Corps Is Only One Letter From Corpse

Madame M:

An excellent article and excellent comments by you.  The author we review keeps making points.  If only more were listening…

Is it so hard for people to believe that corporations are so powerful?  I thought about quoting nearly the entirety of page 166 of the book, but suffice to say that ideological drivel is being used to further corporate coffers, often in ways that are egregious.  So many government functions are done (expensively) via contract by “more efficient and less costly” corporations.  Of course, often they are neither. 

Halliburton has received hundreds of billions of dollars from US taxpayers, is nearly unaccountable to anyone but itself, and hides its profits in foreign countries in ways that show how multinationals do whatever they want.

As the middle class gets more and more squeezed, and as the lower class is already, more are spinning out of home ownership and into renting.  Often this becomes multi-generational or even multi-family in one unit as well.  While this may have some tangential beneficial side effects, how in general is that the American dream?

Corporations have assumed effective control, and not enough care about that.  We still schlepp forward under the illusion that we the people do the hiring and firing politically.  But Hedges sets us straight about corporate control: “You cannot, in most instances, be a viable candidate without their blessing and money. These corporations, including the Commission on Presidential Debates ( a private organization), determine who gets to speak and what issues candidates can or cannot challenge, from universal, not-for-profit, single-payer health care, to Wall Street bailouts, to NAFTA.  If you do not follow the corporate script, you become as marginal and invisible as Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney.” (Hedges 167)  And most people don’t know or care.  It is also, Hedges says, why, even when they are reluctant, which isn’t often, Democrats—supposedly the reps of the “common man”—toe the corporate line on nearly any subject.  Everything meaningful is moved in the direction the big and powerful corporations want.

We pretend not to see that Depression-level layoffs—most of those jobs are forever lost—have occurred.  We let the corporate-media and the corporate-controlled statisticians play games with statistics and cloud their true meaning.  We pretend not to realize that stopping looking for work—giving up—is not a positive trend.  Nor is regaining jobs that don’t pay enough to live.  Nor is getting only part-time work when full-time work is needed.  We willingly give ourselves a scatoma, so as not to see that “there are whole sections of the United States that now resemble the developing world.” (168)  We pretend not to see increasing poverty.  Our willing historical amnesia—nay, our disdain for history as being relevant for anything—keeps us from realizing we are going back, back, back to the dark days we painfully and barely managed to climb out of  in the 1800s and early 1900s.  Except that this time, we may not get the chance: The corporations do know history, and feel they know how to prevent the people’s assertions this time.   You mentioned some of the methods in your post.

When profit-maximization is the sole goal, even competitive American businesses and workers are outsourced if it can be done a little cheaper elsewhere.  That it’s not as good is irrelevant. 

America has been a great country, and can be again.  But not if it embraces its myths about how great it is right now, because that will prevent it from facing this “time of collapse, and moral and political squalor.”  (168)

Now we know why Hedges named his book what he did.  We are not in the serious business of fixing ourselves.  We are more concerned with—indeed look to with fixated anticipation—the next diversionary thing: some movie, some sport event, some video game release, some cellphone release, some purchase. 

We would not be the first people to still be going to plays, watching gladiator fights and chariot races, playing games of dice, getting caught up in consumer possessions—right up to the point it all came down in painful, catastrophic, utterly real change.

We can be different.  We can learn from the past.  We still have the means.  But not for much longer.

Life, Liberty, and Nonsense

Professor J,

You asked Americans to look to their senses in your last post. We are fighting an uphill battle on that one, aren't we? Those senses are numbed by prescription medications and any real information that might be useful is shrouded in rumors or distorted in televised screaming matches.

We are enchanted by the sparkle of what's offered up to us. We guzzle the illusion presented to us and beg for more. We pass over real news to get the latest updates on the Cruise/Holmes divorce. Fewer and fewer can even delineate between journalism and celebrity gossip and entertainment. In our real lives we are put off by and avoid the person who spreads gossip and seems to revel in the misfortunes of others. We sense the truth about them which is that instead of compassion for us in a time of despair they might make ill use of us in the same way. But as a culture we have become callous about using the personal lives (and pain) of celebrities as entertainment. I like your phrase "spiritually sad" and it certainly applies to many things about us as a culture as well as the "parasitic plutocrats."


"We are bombarded with useless trivia and celebrity gossip despite the valiant efforts of a few remaining newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, along with Democracy Now, National Public Radio, Pacifica, and Jim Lehrer of the Public Broadcasting Service. These organizations still practice journalism as an ethical pursuit on behalf of the common good, but they are a beleaguered minority. The Federal Communications Commission, in an example of how far our standards have fallen, defines television shows such as Fox's celebrity gossip program TMZ and the Christian Broadcast Network's 700 Club as "bona fide newscasts." The economist Charlotte Twight calls this vast corporate system of spectacle and diversion, in which we get to vote on American Idol or be elevated to celebrity status through reality television programs "participatory fascism." (168)

Is it any wonder our reasoning processes are cloudy and vague and our sense of history weak at best and non existent at worst? We are adrift in a sea of useless disconnected information much of which is ridiculous and we are becoming ridiculous excuses for citizens in the process.

In the lead up to the July 4th holiday, I was in the grocery and saw one of those banners for sale that you stick in your front yard. On a background of red, white, and blue were the words "Life. Liberty. Happiness." As if happiness is magically bestowed on us without pursuit. I couldn't help wonder as I stood there with the milk getting warm if this isn't part of what's wrong with us as a nation. Not the cheap little banner, but the cheap citizenship it represents. I wonder if the people who purchased this decoration had voted in our last local election, read up on the latest news, or were going to be discussing important issues at their barbecues. Did the person who came up with this idea boil it down on purpose to be scooped up by unthinking revelers planning cookouts and backyard fireworks, or did they actually perceive that we'd been promised happiness?  When we reduce one of the greatest historical documents ever penned to a marketable catch phrase on par with "live love, laugh" it cannot bode well for us.

A couple of weeks after I'd been pondering the larger meaning (if there even is one) of that $5.99 piece of nylon, I read an article by Hedges, How To Think. I whole heartedly recommend reading the entire thing but here's a quote we that probably won't see on flimsy yard decor any time soon:

"Human societies see what they want to see. They create national myths of identity out of a composite of historical events and fantasy. They ignore unpleasant facts that intrude on self-glorification. They trust naively in the notion of linear progress and in assured national dominance. This is what nationalism is about—lies. And if a culture loses its ability for thought and expression, if it effectively silences dissident voices, if it retreats into what Sigmund Freud called “screen memories,” those reassuring mixtures of fact and fiction, it dies. It surrenders its internal mechanism for puncturing self-delusion. It makes war on beauty and truth. It abolishes the sacred. It turns education into vocational training. It leaves us blind. And this is what has occurred. We are lost at sea in a great tempest. We do not know where we are. We do not know where we are going. And we do not know what is about to happen to us."

 Perhaps it's that naive trust in "linear progress" that made the creator jump from "pursuit of" to just plain ole "happiness."  Hedges warned us previously in this book about positive psychology. Let's just all believe we're happy while the thing falls apart around us. Our founders, however (and honestly couldn't we say pretty much every rational person up until about 40 years ago?) knew that "happiness" isn't really the end goal. I suspect that Jefferson knew that it was "the pursuit," the striving and struggling for improvement in ourselves, our circumstances, our families, and communities, that made us better and provided rich internal lives.

The sickening irony of our celebrating our national independence with items "made in China" like this one, when we are so heavily in debt to them, we can save for another discussion.

Here's the last paragraph from Hedges' How We Think article:  "And here is the dilemma we face as a civilization. We march collectively toward self-annihilation. Corporate capitalism, if left unchecked, will kill us. Yet we refuse, because we cannot think and no longer listen to those who do think, to see what is about to happen to us. We have created entertaining mechanisms to obscure and silence the harsh truths, from climate change to the collapse of globalization to our enslavement to corporate power, that will mean our self-destruction. If we can do nothing else we must, even as individuals, nurture the private dialogue and the solitude that make thought possible. It is better to be an outcast, a stranger in one’s own country, than an outcast from one’s self. It is better to see what is about to befall us and to resist than to retreat into the fantasies embraced by a nation of the blind."

Dis Enchantment

Madame:

Yes, can we please heed Mr. Hedges and summon willfulness to break the enchantment of those who have twisted American capitalism—and American “democracy”—into a tranquilizing slow death spiral that serves only the plutocratic elite?

We have a population largely made desperate enough by the economic plight inflicted by the plutocrats “to work for low wages without unions or benefits.” (Hedges 164).  Even to cooperate willingly, emotionally in the steady vaporizing of the last vestiges of unionism in the country (indeed, to readily believe propaganda that those unions are a major source of America’s weakness and problems, rather than a middle class strength!).

While the elite-dominated media focus us on the shouting matches of their “commentators” and the political “contests” of the various flavors of the corporate-state (“b.s. light” and “b.s. dark,” is how a friend of mine coined those “flavors”), life gets worse, even as we inhale the lotus-vapors to not notice.  No matter what “source” of our problems is trotted out momentarily by the corporate-controlled media, no matter the “issues” and “solutions” narrowly and exclusionarily defined by that media, look to your senses Americans!  Is your life, that of your children, and your grandchildren, better than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago?  If it is, recognize that you are the exception, not the rule!  And even if it is, how is your community doing?  Your state?  Your region? NOT how you are told it is.  How it is when you get out and look, talk to people, reflect on the changes, reflect on things in general. 

If, after at least 40 years of the general philosophy espoused by the elites, things are not better, why believe that things will be by doing the same?  They told you that competition was everything, that “sacrifices” and “hard decisions” needed to be made in order for America to “compete.”

It was a deflection, wrapped in a deception, inside a manipulation.  Coated with just enough truth to appeal perfectly, emotionally, to American pragmatism, competitive spirit, adaptability, and work ethic. 

All of which were used against the middle-class and lower-class worker.  And so we bought the treasonous pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else, all in the name of “competition.”  Multinational corporations and their elite operators and effective owners benefitted, but the country and its people suffered. More profit was made for these American-dominated corporations by moving operations—often exploitative operations--overseas.  Who did that benefit? Yes, occasionally the American CONSUMER.  But that consumer was also an American WORKER, and that worker was overall seeing a steady fall in wages (and many were losing their formerly high paying jobs that kept them middle class or upper lower class).  Eventually, that American worker started borrowing more and more to try to keep up.  Because even buying the sometimes cheaper goods (from the overseas operation that put him out of his higher paying job), he couldn’t keep up.

Repeat this over and over again across a 40 year period.  All while the mantra of “free markets” enrich only a few at the top, and government is made weak by both underfunding (courtesy of a wealthy with their “trickle down” mind trick) and excessive—borrowed at that—spending on militarization, “security,” and elite “welfare.”

It was the hollowing out of America.  We will leave for another time how good we did in making our former enemies and potential present enemies want to play in the system we created.  Suffice to say at present that those potential adversaries marvel at how our corporate and plutocratic elite are so willing to sell out America—indeed, undermine it into weakness—in service to themselves and their corporate entities.  Hedges has examples of this on page 165, where he refers to how America has cannibalized itself in a massive transfer of wealth both overseas and upward to the parasitic plutocrats.   These parasitic plutocrats then buy elections to keep any latent threats to their power muted, and to also further their enrichment.  An enrichment that any psychologist worth his or her salt would say is a pathology, a mental illness, or even a criminal insanity.  Because they already have so much, and all they want is more.  Money and its associative power is their entire scorecard of meaning and existence.

How infinitely, spiritually sad.  And ruinous for the rest of us.  And underneath it all is collective illusion:

“Our elites manipulate statistics and data to foster illusions of growth and prosperity.  They refuse to admit they have lost control since to lose control is to concede failure.  They contribute, instead, to the collective denial of reality” and continue to “prop up the dying edifice.  The well-paid television pundits and news celebrities, the economists and banking and financial sector leaders [Professor’s Note: Hedges should have set this word off in quotations!], see the world from inside the comfort of the corporate box.  They are loyal to the corporate state.  They cling to the corporation and the corporate structure.  It is known.  It is safe.  It is paternal.  It is the system.” (Hedges 165-166)

How bitterly ironic that Americans marveled at how the Germans could continue to serve a dying Nazi state even as the thunder of doom could be heard. 

Myths of Decline and Fanciful Illusions

Professor J,

Let me start off by providing the link to the article you referenced in your last post: The Myth of America's Decline, which the reader can also find on our Facebook page. When I read the article I could only imagine the author's response to the opening speech from episode 1 of The Newsroom (Sundays, 10 PM EST) since he was so incensed by a quip from The Office. Fortunately for him he missed it by a couple of months. You have so carefully critiqued the article I can add little to it.

The population growth issue is, as you pointed out, a mixed bag. China panicked in 1979 and now is rethinking that policy as the ramifications are beginning to be seen in full. Fareed Zakaria had a very good piece about this on his show on Sunday morning.  Could China's One Child Policy Change?  He makes several interesting points but the one that caught my attention was the male/female ratio and his quote "Remember, countries with male youth bulges have historically seen civil wars and revolutions."  He also point out that this is a good example of the problems with "centralized authoritarian regimes." The video is worth watching

I found this quote from The American Legion article interesting: "Speaking of foreign lands, the U.S. military provides a security umbrella to about half the world’s landmass, polices the world’s toughest neighborhoods, and serves as the world’s first responder and last line of defense. No other military could attempt such a feat of global multitasking."

When did that become our job?

Back to Hedges:

"Individualism is touted as the core value of American culture, and yet most of us meekly submit, as we are supposed to to the tyranny of the corporate state. We define ourselves as a democracy, and meanwhile voting rates in national elections are tepid, and voting on local issues is often in the single digits. Our elected officials base their decisions not on the public good but on the possibility of campaign contributions and lucrative employment on leaving office. Our corporate elite tell us government is part of the problem and the markets should regulate themselves--and then that same elite plunders the U.S. Treasury when they trash the economy. We insist that we are a market economy, based on the principles of capitalism and free trade, and yet the single largest sectors of international trade are armaments and weapons systems. There is a vast and growing disconnect between what we say and what we believe and what we do. We are blinded, enchanted, and finally enslaved by illusion."

Here's a quote from a 2002 piece of writing by Ron Paul: 

"Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? 

How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated."

Those crazy founding fathers. They had no idea how much money there was to be made. Ah, but then of course they were students of history who hoped some mistakes made by others would be avoided by us...if only we would keep paying attention.  

Our readers might remember a couple of weeks ago when I posted a video, quoted, and in general raved about HBO's new series, The Newsroom. Dan Rather agrees with me. Here's his review.   Dan Rather: The Newsroom’s Third Episode Is Something ‘Every American Should See and Ponder’ Yes, as a conservative it makes me cringe at times. Unfortunately often I realize I'm having a negative reaction to some truth being presented. And that's okay! Sometimes I cringe as a woman because Sorkin does a miserable job writing women. That's not okay.  Can someone please have executive producer Makenzie MacHale, who is supposedly just back from two years covering the Iraqi and Afghan wars, stop behaving like a teenaged girl who can't get over her crush on the quarterback? Is it so hard for Sorkin to write her some adult female dialogue when she's engaging with Will? 

 

He may need to consult a real woman with questions such as "Would you ever say this?" (Call me Aaron, I'd be glad to help you out. It's okay not to be good at everything.) 


But as I've said before the show tackles what has happened to the news since we decided that selling advertising is more important than informing the electorate. In what I thought was an especially telling moment from episode 3 (in the clip above) the owner of the fictional network is worried about anyone being too hard on members of Congress because she has business before them. 

The opening speech, following a clip of Richard Clark's apology, was not to be missed. Here's the text:

“Good evening, I’m Will McAvoy, this is News Night and that was a clip of Richard Clark, former counter terrorism chief to President George W. Bush, testifying before Congress on March 24, 2004.


