Those who may be unfortunate enough to be readers of this blog may be old enough to recall the great age of the Private Detective novel or Private Detective television series. Such names as Mike Hammer, Shell Scott, Lew Archer, Phillip Marlowe, Peter Gunn, Jim Rockford, Richie Brockleman, or Magnum, may tug at one's heart strings in mourning for the days when the P.I. was the example of traditional American enterprise and "get it done-ness".
The P.I. was an example of what America was all about. The P.I. was an entrepenteur, an independent operator, and a man suspicious of the the government. He was a cynical man. He was cynical of the stated mores of society and of the government. He searched for truth and justice; not the niceties of law. Often, during his search for justice he found that the law was inadequate regarding justice. And while he searched, and suffered, during his search for justice and right, he often showed his flaws and sins. His life seemed to be have been made up of nothing more than booze, babes and bullets. His needs were simple. His life was simple. He looked at a world he thought cracked and crazy and saw himself as a normal man; not a man in the throes of angst. His personal life was private except for the occasional fling with a female client, female suspect, or his secretary. His weaknesses were for a shot of rye and a well-turned ankle (actually, more often a heaving full bosom). Introspection and self-flagellation was for the client; not him. He was a man comfortable in his skin. And because he was comfortable in his skin he was able to focus his attention on the problem. He always found the root of the problem despite the fact that his reward was a few hundred bucks, a shot of leg, a shot of bourbon and a Lucky Strike. He got spat upon, beat up, drunk, screwed (in more ways than one). And he worked for himself and his client in the search of justice (not government justice, but real justice).
The P.I. was, in fiction, the knight errant. He was a man looking for a cause despite his own flaws and sins. And he did so despite rotten pay and a lot of beatings. His cause was justice. And when the law conflicted with justice he chose justice.
Things have changed.
Now look at modern crime fiction and crime related television. Almost every one features a cop working for a government of some sort: CSI: Whatever, NCIS, Law and Order: Whatever, Without a Trace. Each television program shares a common thing: they all represent government agencies. They, along with all too many current crime novels, appeal to the government for justice and righteousness. In other words, the government says what is right and wrong instead of the moral right and wrong. The idea behind the programs and novels is that the government knows what is best, and that one should rely on the government to right legal wrongs. Forget about moral justice. The government knows all and if your adult sister is missing, and there is no legally found evidence that she is working in a Nevada brothel against her will , there is nothing the government sanctioned cops will do about it to rescue her. The law trumps all. The law is codified. It's a blueprint and it gives the CSI, Law and Order crowd indications of what to do and takes the burden of defining justice off their shoulders. And despite not having the burden of defining justice, the characters in current cop novels and series are so psychologically screwed up that it's a wonder that they can function. They drink too much occasionally and feel guilty about it. They bed a co-worker and feel guilty about it. They don't spend enough time with their wife and kids and feel guilty about it. They do the jobs for which the state has hired them and they feel conflicted about it. And when they perform acts of justice in favor of acts of law they do not only not celebrate the triumph of right over wrong, they crawl under the covers of their beds and fight through depression.
How times have changed. The great fictional French police detective, Jules Maigret, was a simple man with simple tastes (a good beer and a good meal), who sought justice and right and wrong and never lost a wink of sleep over it. Even the Swedish police detective, Martin Beck, probably the first of the depressed detectives and the precursor of what we have now, was more interested in justice than his own problems or the niceties of the law. Both detectives occasionally worked outside the system and felt no guilt about it. The only suffering that either character experienced from drinking too much were hangovers. Most of their suffering, in the trade, was based on dealing with the governments the worked for.
What we have come to is the dearth of the P.I. or cowboy in favor of the government paid salary man. Every damn thing is based on what the government says is right instead of what is right. The search for justice has become a slogan among government officials. The searchers for "truth" are expected to have more empathy for the perpetrator than the victim. One's inner demons are things to be embraced in the name of being "genuine." Instead of listening to jazz and watching the ponies run at the track, today's crime fighter watches Oprah and drinks Evian water. Perhaps that's the problem. The modern government sanctioned crime fighter drinks so much water that he or she has become diluted in every way.
The only characters in modern fiction approaching the classic private detective are historical detectives such as Ellis Peters' Brother Cadfael, Elizabeth Peters' Victorian Egyptologist mysteries and Lindsey Davis' Marcus Dido Falco series of detective novels. The P.I. has become passe', a museum piece.
It's enough to gag a maggot. And this maggot is gagging. Hard.
So we come to Dick Cheney versus Barack Obama.
Dick Cheney is the P.I. Dick Cheney is a hard man in search of justice and he is willing to twist an arm to get it. Dick Cheney sees the world as a cracked and crazy place and the survival of the American experiment depends on seeing those you would do us harm as the Other; the dangerous Other. He regards those who would attack the U.S. as rabid dogs to be put down. Mr.Cheney is close to the old Patriots -- suspicious of those values and traditions that are not American. And in this way he is like the P.I. who saw a black and white and called things black and white.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the Without a Trace government guy. Mr. Obama is conflicted about his identity. Is he a citizen of the United States or is he a citizen of the world? Do the laws of the United States trump those of the World Court? Is there such a thing as justice? Is the idea of buying the world a Coke imperialist? Mr. Obama seems to think that naivete in the matters of dealing with those who would do us harm a good thing. The excuse, when something bad happens will probably be something like, "They (the perpetrators) were true to their values, which are not our values, but are still valid nonetheless." One wonders if a crime were perpetrated against him or his family if his empathy would be the same. Mr. Obama seems to take Stalin's view: One death is a tragedy; a thousand deaths are a statistic.
Who do you want to help you when things get tough? A guy interested in justice or a guy interested in the niceties of law?
There is a right and a wrong, and the codified law of the United States has nothing to do with it.
If, during a Thanksgiving supper, would you rely on the cranky uncle (Dick Cheney) or the smart-assed nephew (Obama) as to what action to take against your asshole neighbor? Who would you rather try to find your missing sister? Mike Hammer? Or the CSI crew?
No comments:
Post a Comment