MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Tom Wolfe Hits It Right On The Head

“Here is an example of the situation in America,” he says: “Tina Brown wrote in her column that she was at a dinner where a group of media heavyweights were discussing, during dessert, what they could do to stop Bush. Then a waiter announces that he is from the suburbs, and will vote for Bush. And … Tina’s reaction is: ‘How can we persuade these people not to vote for Bush?’ I draw the opposite lesson: that Tina and her circle in the media do not have a clue about the rest of the United States. You are considered twisted and retarded if you support Bush in this election. I have never come across a candidate who is so reviled. Reagan was sniggered it, but this is personal, real hatred.

“Indeed, I was at a similar dinner, listening to the same conversation, and said: ‘If all else fails, you can vote for Bush.’ People looked at me as if I had just said: ‘Oh, I forgot to tell you, I am a child molester.’ I would vote for Bush if for no other reason than to be at the airport waving off all the people who say they are going to London if he wins again. Someone has got to stay behind.”

Where does it come from, this endorsement of the most conservative administration within living memory? Of this president who champions the right and the rich, who has taken America into the mire of war, and seeks re-election tomorrow? Wolfe’s eyes resume the expression of detached Southern elegance.

“I think support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East-coast pretensions. It is about not wanting to be led by people who are forever trying to force their twisted sense of morality onto us, which is a non-morality. That is constantly done, and there is real resentment.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340525,00.html

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “Tom Wolfe Hits It Right On The Head”

  1. Stella's Boy says:

    Did Wolfe state that voting for Bush means that you are not voting for someone who is always trying to force their morality on you? Is he f*cking serious? I thought he was supposed to be intelligent? What does he think Bush and his far right, faith-based agenda has been doing for the past four years? Sorry for all of the question marks.

  2. mrbeaks says:

    What morality, or, I’m sorry, “non-morality” is the East Coast elite forcing on the nation? Why even ask? That’s such a laughable sophistry on its face. Tom Wolfe is still one of my prose idols, he can write lucidly on any subject (had he been employed to write VCR instuction manuals back in the day, a whole generation of hack comedians would’ve been robbed of the flashing “12:00” as a cultural touchstone), but it’s hard to deny that his powers of precise, withering observation have… well, withered. To see him parroting that garbage about the East Coast Liberal Elite, which plays into this most recent spasm of “anti-intellectualism” used to foment hatred and suspicion in Middle America of the left’s agenda — it’s now code for curtailing religious freedom and declaring war on the unborn — is dispiriting.
    That said, I wouldn’t dream of not reading I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS even if A MAN IN FULL was wildly off the mark.

  3. mrbeaks says:

    “I wouldn’t dream of not reading I AM CHARLOTTE SIMMONS even if A MAN IN FULL was wildly off the mark.”
    Ugh. The cost of posting in a rage.

  4. BrotherhoodOfKenDorsey says:

    I love guys who are supposedly from the MIDDLE of
    the country, living in the NYC, telling me how
    I, a member of the middle of the country, should
    or does feel. Yes. We all LOVE THE BUSH. As
    Carville said this morning, “the 41 percent too
    stupid enough to see what’s going on in this world.”
    Yeah I have to deal with my share of W the President
    stickers, but it does not mean all of us in the middle
    of the country are at war with the EAST COAST or
    the WEST COAST. If there’s a war; it’s between
    the people who get it and the people who are simply
    too caught up on riding a fucking idiot’s jock to
    looking around and notice what has happened to this
    country.
    It’s a war between two sides all over the land.
    Chris Matthews might believe this country will be
    happy if Bush wins but changes directions, but some
    of us in this whacked out culture war understand
    that we will never be happy until this guy has to
    take up residency in Crawford full-time.
    How Wolfe functions on a higher level remains a
    mystery.

  5. Oldman says:

    John Kerry is a “Liberal!”
    New York City is “liberal!”
    9/11 is “Liberal!”
    Osama Bin Laden is Alive and Free!
    Think!

  6. Mark says:

    You’re telling me you think you could find a guy hiding in a cave with nothing there in the middle of nowhere with the best of the best looking for him?
    Get a clue.
    Kerry would be the worst commander and chief in a war time. When 85% of the military votes for Bush doesn’t that say something to you?

  7. Nathaniel R says:

    Why is this titled “hits it right on the head” –David are you saying you agree with Wolfe here? What kind of morality are we trying to force onto the red states. No wait… I am. It’s the morality of respecting the rights of your fellow citizens and not using personal religious beliefs to dictate what they can and cannot do with their life. Here’s a concept. Maybe they have a different religion?
    Ooh we gays are so evil. That agenda we are constantly forcing on everyone “live and let live” is so insidious.
    I have ZERO interest in making straight people live the way I live. Why the hell are so many Americans so stupid as to assume that they should be able to dictate how I do? They are furious whenever anyone even suggests something that affects the way they live (like say gun control, or tax increases) and yet they have the hypocrisy to think they have the right to deny me civil rights.
    I am disgusted by this country. And I’m disgusted by the notion that Tom Wolfe is “right” and that people can actually view freedoms of the personal, religious, and sexual variety as a “non morality”

  8. Mark says:

    Theres a reason he’s a great author. Good ideas and opinions.

  9. direcway says:

    mnacol-online.com ” she urges early on

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon