"America has fallen to a Jacobin coup."

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

As they ride off into the sunset, I was wondering if anyone else here had ever tried googling 'Neocon Jacobin'? It makes for very...strange...reading. I first came across this sort of thing in 2003, in an article by the loopy Thatcherite-but-changes-with-the-weather 'philosopher' John Gray in the New Statesman (before I cancelled the NS - longstanding flagship mag of the British Left - after their 'Kosher Conspiracy' issue - google 'the new antisemitism' for the grisly details of that fracas). Gray has gone on to write a book on the same lines - 'Black Mass'. There seem to be a number of American and Canadian articles and books (Claes Ryn, whoever he is) on the same lines, coming from the Right. It has also filtered into fiction: a recent film (which I haven't seen, so I'm going on hearsay) by Milos Foreman, and scripted by the bloke who adapted 'Danton', called 'Goya's Ghosts', has Javier Bardem as a Spanish Jacobin type who comes out with lines like 'no liberty for the enemies of liberty' - I gather this is supposed to mean Guantanamo Bay (but as I said, I haven't seen it!). More obviously, it's the undercurrent - if not the raison d'etre - of the long HBO series 'John Adams'. Adams is a peculiar choice for hero of a 9 hour drama, unless you read it as an attack on Neocon foreign policy - he is contrasted throughout with Jefferson: Jefferson wants America to intervene in a foreign war to defend liberty and democracy abroad - Adams 'sensibly' wins and America sits on its hands. 'Oh, if only Bush had been like that', is the subtext - and the reason the series was garlanded with Emmys - 5 years earlier, the pro-war 'The Gathering Storm' had got a similar treatment, which shows how times had changed (that had Churchill as Bush/Blair). The actor playing Jefferson even looks a bit like Bush. The British BBC Radio 4 history of America series went further: in its episode on Adams and Jefferson, it said Adams kept America out of 'the first War on Terror'.

In Britain, Bush has always been seen as a retard cynically motivated by revenge and oil greed, so it's rather amusing to see the American Right portraying him as a dangerous liberal steered by Trotskyist utopian neo-Jacobins. I find it all rather disturbing, though it does add another strange slant to the ruckus that has been going on in the British left, which has been tearing itself to pieces since 2001.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This simile is pretty pervy and highly convenient, isn't it?
For a very different point of view, see Slavoj Zizek's "Robespierre or the "Divine Violence" of Terror: http://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm
It's creepy, but more, let's say, relevant...

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

I've only skimmed Zizek's essay, and that was a few months ago, but what pissed me off about it was that it seemed to go for the whole violence is cool and sexy line. It was a 'left wing' (in the 21st not 18thc sense) argument that was basically the same approach as Furet and co - that Revolution=violence and death, that it is inseperable, a 'bloc' and thus somehow violence is to be celebrated, rather than, as I see it, a desperate response to the political situation, war on all fronts and internal sabotage, that few of the revolutionaries would have wished to happen had the situation been otherwise. I note the collection of speeches crucially omits Robespierre's speech against the death penalty - but it does have a great big blood-spurting guillotine on the front cover! In that, it plays directly into the hands of the millions of people who think revolutions and left-wing politics generally are by nature and definition murderous.

'Decaffeinated' - that was the word that pissed me off. Why doesn't he just say 'castrated' and be honest? - that he thinks violence is sexy, that he thinks of 'revolution' in a Hemingway sense as a macho bloodsport.

The book on the Levellers in the same series has a similar, blood and beheading cover, as though the English revolutionary period was about killing, rather than a attempt at utopia.

OK, I have typed this without going back and reading Mr Zizek with due care and attention - which I will do if someone says my take on him is wrong (coming as it does from 10 mins skim-reading in evil non-unionised Borders bookshop!).

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, paradoxically he somehow ends up coinceding with those anti-revolutionary pseudo-freudian pamphlets like "Citizens and Cannibals". Or is it vice versa?
:-)

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

I was rather annoyed by Zizek for the same reasons a few months ago. He was swooning over the 'sexy violence' (or, as it was, the 'emancipating terror') in an interview given to Libération, and just freaked out everybody, including myself -- as I had uneloquently commented about, right here (http://maelicia.livejournal.com/415051.html). It's really annoying to see people like that re-using concepts they really shouldn't be using. And this had also been my first real clash with a pseudo-friend of mine....

...and I remember about those "Jacobins neo-cons". I had been so traumatized. (http://maelicia.livejournal.com/394319.html)

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Depressingly, I've always had the impression that a lot of people (male marxist academics especially!) think concepts of human rights etc are a bit girly unless they're spiced up with a bit of bloody violence!

[toi-marguerite.livejournal.com]

I don't think chosing John Adams as the main character for the HBO series was really an attack on Neocon foreign policy; the mini-series was adapted from a best-selling biography. I think (I'm not sure) that the book was divided into six sections and someone from HBO decided, "Hey, why not? Miniseries= more ad space= more $$ for HBO!"

