Name’s Sharlet, James..er..Jeff Sharlet.
Jeff Sharlet has written an expose of the Family. The organization, currently headed up by Doug Coe, is touted in Sharlet’s book as a secret, semi-underground society that directs American politics both domestically and in international relations. In reading the book blurbs as well as the endorsements, one is left with the impression that the Family is some sort of nefarious secret group working their purposes like Dan Brown’s presentation of Opus Dei in The Da Vinci Code. You almost expect a hooded albino monk assassin to be Sharlet’s point of contact with the organization.
Sharlet’s work is that of a supposed insider to the organization. How did he penetrate the inner reaches of their headquarters, so ominously named “Ivanwald?” (which is sometimes in New York City and at other times in Arlington, Virginia)? So if this secret group is so secret, then certainly Sharlet had to work undercover in order to gain access to this damning information. One brings to mind James Bond antics including false identities, trench coats, and the picking of locks in order to gain access to the archives of dastardly documents and plans. At least one would anticipate covert meetings with informants in vacant parking garages.
Nope. Nothing like that at all.
So how did Sharlet get access? Not through the auspices of an albino assassin but by the recommendation of a banker. That’s right; a banker. As he records both in the first chapter of the book and in an article he wrote previously for Harper’s, a friend, who was a recent Ivanwald alumnus, suggested him for membership in the organization.
Having gained access through his convenient contact, Sharlet promptly changed his name in order to conceal his identity as a investigative reporter. Using his undercover spy skills, he then maneuvered his way into the secret recesses of the organization, skillfully twisting his way through the labyrinthian rituals of ….
Uh. No he did not. In fact, it was just the opposite. According to Sharlet, he did not enter the portals of the Family in any kind of clandestine way at all. Per an interview at alternet.org, Sharlet admitted, “Actually, I was posing as myself.” He did not hide or change his identity. No false passports or driver’s licenses were used.
Well, James Bond also uses his own name when he investigates the latest villain’s network of spies and saboteurs. He only hides his profession as a spy. So certainly, in true Bond fashion, Sharlet kept his name but hid the fact that he was a writer from those he was scrutinizing.
Uh. Well, no again. Sharlet openly told them he was a writer and even more.
“I didn’t really know how to explain you to the guys,” Bengt went on. “So I just told him we got a new dude, he’s from New York, he’s a writer, he’s Jewish, but he wants to know Jesus. And you know what they said?”
“No,” I answered, my fingers curling around the door handle.
“Bring him on!” (Pg. 17)
So not only did the Family know Sharlet’s name, they knew he was a journalist and they knew he was Jewish. In fact, according to Sharlet in his interview with Leonard Lopate on WNYC radio, it was “one of his calling cards.”
So we have a “secret” Christian organization that lets a known journalist into their organization, one who is openly not a Christian but Jewish, yet still gives that same person access to their archives—some 600 boxes of internal documents. I hope I am not the only person who is starting to think, “Secret political undergrounds don’t normally operate that way.” Certainly Lopate was beginning to move in that direction in his interview with Sharlet.
Lopate: But he knew you were a journalist and he knew you would be bringing journalistic sensibilities…
Sharlet: Yeah. It’s one of the fascinating things about the Family because its this group that is secretive but not terribly secret … So I told them I was a journalist. I went under my real name. And they said ‘That’s fine.” And at one point one of the leaders of the group that I was with said, “You know, you ought to write a book about us but nobody would believe it.” So I took his dare.
So one of the leaders of this “secretive, but not terribly secret” organization not only allows Sharlet access, he suggests that he write a book about them. The whole thing begins to strain credibility. Yet it does not end even there. Sharlet in other places even goes to lengths to deny the Family is a conspiracy of any kind.
I always say to interviewers, “This is not a conspiracy.” There’s no secret badge or anything. It’s much looser. This is how the vast right-wing conspiracy works, by being associates, friends.
Jeff, if the Family is “not a conspiracy,” then how is it part of the “vast right wing conspiracy”? This makes as much sense as being “secretive but not terribly secret.” It appears that even Sharlet is aware that he is walking a fine line between truth and the hype that sells books. In the process, he comes across at least to me as inconsistent if not deliberately misleading.
It is noteworthy that after his “secretive but not secret” statement above, the interviewer started to laugh nervously and move on to another topic. No wonder! I am certain he saw the paradoxes in Sharlet’s claims as well. Lopate thought he had a James Bond in his chair who was exposing the equivalent of a religious SPECTRE. Instead he had a Maxwell Smart who was bringing CHAOS into his radio show.
To Be Continued…
Leonard Lopate, nervous? Never!
As it happens, Lopate understood — as did most listeners — that “vast rightwing conspiracy” comes with scare quotes attached. It’s what we call “ironic.” But none too subtle — if, having just denounced the idea of conspiracy, you then use the term “vast right-wing conspiracy,” most Americans will recognize the quotation — one of the most derided phrases in recent American political history — and understand your meaning.
But not Grasshopper, here. Pick up the boiling pot, Grasshopper.
I’m glad you can fill me in on on secretive political undergrounds “normally operate.” I’ve always wondered what SOP was. What’s the story? Because the secretive political underground — The Family’s documented words, not mine — that I encountered depends for cover not on conspiracy but on conventional wisdom. You know, guys who sit around with their blogs sounding off about their deep knowledge of politics based on their lengthy investigations of… their navel. None dare call it conventional wisdom, the creed of the modern day know-nothingism.
—Jeff SharletWelcome Jeff. Believe it or not I appreciate the feedback.
First, in looking over the post, I had originally included the word “probably” in my sentence about how secret political organizations operate. I eliminated it from the final post because I thought it sounded too sarcastic. Now I see I should have kept it in, because as you note, I don’t have the SOP for secret political undergrounds. I just play the odds that “secret” groups of any kind don’t normally:
At least secret groups wouldn’t logically do this if they wanted to remain secret. This may be investigating my navel, but it does seem rather basic to the word “secret.”
(By the way, I note you keep using the term “secretive” when your book subtitle uses “secret.” Had you used “secretive” or “under the radar” in your subtitle, we would have less disagreement. Is I noted in my first post, my issues have more to do with the hype attached to your book than the book itself.)
The “conspiracy” quote I gave was actually not from Lopate’s show, but from your written interview at alternet.org. (I agree that reference was not clear). In any case, the written text did not include the quotes around “vast right wing conspiracy.” Nor did the interviewer there appear to get your point of irony either.
As for Lopate being nervous at that point in your interview, subjective I agree. Readers are more than welcome to download the MP3 at the link I give in the post and judge for themselves.
Finally, the “grasshopper” comments are deserved. Call it square for my “Maxwell Smart” dig. Besides, how did you expect a Shaolin Monk to respond to a guy who writes a book entitled Killing the Buddha? (That’s a joke, Jeff. You now have two book plugs in the same post.
)
Still, we disagree on other things as well. Those to follow. Comments will always be open.
—Caine