Jim Bovard

Sunni: Sure; both help keep the backlist more active. I would guess that most people think that because you've a string of books behind you, it's pretty much automatic that if you want to write another book, you'll be signed to do it. Is that true, or is it more as I suspect—that it's still tough for a libertarian author to get the major publishing houses to take him or her seriously?

Jim: I am not aware of pro-libertarian sentiment at any major publishing house. At best, some places tolerate libertarian views. Grudgingly. And when publishers do go with libertarian books, the PR budget is often impossible to detect without an electron microscope.

Sunni: Oh, now there's a surprise. Speaking of Attention Deficit Democracy, how's it doing? I suppose it's not getting as much attention as it might, since Cheney hasn't shot at you yet. [laughs]

Jim: The book is hitting a live nerve out there. I am pleased that it has revved lots of folks who have read it. As yet, Attention Deficit Democracy has not been reviewed in many print venues. I suspect many book review editors would prefer not to notice a book that highlights the profound systemic failures of the American political system. They are much more comfortable running reviews either of rah-rah pro-Bush books or of books by liberals that proclaim that the only thing we need to do to fix the problems is to elect a Democrat in 2008. Or maybe the book review editors simply don't like to read. I have been surprised at how many of the recent fashionable political books appear to be little more than double-spaced, bloated op-eds. Book review editors, like other editors, often operate in herds.

Sunni: Shhh! You're giving away my secret—I actually do read the books I review, and the reviews stick to the subject.

Jim: Well, you just blew any chance you might have had of writing reviews for the New York Times.

Sunni: [laughs] That's okay; I've never been that impressed with the Gray Lady anyway. I've seen on your blog where you have gotten some, um, fan mail, if I can use the term very loosely, for Attention Deficit Democracy. I bet you have fun with people who don't realize that you aren't just beating up on their favored boy ...

Jim: Email lets folks instantly display their penetrating grasp of a topic. The hate mail is often a hoot. I have been denounced scores of times for condemning Bush while I supposedly never criticized Clinton. This is a symptom of the attention deficits of folks who often shout the loudest. Or maybe the people who send such emails have computers infected with federal spyware that prevents them from accessing Google. I have also heard from lots of fine folks with thoughtful comments on my articles or books. I appreciate the encouragement—writing books is fairly solitary and one sometimes wonders what happens to the words after they are emailed to the publisher. Some emailers have opened my eyes to new aspects of a problem or some key detail of a government abuse that I was unaware of. And sometimes the challenges from emailers has helped me sharpen my thinking, or at least make it a bit less muddled.

Sunni: So, who's been worse so far with the abuse for you? The Clintonistas or the Busheviks?

Jim: I have heard far more from Bush supporters, but that may be partly due to the fact that far more people use email now than in the 1990s. Perhaps it is also a factor of the national mood changing after 9/11 ... perhaps rage is now a sign of conservative virtue, as it was for leftists in the late 1960s and 1970s. According to a Washington Post piece published on tax day, anger is now a hallmark of virtue among liberals who despise Bush. I don't perceive bulging eyes and throbbing forehead veins as signs of wisdom. High blood pressure is not a good proxy for having received a divine revelation.

Sunni: Definitely not. Which president is worse, in your opinion—Clinton or Bushnev?

Jim: Both were dreadful. Clinton might have been as bad as Bush if he had a Congress that was as servile. I have been surprised to see how many conservatives applaud the Bush team's bizarre argument that the president is above the Constitution any time the president says the word war. Many Washington conservatives would probably applaud Bush if he announced that God had crowned him king.