Adams is also contrasted with Hamilton, who is really much more of Jefferson's foil.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Whilst I don't think 'The Gathering Storm' was intended to be a commentary on 9/11 - it must hav been in pre-production before that date for a 2002 release - it was received as prescient, garlanded with awards in the US (to some surprise over here!) and the link seemed to be confirmed when Blair presented Bush with a bust of Churchill. I think the decision to turn 'John Adams' into a multi-million dollar series was because of modern echoes - otherwise, why give so much time to such a unsexy president? - and I think that's why it was so Emmy-ed: it's being repeated on Channel 4 at the moment, and a lot of the dialogue seems very pointed. For example, this week's episode has Jefferson saying that he doesn't think a constitution should be binding on future generations - an idea Adams reacts to with disapproval. I've just heard Harry Shearer on the radio talking about how Bush has broken every single thing in the Constitution. Jefferson has few lines in the series (annoyingly - because I think he's a far more interesting character than Adams!), but many seem to me to be pointing at Neocon politics. And I noticed Bush quoted Jefferson in his farewell speech!

[wolfshadow713.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the series--don't get HBO--but I would be interested to see the miniseries when it's available on DVD/farmed out to other channels simply becuase I want to see how they handle someone as complicated as Adams. I do believe Adam's dedication to the principles of the law in his pre-presidency career is admirable, but I think most would agree that what he did during his presidency in terms of his treatment of civil liberties was not. And, based on this, I'm inclined to agree with you that the producers were more motivated by the attention the series would get than Adams' politics. That, and because of Adams' questionable tenure as president, he doesn't get as much mainstream media attention as some of his contemporaries, so there's less to compete against.

But anyway, portraying Jefferson as a neocon...that's just strange.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

I didn't know much about Adams before the series and I'm generally wary of saying anything is 'accurate' or not unless I'm completely steeped in the subject, but the comments on the American history discussion groups seemed very favourable, with minor nitpicking about dates - though it did seem to me to be more about family life than political debate (I assume Americans know all the big events/debates minutely through school or whatever so that side wasn't really dwelt on - hence my old Mum's 'What, no Boston Tea Party?'). Really annoying camera angles, though!
The series is being repeated at the moment and I'm watching it with the 'is it a commentary on contemporary politics?' mindset and it does look that way. (I think a screenwriter or studio would have to explain 'why this story, why now?'to get the go ahead for a project this large - that's just the way the system works. I'm trying hard to think of a history film or tv series that isn't in part about the politics of the time it was made! )

[trf-chan.livejournal.com]

is treatment of civil liberties was not

Definitely. Alien and Sedition Acts, anyone?

[wolfshadow713.livejournal.com]

I think you have to go pretty far right to find part of the American right that thinks Bush is too liberal, at least at this point.

Anyway, it seems relatively common for parallels to be drawn between the mentalities of the Terror and the War on Terror. It's tempting--in both cases, it can be argued that people are willing to justify things/give up liberties that the would not ordinarily justify/give up because they perceive themselves, their society, or their values to be endangered. It is important to note similar patterns in behavior throughout history, however I tend to find myself suspicious of comparisons of this nature. For one thing, it can lead to the politicization of the study of history--not necessarily a good thing. For another thing, from a historical standpoint, the modern neocons have embraced the worst aspects of most parties involved in the Revolution.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

The study of history has always been politicised, though. It would be interesting to go through the publication years of various books (there seemed to be a lot on Saint-Just between 1945-1960's, for example, and a similar thing with the radical groups of the English Republic period, middle ages, etc. - Abbie Hoffman, Alan Ginsberg etc seem to have been influenced by Hill and Cohn's republication of forgotten documents and periods (Diggers, Levellers, John of Leyden, etc).
Maybe the point is more pertinent in Europe where University education was - till recently - free. Thatcher notoriously said, to a student studying history : 'what a luxury!' - to which the response must be that 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'. Historians have had to justify themselves as relevant by pointing out 'useful' parallels - or, at their worst (Schama, Horrible Histories, etc) peddling ludicrous colourful fictions for schlocky entertainment.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Okay, so I definitely agree about "Goya's Ghosts"; it was incredibly heavy-handed and it was abundantly clear that fore Foreman, Spanish Inquisition = Nazis and French Revolution = Communists. That's about as sophisticated as the analysis gets. I should have guessed who was behind it. Blech.

