Categories
News, Spin

Friendly Fire

The shoe bomber, that is the shoe thrower, launched his attack 13 days ago, Dec. 14, and the story still has news legs. It should be ignored but the “attention must be paid” (A. Miller), then it might go away.

The success of the attack by Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi (Associated Press spelling) should not be misunderestimated. George II made a surprise visit to Iraq, seen as the last of his presidency, and during a joint press conference this man took off his shoes and threw them while shouting criticism. Bush ducked both times, and joked afterward. It’s the American way.

How successful was al-Zeidi? It’s inspired people worldwide. While not a violent act, thank God,  neither did it prove man’s wisdom, compassion or even cleverness. I cannot bring myself to say that al-Zeidi’s act wasn’t just to communicate his opposition to Bush but that it was wrong because he was rebuking the entire United States — how ridiculous is it for a nation to wince over such a weapon of sass construction — but that just might be my trouble.

Though lots of Americans oppose this president, it’s a shame to see so many of them either applaud the symbolic protest, explain it away with cultural history, or joke about it. For me, the last is toughest. In these nearly eight years, George II has given us very little to laugh about, compared to, say, Bill Clinton, either at his best or lowest.

Where was the Secret Service? Iraqi security initially was said to be guarding the U.S. president in the briefing room yet couldn’t even block al-Zeidi’s second shoe, just tackle the perp. The Secret Service was there, according to the Post, yet says little now.

Maybe it’s that I don’t want to see history books’ summaries of and judgments on George II socked by this brief incident. Bush needs to be evaluated for what he did and didn’t do, what he knew and what he didn’t, and what he said and what he didn’t say. And when.

The act speaks poorly for those who praise al-Zeidi. Why not respect people with talent who’ve managed to use divine gifts? What does it say about people who applaud most for what amounts to a primitive act: to throw an oblong object.

To call this a genuine folk Iraqi or Muslim custom is hollow. That the subject of the shoe heave is symbolically lower than dirt sounds right, but isn’t this really a bourgeois custom? The great religion’s main principles lie on simplicity, that its highest leaders were paupers and beggars, orchard keepers and shepherds, craftsmen and tradesmen. Just like Jews and Christians. Workers and the poor at best have a single pair of shoes. You wouldn’t throw those because you just might never get either, or both, of them back. The shoe toss as an insult or political statement can only be made from a position of plenty, confident of the extra pair of sandals in the Saab outside, the work-out Nikes in the desk drawer at the office. Or 36 pair waiting for Muntadhar in heaven, wrapped in tissue, the leather not yet broken in.

Think of poor Muntadhar. He likely felt this was the way to leave an imprint. But as a fellow journalist, I don’t see it. A writer or a thinker wants to be known for accomplishments there. Al-Zeidi always will have the independent clause, “known for throwing his shoes at George W. Bush and missing, when the president was in his last month in office.” Such a futile effort; George II is a lame duck, whose diminishing power should be obvious everywhere, certainly to Baghad intelligentsia of whom al-Zeidi must be one. Nothing Muntadhar writes — exposes, commentaries, histories — will be given due consideration, for his fame is laced into clog tosser.

One of my earliest political memories comes from 1972. Mom supported whoever the Democratic ticket would comprise, and Dad initially backed the re-election of Richard Nixon. That year, though, Nixon’s promises of drawing down from the Vietnam War seemed as conditional as ever. Come June were reports of a break-in at the office of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.

Dad went to Little Rock for a Realtors state conference, which Nixon addressed. On his return Mom asked him for details, and she was livid when he admitted to participating in a standing ovation for Tricky Dick, as my draft-age big brother called him. Dad admitted this president had not kept his word many times in the last three and a half years and this Watergate business sure looked fishy. Then why didn’t he stay seated, or turn his back or leave the hall, Mom asked.

“I applauded to honor the office of the presidency,” he said, and Mom allowed that as barely acceptable. To use a term from the period, they settled on detente. Come that November, he said he voted for George McGovern. This was a long, successful marriage.

The shoe pitch lasts — here and there the news shows protesters using shoes and pictures of Bush — because some people in developing countries call al-Zeidi a hero. Maybe he is. Matrydom is yet possible, given the risks he still faces. But these people really can’t turn around and threaten Danish cartoonists, can they? It’s differentiating the symbol and what it represents, the message and its messenger.

To live by the symbol and die by the symbol, leather bound, is riskier for a nation than defending belief and principal, even land, because the room for misinterpretation of a mere gesture is so wide. People might kill over satire, cower from parody. Yet just as important for everyone as the free flow of information is the liberating volcanic eruption of opinions. Al-Zeidi must be more wordsmith than pitcher; if security had been on its feet he’d be splatter now. Friendly fire doesn’t begin to excuse what should be “honoring the dignity of the office,” a people or a nation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email