Americans like that moment. I like that moment. Adults should hold themselves accountable for failure. And so tonight, I’m beginning this newscast by joining Mr. Clark and apologizing to the American people for our failure – the failure of this program during the time I’ve been in charge of it to successfully inform and educate the American electorate.

Let me be clear that I don’t apologize on behalf of all broadcast journalists, nor do all broadcast journalists owe an apology. I speak for myself. I was an accomplice to a slow and repeated and unacknowledged and unamended train wreck of failures that have brought us to now. I’m a leader in an industry that miscalled election results, hyped up terror scares, ginned up controversy and failed to report on tectonic shifts in our country, from the collapse of the financial system to the truths about how strong we are to the dangers we actually face. I’m a leader in an industry that misdirected your attention with the dexterity of Harry Houdini, while sending hundreds of thousands of our bravest young men and women off to war without due diligence.

The reason we failed isn’t a mystery – we took a dive for the ratings.

In the infancy of mass communication, the Columbus and Magellan of broadcast journalism, William Paley and David Sarnoff, went down to Washington to cut a deal with Congress. Congress would allow the fledgling networks free use of taxpayer-owned airwaves in exchange for one public service. That public service would be one hour of airtime set aside every night for informational broadcasting, or what we now call the evening news.
Congress, unable to anticipate the enormous capacity television would have to deliver consumers to advertisers, failed to include in its deal the one requirement that would have changed our national discourse immeasurably for the better – Congress forgot to add that under no circumstances could there be paid advertising during informational broadcasting. They forgot to say the taxpayers will give you the airwaves for free and for 23 hours a day, you should make a profit, but for one hour a night, you work for us.

And now those network newscasts, anchored through history by honest-to-God newsmen with names like Murrow and Reasoner and Huntley and Brinkley and Buckley and Cronkite and Rather and Russert…now, they have to compete with the likes of me, a cable anchor who’s in the exact same business as the producers of “Jersey Shore.”

And that business was good to us. But News Night is quitting that business right now. It might come as a surprise to you that some of history’s greatest American journalists are working right now. Exceptional minds with years of experience and an unshakable devotion to reporting the news. But these voices are a small minority now and they don’t stand a chance against the circus when the circus comes to town. They’re over matched. I’m quitting the circus, switching teams. I’m going with the guys who are getting creamed. I’m moved. They still think they can win and I hope they can teach me a thing or two.
From this moment on, we’ll be deciding what goes on our air and how it’s presented to you based on the simple truth that nothing is more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate. We’ll endeavor to put information in a broader context because we know that very little news is born at the moment it comes across our wire.

We’ll be the champion of facts and the mortal enemy of innuendo, speculation, hyperbole and nonsense. We’re not waiters in a restaurant, serving you the stories you asked for, just the way you like them prepared. Nor are we computers, dispensing only the facts because news is only useful in the context of humanity. I’ll make no effort to subdue my personal opinions. I will make every effort to expose you to informed opinions that are different from my own.

You may ask who are we to make these decisions. We are MacKenzie McHale and myself. Ms. McHale is our executive producer. She marshals the resources of over 100 reporters, producers, analysts and technicians and her credentials are readily available. I’m News Night’s managing editor and make the final decision on everything seen and heard on this program.

Who are we to make these decisions? We are the media elite.
We’ll be back after this with the news…”

Wishing At The Magic Tree of History

Madame,

Before we proceed further into the heavily illuminating “guts” of this final chapter of Hedges’ book (available, if we haven’t mentioned recently, from Nation Publishing—at online and brick and mortar bookstores everywhere), let’s pause to look at what some of those who might disagree with him are saying: 

For instance, the article “The Myth of America’s Decline” appeared in the April 2012 issue of The American Legion Magazine.  While one might expect a heavily biased viewpoint, the article is actually quite rationally argued and deserves critique.

The author begins by resurrecting past quotes about America, by famous Americans, about America’s decline.  The author makes the point that it didn’t turn out anywhere near what the gloomy were saying. 

