James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at [email protected].
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
That Hillary Clinton had no idea where those missing Whitewater files came from when they showed up on her desk in the White House?
Sometimes I think they are playing games with us, arguing dishonestly — or in a Machiavellian manner, if you prefer — to advance their causes in the political wars. At other times, I can accept the idea that their reasoning is clouded by ideological enthusiasm — that perhaps they really do believe, for example, that convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent. Well, let me think about that one for a while.
But it is the left’s position on censorship that puzzles me the most. Since my teenager years, I have heard the argument advanced that viewing pornographic material does not cause individuals to commit sexual misdeeds; that there is no connection between pornography and rape or child abuse; that pornography may even provide a sexual release that makes it less likely that the person who views it will ever engage in sexual crimes.
Even when studies point out that rapists and pedophiles almost always are consumers of pornography, the anti-censorship crowd does not bend. They advance a rendition of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, because of this”) fallacy. I have heard the argument hundreds of times, from colleagues, columnists and television talking heads. It goes something like the following: “Just because the rapist watched pornography before he raped does not prove that there is a causal relationship between the pornography and the rape. Because A precedes B does not mean that A caused B. The rapist may have eaten a bowl of Cheerios that morning, as well. That does not mean the Cheerios are linked to the rape.”
Free speech advocates will make this argument with a straight face, often with a studiedly pained expression designed to make clear that they do not approve of pornography, but have to be intellectually honest.
Well, I don’t like to accuse anyone of being a liar. But I simply can’t see how anyone can hold to this line of thought. Isn’t it more logical to conclude that it is a position taken to push the case against censorship, even if those who take it have to fudge the truth in the process? After all, if what we watch does not effect our behavior, what the heck is the advertising industry all about? Why do they spend billions of dollars on car and beer and blue jean commercials, if the images therein do not effect the buying behavior of consumers? Come on: If the Budweiser frogs can lead beer drinkers into buying a six pack of Bud, why doesn’t steamy pornography have an impact on those who watch it?
The picture has become cloudier in recent years. There have been notable examples of the anti-censorship folks changing their tune, when they find Hollywood and the music industry promoting images not to their liking. The latest is the case of Joe Eszterhas, once the highest-paid screenwriter in Hollywood, the man responsible for Basic Instinct, Showgirls and a number of other “soft porn” movies.
Has Eszterhas found his conscience and become repentant about pushing this sleazy stuff on the American public? Not exactly. He’s distraught because so many of the characters in the movies he worked on – smoked cigarettes. And because he has been diagnosed with throat cancer, caused by years of heavy smoking. In a recent op-ed column in The New York Times, Eszterhas explained, “Eighteen months ago I was diagnosed with throat cancer, the result of a lifetime of smoking.” He describes himself as “alive, but maimed” and “desperate to see my four boys grow up.” He has given up smoking and drinking in his efforts to stay alive.
“I find it hard to forgive myself,” he continues. “I have been an accomplice to the murders of untold numbers of human beings. I am admitting this only because I have made a deal with God. Spare me, I said, and I will try to stop others from committing the same crimes I did.” He now wants smoking to be “as illegal as heroin,” and wants Hollywood to cease promoting the image of smoking as glamorous and sexy because “a cigarette in the hands of a Hollywood star onscreen is a gun aimed at a 12- or 14-year old.” His cancer was the shock he needed. “My hands,” he laments, “are bloody.”
I don’t want to pile on Eszterhas now that he has cancer. But it must be said: Eszterhas is conceding more than he intends. It is not that he is calling for censorship. He is hoping to use his influence to encourage Hollywood to exercise self-discipline, instead, to self-censor. Nonetheless, he is conceding a point our side has made for decades; that the images Hollywood promotes change the behavior of the American people.
But we all know that. Underwear companies lost large amounts of money when Clark Gable took off his white dress shirt in It Happened One Night and revealed he was not wearing an undershirt. Motorcycle jackets became the rage after Marlon Brando rode into town in black leather in The Wild One. Floppy Beatle-style haircuts appeared all over the country within weeks after their appearance on the old Ed Sullivan show. We could go on.
Then why don’t Eszterhas and the new anti-smoking militants in Hollywood also call for Hollywood to self-censor the sordid and graphic sexual scenes that have become commonplace in modern films? If they are able to grasp how a scene of a movie star smoking a cigarette can influence young people, why can’t they see how depictions of that star sleeping around can do the same thing?
I think the answer is pretty obvious: They know that movies glamorizing sexual promiscuity effect the attitudes of the audiences who see them, at least as much as scenes of actors smoking. Eszterhas does not apologize for the soft porn he created because he favors the sexual revolution. He knows his movies have an effect on the morals of those who see them. He knows that our side is right about the power of Hollywood to shape the culture. He knew that before he contracted throat cancer.
