assumedly a bad thing, though she later clarifies in a reply that (emphasis mine) "killing thousands of INNOCENT American citizens is...wrong."

When endeavoring to respond to an opinion piece such as this, it is difficult to know how to proceed given the depth of fury so apparent in both the original blog and the reply. As an engineer, my first inclination is to identify all of the individual theses and premises that I find faulty and refute them one-by-one, but I know that this kind of response is doomed to miss the mark for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the most important thesis - the one that underpins the entire world-view that gives birth to a tirade like this – isn’t explicitly stated in the essay; rather, this foundational concept, though central to any meaningful discussion of U.S. foreign policy and, subsequently, the future of the world in which we live, is left unwritten, perhaps even consciously tucked away, so that it can be left unexamined, protected. This underpinning is “American Exceptionalism”, and it allows its adherents to continue to feel morally superior to virtually everyone else, even as they advocate some of the most violent, inhumane, intolerant, and un-American behavior. Secondly, point-by-point discussions can become tedious, and the vital, overarching conversation tends to get lost among the minutiae as specific premises are dismantled ad nauseam.

Suffice it to say that if you want some idea of what is currently wrong with the national conversation in this country, you need look no further than this blog entry. On the one hand, we have Oliver Stone leveling what I would consider sober criticism at the Bush administration's foreign policy - engaging in no personal attacks - in a mostly reasonable tone. On the other hand, we have Karen responding with a jingoistic, vituperative rant replete with personal attacks, long on vitriol but short on substance. Certainly, Stone's comments are not without hyperbole - the jury is still out on whether or not we've "destroyed the world" - but even including the questionable accuracy, nothing he said is so beyond the pale that it warrants the excoriation Karen has seen fit to deliver upon him.

But back to Karen's moral authority, a few paragraphs after using the terrorists disregard for "innocent" life to justify her attack on Oliver Stone (as if Stone somehow defended the terrorists) and lamenting that (emphasis mine) "killing thousands of INNOCENT American citizens is...wrong," she comes close to spelling out the nuance that really drove her to pen this screed (emphasis again mine):

"If a nuclear bomb is needed, so be it--you won't hear me object. As for the thousands of their 'innocent' people getting killed everyday--well, I hate to sound childish, here but you started it."

So, there you have it. Two carefully (or carelessly, depending on your point of view) placed quotes demonstrate pretty conclusively that it's not so much "innocent" life that has value, but innocent "American" life. Sure, there are a million people over there who have nothing to do with terrorism, many of them infants, toddlers, schoolchildren - all too young to yet have a dog in this fight - but if they have to die so we can get the 100,000 terrorists over there, so be it.

In a nutshell, Stone’s real crime is failing to subscribe to American Exceptionalism, and as long as the American Exceptionalist’s reply to “I’m ashamed for my country” is “…kiss my ass…leave my country now…” instead of “I can’t agree with that; Help me understand why you think so,” then a meaningful discussion of the ramifications of either the successes or the failures of the Bush doctrine will be impossible.