Would somebody please give Harper’s literary editor Ben Metcalf a back rub? Or maybe pour him a cup of sleepy-time tea? Or buy him a gift certificate for some yoga lessons?
After all, it’s difficult for an editor to write a readable magazine column when he’s hyperventilating with anger — which seems to be exactly what’s ailing Metcalf in his current “Notebook” column in the front of Harper’s.
In the column, Metcalf ostensibly sets out to write a lofty, literary essay about the limits of free speech in this country. Is it legal, Metcalf wants to know, for him to write about his desire to strangle the president?
“Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of the United States, and kill him with my bare hands?” writes Metcalf.
“In truth, I bring neither a message nor a promise of violence,” he adds. “I seek only to gauge what level of discourse is still acceptable in this country by asking, in the hope that I might someday participate in that discourse, whether I am free to posit that it would probably be great fun, and a boon to all mankind, if I were to slaughter the president of the United States with my bare hands.”
Having posed the question, Metcalf half-heartedly seeks an answer.
Along the way, he reveals that in 1917 Congress passed legislation making it a federal offense for anyone who “knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail … any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States … or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat.”
The upshot, according to Metcalf, is that somehow George W. Bush has taken advantage of this not-exactly-new restriction on free speech. According to Metcalf, the president’s “free ride on our backs was made possible” by Congress’ 1917 decision.
Huh?
How is the president getting a free ride on our backs because it’s illegal to make threats against his person? How is that different than any other president since 1917? What does that have to do with the current tension between the White House and the reporters who cover it?
Metcalf never explains. Instead, he haphazardly vents his pent-up anger, and the column soon breaks down into a four-alarm hissy fit against the president.
“I hardly mean to imply that George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends,” he writes. “That idea deserves to be stated outright: George W. Bush is a delusional party hack whose aim is to rob and mislead us for the benefit of his friends.”
Just in case that was too subtle, Metcalf reiterates the point.
“True, George W. Bush is an ignorant, cruel, closed-minded, avaricious, sneaky, irresponsible, thieving, brain-damaged frat boy with a drinking problem and a taste for bloodshed, whose numerous crimes have been abetted by the moral corruption of his party cohort and whose contempt for American military lives alone warrants his impeachment, but what has it ever won us to say so?” he adds.
In the end, all of Metcalf’s rage adds up to quite a spectacle — like watching a toddler in the midst of a temper tantrum, clenching his fists, and smashing at his tinker toys with his favorite Tonka Truck. Several thousand words in, we found ourselves thinking, “Go ahead Big Guy, keep going, get it all out of your system…”
Not that Metcalf’s column is without its merits. Along the way, he succeeds at the previously unlikely feat of making his “Notebook” predecessor, Lewis Lapham, sound like the soothing, moderate voice of reason.
I'm afraid Mr. Gillette misses the point in his article that is sadly, comprised primarily of quotes from Ben Metcalf's Notebook in Harpers.
While Mr. Metcalf's musings may sound like mere "fodder for anyone looking to dismiss the legitimate investigative reporting and well-reasoned political criticism found elsewhere in Harper's," this is not his concern nor any other who feels as strongly about the state of our current administration and it's very transparent behaviors . Though this is a web article, Felix, you have merely done yourself a disservice by treating it as your first homework assignment in high school as though it had fallen in your lap with no thought of content or true argument backed up with empirical reference.
Louis Lepham may have been more the diplomat in his musings, but he favored a less drastic, somewhat anarchistic approach that almost ignored the painfully obvious in favor of savoring the world, mankind, good and bad. Dichotomy is beautiful in it's existence, but painful sometimes in the outcome (i.e. the current state of the world virtue of the choices made by both the American people and primarily the current administration.)
As far as hunting down the current prez and killing him with your bare hands Ben, we feel your pain, know that many like yourself have greater values and morals than the current administration and don't need the pedestal or pulpit to back us up on this (and we actually take the bible to heart.) We encourage and applaud your musings and hope for your many happy returns as Editor for Harper's.
Posted by MateoJ on Tue 30 May 2006 at 10:25 AM
I gather they don't teach satire at the Columbia School of Journalism these days. Go back and read it again... slowly.
Posted by Jimmy Dare on Mon 5 Jun 2006 at 04:19 PM
Yup, they sure can't be teaching satire at your journalism school. For a hint, see this contribution from your very own biz school:
http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/everybreath/
That video and Metcalf's article are two of the most screamingly hilarious things I've seen in years, both in the space of a few short weeks. Oh, the irony that a biz school can produce something on that level, and that you can't even appreciate it when it's staring you right in the face.
But neither are the video nor the article wholly satirical. They're rife with underlying truths that utterly transcend the puerile, unidimensional, left-right cheerleading that passes for political commentary nowadays. Which condemns them to leave 90% of the audience either offended or bewildered.
So take solace. You have a promising career in major media, amid all the other statist toadies. And a big hats-off to your website admins, who made your lamentable musings numero uno in a Google search on "metcalf harpers".
Posted by texpat on Fri 9 Jun 2006 at 11:56 PM