As to the mini-series, I haven't seen it in a while, but I didn't get that from it at all. Sure, Adams is an unlikely hero for a mini-series--certainly not one I might have chosen--yes, I have a few problems with the portrayal of his conflict with Jefferson (among other things), and yes, it's historically accurate that he didn't want the US to go to war on the side of the French Republic, but, as far as that last bit goes, people tend to forget how weak the US was at the time. It would have been suicide to get involved in any war at that point; they would have been absolutely crushed. It's certain that without French help they would never have gained independence, and they would still need the help of a major power to hope to be successful in any war at this point--and obviously, given the circumstances, that couldn't be France, and still less any other power. They would have been more of a liability than anything else.

The more relevant incident, if people are trying to draw that kind of parallel, is when Adams prevented his own party from going to war against France under the Directoire, after Talleyrand demanded bribes of American emissaries to carry on diplomatic relations in what's known as the XYZ Affair. (Never mind that he, like other Americans of the time, was under the illusion that the Directoire and the Revolutionary governments that had gone before it were all one...)

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

It's the third time it's been on TV here, so I'm watching it again for the 'structure'(I'm a writer), and it is in there - it's not in-your-face (pause to watch Obama on telly - wow I thought I held pens weirdly...), but it is there. I think it would be impossible for a screenwriter/team to be purely objective and things will get in whether consciously or not (and there are lines and pauses-after-lines I think are consciously meant - plus the whole decision to make such a big-budget drama which is essentially about 'what are North America's first principles?' at a time when it was felt those principles were being abandoned).

Btw, I was rather pissed off by the way, whilst it portrayed the ruling class of pre-revolutionary France as basically a waste of space and asking for it, it portrayed the revolutionary-era France's ambassador as an sort of teenage arsehole, in such a way that made the decision not to support them not simply a matter of practicality (the early American republican activists were also negatively portrayed in the first episode, too, I thought). Echoing remarks made about the CSP in 'Danton', too, someone blogging observed that those reluctant to sign the declaration in the second episode are all strangely 'effeminate' or less-than-manly! Still an excellent series, though - I wish 'the Devil's Whore' had been more in that style.

[(Anonymous)]

It is really boring how "feminity" or "effeminacy" serve in the interpretation of history to sign bad government condemned to lose to another one, signed as more "masculine". Even such a great series like Rome justifies Octavian's victory by referring to two tiring stereotypes: Meanwhiles Caesar and Octavian always kept control over "their women" and so they were able to keep control over "their country", Marc Anthony lost as he become castrated/effeminate after succumbing to FEMALE influence of Cleopatra and to ORIENTAL decadence". As if Rome had not conquered not only Egypt, but also "very rudely masculine" Germania and other regions dominated by hairy barbarians without an eyeliner :-)

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough, I heard recently that the ancient Celtic men DID wear eyeliner!! (I'm thinking more Heath Ledger as the Joker than 1960's Twiggy, though!)

It's interesting to contrast 'Macbeth' with Shakespeare's 'Anthony and Cleopatra' - A&C is like you say, but in Macbeth it's Macbeth and Lady M's cold masculinity that's the problem: it's a really unusual work in that respect - the 'heroic' Macduff is a man who cries!

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

It's entirely reasonable to question the filmmakers motives for choosing to make this miniseries on Adams. I'm not sure they were fully cognizant of all the implications of that, but that just reveals more about contemporary mentalities in the US...

I don't particularly remember the treatment of the ambassador, but if it was Genêt, he really was, unfortunately, not the most most responsable emissary. He was a Girondin and espoused some of their more inconsequent ideas about war--he had the bright idea to attempt to recruit troops on his own initiative to fight the Spanish and British in their North American territories. After 2 June, he was recalled, though he chose to ignore the order and stay in the US. All around, if his portrayal in the miniseries makes the Revolution look bad, that's unfortunately because the real Genêt managed to do the same.

Your other points are solid, from what I remember. And yet, overall, it could have been much worse, especially considering who they chose to be the hero of the series.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Adams' isn't a career I know in great detail, but I imagine in that I'm in the same position as the majority of viewers: so that specific French Ambassador stands as the sole representative of 'the revolution' in the series, and he's a jerk...it's something I complained about in 'The Devil's Whore', where the Diggers appeared, very briefly, as a bit bovine and sanctimonious, and the only one with a big speaking part was a spy and traitor, and 100% fictional, something the drama did not flag up. Most viewers won't have heard of the Diggers, and I was mightily pissed off that their sole view of them will be this. ('The Devil's Whore' was explicitly meant in part as a critique of Blair: when 'Lilburne' was dragged off to prison on an island, I half-expected them to bung him in an orange jumpsuit)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

It is really a shame that it's going, by necessity, to appear to uninformed viewers that way, and especially for that other series, where that appears to have been the filmmakers' explicit intention... Though, in the Adams miniseries, for the more informed, whether or not this was deliberate, it does shed quite a bit of light on some of the reasons Americans of the time had such erroneous views of the Revolution (whether they were for or against it).