The author is right as far as he goes.  He just doesn’t go very far.   He is correct that the US has bounced back from lows in the past.  What the author doesn’t point out is that in those instances, the US did not have a crushing debt burden.  It also hadn’t shipped much of its economic strength overseas, nor did it bleed its economic life away with trade deficits that essentially transfer net wealth every month from this country to others (for over 32 years now!).  It didn’t simultaneously have stranglehold corporations and billionaires in control, certainly not combined with anemic or paralyzed government unable to even summon the strength to oppose its own (and the people’s) strangling.

The author also gets caught in the same sort of short-term fixation that Americans, in their seeming inability to think strategically and long-term, get into too often.   He fixes on momentary events that mattered little in the long-view.  He does point out the seeming strong position of the US in the 1990s, and he is partially correct.  Fresh from a sort of peace dividend following the end of the Soviet Union, combined with fiscal prudence and the beginnings of what would be a short-lived recovery for middle-class wages, the 1990s had great promise to give us the foundation needed to change.  The 2000s would wreck most all that.

The American economy is huge, no dispute.  It gets great productivity out of a workforce that combines a Protestant work ethic on steroids, with both fear and pitiless competition, to give most all of its great productivity gains to those who control capital (the worker shares little of it). But the author tries to imply that its size, combined with the problems that other economies have and will have, will be strong indicators for future success, which is non-sequitir.  The problems of others do not mean good things for you, in some zero-sum game fashion.  On the contrary, in today’s globalized world, problems elsewhere mean problems here (Greece anyone?).

The author also insinuates that population growth is a benefit and population decline is negative.  Not indicative!  Perhaps if examined strictly from a classical economic model, but there are multiple negatives to population growth, even aside from environmental ones.  This factor is therefore very mixed.

Further, the author equates size with health and success when it comes to corporations.  It is amusing how seemingly unaware and hypocritical people can be about that.  They deride “big government” for its supposed inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, but apply the opposite to corporations.  The author would do better to see how much wealth these corporations have vacuumed to themselves, and how blood drained that has left smaller corporations and businesses (and the rest of us). Concentration of wealth and power a sign of strength?  To who?  You don’t need to read Andrew Carnegie’s writings on this if you don’t want; watch “Too Big To Fail” on HBO.  It’s even slanted in certain people’s favor, but you’ll still get the central idea that we’ve created Leviathans that are bad for us (btw, those Leviathans need broken up, not increased; we need anti-trust enforcement in a, pardon the pun, big way).

The author does point out good strengths that we should build on: US patent law and the Patent Office; our universities (for a while longer, anyway); software; and that people want American products (even though most “American” products aren’t made here).   However, pointing out that we’re spreading our cola drinking and fast food eating habits to the rest of the world is not an example of health in any sense.

That America is not regularly tuning in, drinking up, or researching foreign things is partially untrue, but we’ll jump over that point.  Jump over it to aim it back at Americans and America for being too inward, a steep handicap in a globalized world.  And more to the exacting point, CONSUMPTION is not a sign of strength (a point we seem unable to grasp).

The author stresses that our “entitlement” spending is unsustainable, which is partially true.  Saying what he said is also a mantra for those who want to dismantle all social safety nets, safety nets he touts as a strength elsewhere in his article.   It is additional mantra for weakening government and transferring further wealth and power to the plutocracy.

He is, however, correct in that our policymakers have the tools, if not the will, to tackle our problems.  Soon, , however the tools may not work very well.

He is far off-base in pointing out the US military being a source of strength.  Hmm.  To do what?  And all this “service” is provided to the rest of the world and they pay next to nothing while we pay through the nose, meaning they are in essence free-riders and we’re what, suckers?  That some places around the globe actually want us there (sometimes, only sort of, but will concede the point) says what about our real “strength?” Because to look so “strong” means about as much as the big neighborhood kid that nobody messes with now, but inside is being eaten up by cancer.

