ELIZABETH DREW'S MASH NOTE TO JIM WEBBElizabeth Drew is clearly diggin' that manly Aqua Velva scent.
After I read Drew's adoring profile of the Democratic Virginia senator (and blushing veepstakes hopeful) James Webb in the new issue of the New York Review of Books, I knew it reminded me of something. For a while I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but then it came to me.
It reads exactly like a Vanity Fair celebrity profile.
As is standard in such pieces, it opens with the breathless list of the subject's accomplishments: Bestselling author! Screenwriter! Producer! Boxer! English teacher! Etc. etc. It also lists the awards he's won: Emmy, Purple Hearts (two), et al.
The second paragraph goes on to modestly compare Webb's writing to Stephen Crane and Norman Mailer.
And then, believe it or not, it gets even better!
There are, of course, the requisite Glowing Testimonials. In Vanity Fair cover articles, seldom (well, actually never) do you hear a less than flattering word about the star from his or her colleagues. No, what you get instead are scads of quotations fulsomely attesting to said star's total awesomeness in every way. And that's precisely what you get here, too. To wit: Drew says that Webb's colleagues
described Webb in unusual terms, as applied to electedpoliticians: "polite" (I heard this several times), "shy," "modest," "avery nice person." . . . Part ofhis effectiveness, I've been told by other senators, is that he is oneof the very few whom the others really listen to— because of both hiscredibility on military issues and his powerful intellect.
From Webb's "close friend [Senator] Claire McCaskill, of Missouri:"
"The fact that Jim is sogrounded separates him and makes him seem more complicated than he is.He's not a complicated person."
From Senator Chuck Hagel, "who isn't spendthrift with his praise of colleagues:"
"I think Jim Webb is one of the smartest guys I've ever known. He hasan ability to think through issues; not many here do."
We don't hear a word of dissent from these rosy assessments. It's similar to the way that, say, Russell Crowe's colleagues will fall all over themselves to gush to the VF reporter what a mild, even-tempered pussycat of a man he is.
Another of the hoary chestnuts of the Vanity Fair profile are the reporter's allusions that he or she had "heard" something vaguely unflattering about the star. But then -- you'll never believe it! The reporter finds out that that the stories about not-so-nice thing are, like, so totally, totally bogus! To wit:
When I was about to meet with Webb for the first time, in 2007, Iexpected to find someone who would be difficult to talk to, a littlebit strange—someone with whom I had to be very careful not to put afoot wrong, lest I set off some land mine. What I found was completelysurprising. Webb turned out to be an easy conversationalist with a low,gentle voice, a ready smile, and a sometimes very full laugh. During anhour-and-a-half-long conversation over sandwiches in his office, I keptwaiting for him to be weird, but that never happened.
It's sorta like all those Vanity Fair profiles of Tom Cruise, where the reporters outdo each other energetically trying to persuade the reader that, couch-jumping antics and Scientology videos to the contrary, Cruise is 100% normal and so not weird at all!
Another hardy perennial of the genre is the observation that the unbelievably gorgeous subject is yet more gorgeous in the flesh. And wouldn't you know it, Drew strikes a version of that chord as well:
Even Webb's looks are surprising: on television his large, flatface, with its broad forehead, looks like a potato—pale and pasty. Inperson his complexion is ruddy—with piercing blue eyes that suggest aman who might in fact have a wild side, a man whom one doesn't want tocross.
Finally, no Vanity Fair profile is truly complete without the standard-issue grace notes claiming that, no matter how gobsmackingly rich and famous the star has become, he's naught but a poor country boy at heart. Well -- bingo! Drew covers this ground as well. Much ink is spilled concerning Webb's ponderous perorations about his "people," the Appalachian Scots-Irish, "building blocks of America's working classes."
Webb, the son of a career Air Force officer, grew up in a solidly middle class household and has spent many years hobnobbing in such distinctly non-blue collar environments as DC politics, Hollywood, and the literary world, but never mind. He still gets to call himself a "redneck," make ostentatious mention of his "union card, two Purple Hearts, and three tattoos," and rhapsodize about his love of country music (country is "sometimes known as 'the white man's blues,'" Drew helpfully explains).
Honest to God, the only Vanity Fair profile elements lacking here are the suspiciously vehement protestations that the star is 110% heterosexual and the dewey-eyed paeans to the metaphysical perfection of the star's marriage. Drew does note Webb's marriage to Hong Le (wife #3, if you're counting), albeit not the interesting info that she's 22 years younger than he is, or that they first became romantically involved when they were married to other people.
If you consider Vanity Fair celebrity profiles to be the Mount Everest of American journalism, you'll probably think Drew's gushing valentine is just swell. The rest of us, though, might find it a tad unsatisfying. Drew quickly glides past the notorious "Women Can't Fight" article without questioning Webb in any detail about when, why, and to what extent, he's changed his mind about the role of women in the military. (He has never really explained his thoughts on the matter in any detail, and his public apologies for his past remarks have seemed perfunctory at best). Drew suggests that Webb's "fresh approach" and "excitement" would bring "pizzazz" to the presidential ticket, but fails to mention the fact that even Webb's biggest supporters admit he sucks on the campaign trail.
Nor does she ask why this allegedly populist scourge of corporate America and foe of inequality voted for retroactive immunity for the telcom companies and voted against, in Matt Stoller's words, "a Bernie Sanders-sponsored piece of legislation to raise income taxes on people earning more than $1 million a year to fund special education, a vote Senate expert Bob Geiger called 'disgusting'." Unsurprisingly, Drew also doesn't ask him to explain the contradiction between his claim that he's against the war and his consistent votes in favor of continued funding of the war.
I'll admit, however, that I did learn a few additional facts about Webb, none of them particularly reassuring. For example, he was one of the leading figures who persuaded officials to make an important change to Maya Linn's brilliant design of the Vietnam Memorial; this addition, of a statue of three serviceman, is an aesthetic monstrosity that comes close to ruining what is otherwise one of the great architectural masterpieces. More troubling still are Webb's views about the Vietnam War, which in the article he defends as "strategically necessary." I suppose this is not surprising, though, given the fact that less than two years ago Webb provided an unqualified endorsement for a wingnutty revisionist history of the Vietnam War which claims that the only reason that war was lost was because of the treachery of liberal elites.
Given that, back in the 60s, the New York Review of Books made its bones by publishing hard-hitting anti-Vietnam War writings by Noam Chomsky and other intellectuals, it's sad that this venerable institution is giving a home to cheap hackwork like the Drew piece. Drew herself, though, is an institution of a sort. She's been writing about Washington forever. For years she covered DC politics for the New Yorker, and even then her articles were lifeless and interminable. I've long been a big fan of the NYRB, but I must admit they've gotten old and stale. It's long past time for some new blood and fresh insights there.
--K.A. Geier