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

As coincidence would have it, the director of 'John Adams' is on BBC Radio 5 as I type - he's just said their budget was $100 million and from the start the series was explicitly designed to go out 'to coincide with the Primaries and to engage in the debate of political ideas' that would be in the forefront of the public mind at the time of broadcast. However - he's just said (in response to my email question to him) he's shocked I thought the Jefferson actor looks like Bush (but he does! His eyes are close together!), but replied obliquely to my question on whether it was about Neocon interventionist foreign policy. He described the series as being "about a man who believes in the possibility of human perfectibility" (Jefferson - so, surely, that's a sort of Jacobin Utopian Virtue, then) versus someone who is pessimistic about human nature (Adams) and thinks the best we can do is stop people failing. He's just said Obama is 'pure Jefferson' (but it was Adams who was the 'hero' in his series!).

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Very interesting. I'm not surprised that he evaded that particular question; he's not going to come right out and say, "yes, that scene was a thinly veiled allusion to Neocon foreign policy." But does this mean he doesn't like Obama (on one level or another)? I'm not so sure I know the answer to that question, actually, since, although Adams was the hero of the series, they did something rare for this kind of film: instead of completely distorting Jefferson's ideas and character to make him the epitome of evil, they more or less did the film equivalent of politely disagreeing with him.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Yes, I don't think the message of the series was that Jefferson (and Sam Adams) are 'wrong' or 'bad', but that they want to go too fast (armed missionaries!?). John Adams was played as the Tortoise to Jefferson's Hare - both heading for the same (or a similar) place, but by different means.

Weird coincidence that the director was on the radio again - it was a discussion about HBO. I don't think he meant the Jefferson comparison as a criticism of Obama - everyone here is besotted with Obama, too! I doubt too that, even if the screenwriters did mean it as a critique of Neocon policy, they'd have said it out loud: film directors can wear their politics on their sleeve but I don't think HBO can be overt about it - certainly, the near-equivalent BBC are supposed to be apolitical (I once did an interview about the slow food movement (which I think is anti-feminist!) on BBC's 'Woman's Hour', and was told before I went into the studio that 'on no account must I mention party politics'!)

[(Anonymous)]

Slow food does not have to be anti-feminist if men are willing to find some pleasure in cooking, too. Actually, in the countries where this movement started, men cook quite a lot. I don't think eating healthy makes me less feminist than I have always thought I am :-)

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

I've just dug out (from a floppy disc, no less!) the article I wrote on what I suppose you'd now loosely call the Slow Food movement, as manifested in Britain in the celebrity chef/big kitchen phenomenon - I wrote it about 7 years ago, so the references are a bit old. I've posted it on my LJ page under the title it appeared with in The Idler - 'Kitchen Taliban'.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

If they really are trying to paint Jefferson and Sam Adams as "armed missionaries," they're clearly not tuned in to the irony that entails. But it's not at all clear to me that the Federalists and the Jeffersonians wanted to go to the same place but at different speeds; in fact, they wanted to go to opposite places - this was the basis for their conflict, which was a far from artificial one.

The question then is, if he likes Obama, but compares him to Jefferson in his series on Adams, what does that mean, exactly? Is it just a continuation of the simplistic American mentality that all the "Founding Fathers" were "great" in their different ways? It certainly seems that way.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

I don't know - the Jefferson comparison was odd, given the portrayal in the series: I think my question caught him rather off-guard, as he'd turned up to talk about audiences and funding! The director was British, so presumably won't have any of the reverence Americans are raised with (ok, crudely generalising here) regarding the 'Founding Fathers', and probably takes them as they come, on their merits (or what he has been led to believe by biographers about their merits!). Interesting to note the casting of Rufus Sewell as Hamilton - Rufus Sewell is casting shorthand for 'baddie'! I read some Hamilton fans complaining on a forum about it...The armed missionaries quote turned up a few times during the Iraq war - often unattributed! Well, I suppose people wouldn't want to be seen as enlisting the blood-drinking panto villain of popular fiction to aid their argument!

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I didn't know the director was British; that explains why the series had the merits it did, at least as far as not making the "Founding Fathers" flawless, or nearly flawless, heroes. It's funny you should mention that about Rufus Sewell; I guess he does have a reputation for playing villains, but it always strikes me as funny, considering the first time I encountered him was as the love interest/antihero in the not-very-accurate-but-entertaining "Dangerous Beauty." I'm never for the demonization of historical figures, and this series did portray Hamiliton as a very negative caricature... but all the same, if anyone involved in the American War of Independance deserves a negative portrayal, it's probably Hamilton. (Though his friend John Jay was admittedly worse.)

I'll bet some of the people using the armed missionaries quote don't even know where it comes from.

[trf-chan.livejournal.com]

Probably not - I've seen it turn up randomly here or there quite a few times, and very rarely is credit given where credit it due, so to speak.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Not surprisingly, unfortunately.