The author pointing out that we spent more of our GDP on defense in the Cold War, and had more troops under arms (for a less populous nation), than we do now, is shallow analysis.  Maybe we are just finally feeling the cumulative effects of all that resource expenditure made on unproductive things.  Btw, we could afford more troops under arms then, because a conscript military (and a far less technical one) was cheap in comparison.

The author says we overcame worse economic crises in the 1930s and 1970s.  I could disagree with him on the face of it, but even if I agreed with him, I would point him to paragraph four above.

I will even agree with him that PRESENTLY, today’s asymmetric threats DO pale compared to the potential threats to existence that came from past powers.   He doesn’t say it outright, but I agree with his sentiment that we have succeeded greatly by creating a system in which our rivals want to play in it (a notable achievement!), and because of that, those rivals have a stake (however measured) in our success—and we in theirs. 

He is also right that the American basic system (outside its corporate-dominated subversion) does hold universal appeal in its “political pluralism, economic opportunity, cultural openness.”  I disagree with him that those by themselves give “the United States a decisive edge.”

Without specific actions, especially one to address deep and system-threatening problems, generalities aren’t going to matter much.  Wishing at some supposed magic tree, even one with historical roots, does nothing without action.  Just because you have BEEN great, does not mean you are going to stay great, or even be ONE of the greats, without strong action to confront reality.   Believing that it will all “work out somehow,” while going on with the same ruinous policies, will bring failure, perhaps catastrophic failure (as it does eventually to all embracers of illusion). 

The Romans too, were once “great,” were THE superpower, one in which no one could envision a competitor taking its place.  The Romans believed that about themselves.  And did nothing to quit undermining the foundations of their society.  The end came gradually, until finally the barbarians merely pushed in a rotten house.

In Dependence

Most Madamest M:

I will decline to point out the irony of “Independence” Day, and just wish everyone a happy one.

I also wish this intellectual endeavor (Our blog!) a Happy Anniversary!  Two years ago today, it was launched, and still so much to talk about!

The “news” (although I usually forget, I need to use quotation marks around it to denote its pseudo aspects) reports that fireworks sales have been the lowest in many decades.  The consumers of those fireworks, the lower and middle classes, just don’t have the financial room anymore, it would seem.

Our featured author keeps making our points for us (and in my case at least, saying them better).  His latest, http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10107-chris-hedges-time-to-get-crazy, is superb, and will perhaps surprise you a bit Madame.

You said it extremely well about the communities that post-disaster or post-system collapse will foment.  “A community of gardeners, carpenters, people who keep chickens and bees, the tinkerer who can fix nearly anything, the nurse, the ham radio enthusiast, seamstress, teacher, owner of a large library, and a talented cook.”  To those I might add healer, herbalist, and wellness sustainer, hunters and gatherers, food preservers, and of course storyteller/historian! :)

Your excellent piece about the brain on fear: I think most historians would agree that the vast majority of what was a conservative German population disliked and distrusted those who were different, those who espoused radical ideas about justice, fairness, equality, compassion.  They were more than glad to have the police repress them, often brutally. The Nazis appealed to those who were, yes, fearful, but more to the point, the Nazis channeled that fear in the directions they wanted.  They stoked resentment, making simple, easily identifiable scapegoats (one after another, from “traitors” who had chosen peace in WW1, to Communists, Socialists, homosexuals, union members, and a great host of those people that today would be called “liberals,” and then, of course, the Jews) for Germany’s loss of power and prestige.   Simple answers.  And of course, the desire for Germany to be “strong again, and respected.”  How often we humans, especially when confronted with continual change, are seduced by manipulators who promise us a restoration to a rose-colored version of the past.  Combine all these, and only emotions matter; facts can be ignored at will, except for the “facts” that support your emotions.  In Germany, in the minds of the largely conservative populace, the country had gone to hell because of weaklings and traitors and other “diseases” that needed to be eradicated from the population.  And other countries needed to be dealt with until they showed Germany respect.  In service to those general feelings, facts came to mean nothing outside the functions of the workplace and perhaps the home—the greater German community ran on the desire to be strong again, to feel proud again, to be superior.

