Tim Kreider’s critcism of the Bush administration is the main connecting thread among the essays and cartoons featured in Twilight of the Assholes. His work portrays a fearful nation in those post-9/11 years, one where moral codes and international law were routinely dismissed in the name of protecting the country. The best way to summarize Kreider’s thoughts from the time is in his comments about a certain, er, interrogation tactic – at some point during the Bush years, being anti-torture became a political position.
The price for all this safety and security came in exchange for some of our freedoms and civil liberties. This was not a price Kreider willingly or regularly paid. For him, freedom meant some exposure to danger. He accepted that the freedom to do his work came with a degree of danger in the form of criticism and perhaps possible harm to his career prospects. I think this mattered to him because he saw his work as a manifestation of his vision of America – a place where criticism and dissent are the positive forces for reform and growth.
Of course, the other side of the coin here is that Kreider simply didn’t agree with the Bush administration. I see this as a healthy stance – as he points out, the sight of thousands of Americans looking like third world refugees in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was decisive evidence for those who willingly reported for jury duty in the court of public opinion. But as I noted after reading Eureka Street, there is a big difference between a politician’s actions and that politician’s supporters. I don’t think there is much need to depict those who support the troops as mindless backers of the government, for example, and not merely because sweeping statements always get something wrong. Dissent is a critical feature of our democracy but a dissenter who sees opponents only as caricatures of a position do more to erode rather than reinforce the foundations of our democracy.
One up: I liked the observation that mercenaries tend to give up in a fight before those who are fighting for an ideal. It explains why certain changes happen so gradually in this country - proponents keep fighting for their ideals while their opponents eventually find new ways to act on their motivations to preserve or consolidate power, prestige, and wealth.
One down: Kreider notes that the collective fear of death is seen in how easily we accept a new finding that claims to extend longevity. I suppose that’s true but like a lot of observational conclusions it’s based on a false duality. I perceive myself as someone who does not fear death but that doesn’t mean I’m in any rush to pack up. If I ever learn of a new pill that might allow me to churn out these stupid reading reviews for another two hundred years, I'll be the first one in line.
Just saying: I ended up reading this collection because I remembered liking Kreider’s writing from the books and articles of his I’ve read in the past. Here’s one quote from the book that captures some of his essence:
‘I once restrained myself but now I’ve reconsidered, reasoning: screw it.’
And in what might be a repeat link, here’s a piece I liked that he wrote about busyness.
