Oliver Stone appeared on Morning Joe today to push his ‘alternative history’ of the 20th century. I can’t post the video, but you can view it here.
Stone reminds me of a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. His rhetoric is bizarre and extreme when he addresses his own audience. He thinks a Mitt Romney Presidency would have ushered in a David Petraeus led military dictatorship. He supports horrid dictators like Hugo Chavez, someone Christopher Hitchens referred to as a necrophiliac. However, when he addresses a general audience he is much more toned down and seemingly reasonable. Limbaugh does the same thing on the rare occasions when he sulks out of his cave.
He thinks conventional, mainstream history (do I hear echos of the right’s ‘liberal media’ meme?) has whitewashed history in order to present America as ‘the good guys.’ He points to our nuclear bombing of Japan, the Cold War, and our fight against the radical Islamic terrorism as examples of unnecessary conflict.
When Mike Barnicle asks Stone and his historian co-writer Peter Kuznick, “Do you have an alternative to that action [Obama’s drone strikes],” we see the pointlessness of this discussion. They answer in the weakest, most intellectually dishonest way possible: “We are tracing the roots of the problem. [Stutters] We should never… Our mistakes in Afghanistan… dates back to us creating these people.” Can you imagine a bigger cop-out answer?
Offering alternative courses of action does not fit into their narrative because they would have to stand for something. Stone and Kuznick would rather push their own agenda filled counter narrative than offer solutions. “We are merely pointing out the issue to raise awareness,” is my takeaway. This is the problem with the American intellectual left right now, they just complain without offering solutions or alternatives. (I’m looking at you, Occupy Wall Street.) What is the point of all this, then? Your guess is as good as mine.