However - as I watched the documentary yesterday, what struck me was not so much the humour and mayhem that Thompson created, which I've always enjoyed, and nor was it the deeper political insights which he created out of the chaos of his "Gonzo Journalism".
What struck me was the sadness of his death, and the realization that Hunter, at his core, was a romantic. While his writings were caustic and abusive, the implicit message in all of his writings was that society can be so much more than it is, if we can just get rid of the bastards who are constantly screwing it up.. most commonly, from his perspective, coming from the right side of the political spectrum.
However - Hunter was not a flag-bearer for the liberal or progressive movement. He loved guns, he loved football.. and his disdain for the fakes and the phonies was no less evident for those in the Democratic party than it was for Republicans. His observation, however, was that the Republicans were just more infected.
Maybe he was right.
But it is significant that after his death we hear kind words and compliments from Jimmy Carter and from Pat Buchanan.
They saw what, if we looked close, we all saw.
That Hunter S. Thompson hungered for a government who was accountable, for a government who was honest and engaged. And after watching George W. Bush win two elections, well, it just became too much. And I'm not convinced, if he were alive today, he'd feel much solace with the election of Barack Obama.
I've commented on this before, but I think it bears repeating. Those of us who put our thoughts on the line in this burgeoning blog world, at our core, are probably Hunter Thompsonites, whether we agree with his obvservations or not. We write, because we have a romantic notion that the world around us can be better than it is. Otherwise, why bother writing at all?
I commend fellow bloggers to watch this movie - and if you haven't read "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", to follow up your viewing with a read of those two books in particular.
While "Fear and Loathing: On the Campgaign Trail '72" is perhaps most clearly political, in my mind, his finest political statement, which perhaps encapsulates the reason that he, ultimately, took his own life, is in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", in what has become known as the "Wave Speech":
Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era — the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run . . . but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant. . . .
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time — and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.
My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights — or very early mornings — when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L. L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder's jacket . . . booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) . . . but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that. . . .
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark — that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
I suppose Hunter kept waiting for another wave than never came, and then just got tired of waiting.
Are the rest of us doing the same? Watching for a wave that will never arive.. despondent over the failed "experiment" of the 60's? Or, to take a modern perspective, as we watch the great new hope, Barack Obama, struggle with even the members of his own party to establish meaningful health care reform, should he fail, should a new generation admit defeat and take that as a sign that there is no hope?
I think not.
I think that, whether the Liberals want to admit it or not, the Conservatives today are not the same as those of our father's generation. With very few exceptions, we welcome equality for women, for visible minorities - we may differ on the means to accomplish that, but the ultimately, our goals are not as disperate as some would suggest.
Witness the struggle of Michael Ignatieff to gain momentum.. the ultimate problem is there is not enough to distinguish Conservatives and Liberals for him to gain relevancy.
Society, like it or not, is an evolving mechanism. What works, continues, what fails, doesn't. Sometimes these changes move too quickly for small 'c' conservatives and too slow for small 'l' liberals, but the changes are inevitable.
So - take a moment to watch the documentary, read Hunter's books if you haven't already, and have hope.
2 comments:
What caused the wave to finally break and roll back? What prevented it from rolling over America, creating a new society awash with 1960’s idealism? Was the barrier created by the population’s lack of imagination and failure to embrace what at the time were, for some radical and uncomfortable changes? Or can we blame the politicians? Maybe the high water mark was that point at which the main political parties perceived the American people’s tolerance for change to be. And in an effort to maintain or gain control over government and do what they as Democrats or Republicans believed was right, jointly, whether they knew it or not, created the cliff upon which Mr. Thompson’s wave crashed. Perhaps if the politicians acted as individuals on behalf of those that believed instead of for the most part walking in step with the party line … perhaps if the politicians acted on individual principles instead of following party direction … perhaps things would have been different.
On a completely unrelated note, I wonder if the late Mr. Thompson would have the same opinion as you on the firing of Mr. Boutilier.
ITGG.. I see where you're going, but I don't agree. Which is fine, I guess.
Hunter was a football man, and I think he would agree that while you may stand on your principals and advocate for your best opinion as to the play to be called in the huddle, you don't exhibit integrity by then arguing and refusing to run the play after it's been called.
In the American system, perhaps, Boutilier's actions would have been acceptable - however, I'm not sure that their system is preferential. What that approach allows is for the never-ending pork and trading of favors - all in the drive to maintain votes and funding..
If the best thing for the Province is to reduce spending on capital improvements, are you really the paragon of integrity because you agree to such a move only if it's in someone else's constituency?
Pandering for votes is certainly an illness which pervades our system, however, is pandering for votes in your own backyard somehow more acceptable that pandering for votes Province-wide?
Post a Comment