I don’t like it when someone denigrates a book they haven’t read, or a movie they haven’t seen, but at the peril of doing so, I’m moved to say a few things about a book I haven’t read, Senator Barbara Boxer’s second attempt at writing a novel, Blind Trust.
Off the bat, I wonder if Boxer weren’t a Senator from California, would California-based Chronicle Books, not especially known for their fiction, have agreed to publish it? (Zen-like, one can also ask, What better novel—likely written by an unknown—failed to see the light of day because this one took up its bookstore shelf space?)
Another question that occurs to me is, Do senators have the time to write novels? Writing a novel takes a huge commitment of time and energy. (Full disclosure: Boxer had a coauthor, novelist Mary-Rose Hayes, who may have done most of the heavy lifting.) And, while I’m sure even Senators should be allowed their hobbies, how much time should a member of the world’s most exclusive and powerful club—as the Senate has been called—devote to fiction while our country struggles with the deepest recession since World War II and is galloping, willy-nilly, toward the biggest spending programs ever conceived?
But, maybe Boxer didn’t write the book as an avocational pursuit. According to Kimberly A. Strassel who reviewed the novel in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the ultraliberal Boxer’s book is more an “attempt to score real-life political points in fictional form” than the thriller it purports to be.
Deep, Well-Rounded Characters
The heroine is a liberal Democratic Senator from California who is “honest, tough and energetic.” The chief antagonist is a Dick Cheney look-alike, Republican vice president who “trampled on individual liberties and jeopardized the Bill of Rights.”
But wait, it gets worse: There is also a Rush Limbaugh look-alike named Sam Slaughter (a.k.a. “Slaughterman”) who is “abusing the First Amendment.”
Well-rounded, compelling characters, wouldn’t you say?
And, while I’m not particularly a Rush Limbaugh fan, I support his right to say whatever he wants—whether Barbara Boxer or anyone else approves.
And I support her right to write whatever books she wants. But the question begs to be asked: Isn’t Senator Boxer herself jeopardizing individual liberties by accusing a radio host of abusing the First Amendment by exercising his First Amendment rights?
Or is freedom of speech just for those whom we agree with?