Much Like Hitler blaming the Jews on every bad thing from unemployment to psoriasis, this is the same idea as Krugman wanting to claim the aliens are coming…or the “racists” in the Tea Party.
They need the Big Lie to live. And the truth is their enemy!
The Big Lie only works when it is something that a good majority of the people are already inclined to beleive. Anti-semitism did not spring from Hitler’s mind, fully formed, instead it had existed in German culture since before the middle ages.
If the people really don’t beleive the core message, then the Big Lie comes across as mere clumsy propaganda, no matter how much you say it.
The Watchmen.
Good thing that Krugman doesn’t have access to anything that would cause the same amount of damage as Dr. Manhattan.
Really it was the Utopian dreams of Veidt that did the most damage.
Not sure if you read the graphic novel, but Alan Moore is a pretty hardcore European Socialist. While the story reads more-or-less the same you notice that Moore really doesn’t portray Rorschach in the least positive light, and the Comedian is even more vile than in the film. Meanwhile the ending is Veidt kills most of the Earth’s Population (and drives a huge number completely insane) and the end result is World Peace.
Moore seems to paint it as a happy ending and expect us to eat it up with relish…but really it smells a lot more of the Stalin purges, the Cambodian Killing Fields, and the Nazi Holocaust than Utopia.
I love the story for what it is…but I also like it as a lesson on “Progressive” ideals left unchecked.
I know it was Veidt. He was the one who had access to a machine that could do as much damage as Dr. Manhattan.
I have the graphic novel and have read it twice. I really like Rorschach. “Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.”
I suspect that Moore knew better than to give us a moral. He wrote a story that allowed us to decide where we stood. I’m with Rorshach. Veidt was evil. Dr. Manhattan was so un-human that his judgement was worthless. The only two non psychopaths were Night Owl and Silk Spectre.
Krugman would play Veidt in this novel and wouldn’t know why that was bad. He’d have us make nice with the most murderous regimes in human history rather than deal with the consequences of free human choice. He’s just not smart enough or strong enough to actually take the steps to make it happen.
I think that’s the genious of Watchmen. It shows what would happen if people had the strength and the will to do the stupid things they dream of doing.
Actually Alan Moore is an anarchist not a socialist. Big difference!
Eh, Anarchists don’t really exist in nature, they quickly turn to a larger-government model once the society they battle against falls.
One must note that Lennin, Hitler, and Marx were all technically Anarchists, but we don’t remember them as such.
“Actually Alan Moore is an anarchist not a socialist.”
I’ve yet to meet a modern “anarchist” who isn’t a socialist. Look who they march with, for, and against.
(I think the conceit of socialists calling themselves “anarchists” comes from Marx’s fantasy that a communist utopia would see a “withering away of the state”. Thus, a dedicated Marxist can declare himself an “anarchist”, despite desperately wishing for the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.)
Actually, in reading the graphic novel, I find that Veit’s story parallels that of the shipwrecked mariner in the pirate comic- he does something absolutely horrible to stop what turns out to be a false danger.
I just don’t see the flirtation of madness shown expressly by Veidt. Yeah, looking at the big picture he’s a lunatic, but in the pages themselves he’s depicted as the savior of humanity.
Neat parallel, but I don’t see it lining up. If anything the story arc of Rorschach seems a better parallel how Moore writes it.
What gets me is Veidt’s crocodile tears of empathy. He whines about how he’s made himself feel “every death” and thus he’s not really a bad guy. Which given the millions he’s caused is a neat trick given how much time elapsed from the start of his plan to the end of the book.
And of course wouldn’t you feel better knowing your murderer took a few seconds to feel bad about, well not you, but the vauge idea of a “you”.
But that fits the overall Anti-Progressive view that emotions are more important.
What I find delicious is how the croaking leftist sway between going Veidt was right, and Veidt was an evil libertarian social darwinist buisness man.
In both cases it’s because of Veidt’s self declared superiority, willingess to “cut through the red tape”, and lack of moral attachments.
Not to mention that the USSR was potrayed as blameless and worse as a force of nature with no human traits or faults. They invade Afganistan? Not their fault. It’s just what Russians do. And that’s what you get for electing Nixon/Reagan you stupid Ameris.
“self declared superiority, willingness to “cut through the red tape”, and lack of moral attachments.”
Perfect example of “progressive” thought. There’s nothing in progressivism that speaks against capitalism or profit……it just makes sure that the “right” people are in charge.
And Veidt exemplifies that. He’s the cultured, “sensitive”, ruthless, strong, beautiful emperor poet the progressives wish for.
And he gets away with his crimes, because killing him would upset the world too much. Nevermind that he just killed his three highest aides by exposure. Hell the others could have just put him out with them to freeze and been done with it.
But you see, he’s above such commoners.