I sincerely hope that all those who say the American character is too different to ever be Nazi-like are correct.  I am disturbed, as are those still alive who have memories of that dark Nazi period, to hear too much of the same general Nazi-era emotional talk from too many segments of the largely conservative American population AND THAT THE REST OF THAT CONSERVATIVE POPULATION DO NOT CENSURE IT IN ANY WAY.  One could hope that the very variable ethnic composition could provide a buffer against this this poisonous trend, but it is uncertain.

For instance, sure, I hear mindless, knee-jerk reactions from people on “the left” about Romney, but they are low-tone and rarely threatening.  On “the right,” I hear shrill tones, much more frequent, much more emotional, and much more menacing in tone about his opponent.  And Obama is not even a true liberal; he is barely even a pseudo-one.  In a setting where they believe the country is falling apart at every turn because the liberals are dragging it into a fiscal, cultural, and economic abyss, the low-informed or the no-informed are willing to believe ANYTHING without checking if it is fact.  Even when confronted with undeniable evidence that it ISN’T fact, they still persist that the general overview is true, and that a vast liberal plot is about to sink the country.  They are hyper-emotional, with such hatred, frustration, and general anger lurking barely beneath the surface, that blame gets ascribed in ways that are fantastically implausible.   It becomes such a dizzying phantasmagoria that even the confusion doesn’t matter—plow on in sheer emotion alone!  Evaluation becomes completely discarded.  Support anyone who promises a way there, or more importantly, a way AWAY from their perception of a weak, liberal, mess.

And way too many churches, far from being bulwarks against un-Christian behavior, often condone it or even encourage it.   Their peoples are conservative, and the views and policies they support and espouse reflect it.  The “second greatest commandment” (love your neighbor as yourself) is ignored, or conveniently interpreted to mean only the neighbor that looks and acts and thinks like you do.

THAT’S why the descent to fascism is not a long step.

A people with little or no awareness of actual history—nay, even have disdain—are prey and prone to the same horrible mistakes, to keep the human race cycled in this ever-repeating destructive pattern.  The greed, fear, and paranoia of the strong-willed few can only succeed because the dimly informed, emotional, weak-willed many are more than okay with it.  “Fine, fine, fine,” those many say, “do that if you want, so we can get back to our lives.” 

And then later, they are muttering, “But they said they were going to…” or “but they said they weren’t going to…”

It’s just that easy.

“Articulate disappointment.” I like that phrase, Madame.   Jeff Daniel’s character in Newsroom exhibited that.    How to get people to WANT the truth more than they want to be right?  Find the answer to that, and you can name your price! :)

I’m presently reading “That Used To Be Us,” by Friedman and Mandelbaum.  It starts out scathing about America’s delusion that it’s so great anymore.   An America that can’t even REPAIR its infrastructure (and certainly not in any reasonable time frame), while China CREATES a truly impressive, pride-infusing infrastructure, in record time.

This quote from Eric R. in the book is instructive and echoes Newsroom: “We used to embrace challenges, endure privatation, throttle our fear and strike out into the (unknown) wilderness.  In this mode we rallied to span the continent with railroads, construct a national highway system, defeated monstrous dictators, cured polio and landed men on the moon.  Now we text and put on makeup as we drive, spend more on video games than books, forswear exercise, demonize hunting, and are rapidly succumbing to obesity and diabetes.” (page 6 of the book)

I share Friedman’s and Mandelbaum’s positions as “frustrated optimists.” There is so much potential that could be built on, and so much progress that could be made in meeting our steep challenges, but we aren’t doing.  Indeed, the very idea of collective action is repeatedly discredited by those who advance and espouse the Cult of Hyperindividualism.

There are frustrated realists too.  My favorite realist political scientist is Stephen M. Walt of Yale.  Here is a piece from his “Is AmericaAddicted to War?” in Foreign Policy,4 April 2011:

"The truly exceptional thing about America today is not our values (and certainly not our dazzling infrastructure, high educational standards, rising middle-class prosperity, etc.)…Lurking underneath the Establishment consensus on foreign-policy activism is the most successful Jedi mind trick that the American right ever pulled. Since the mid-1960s, American conservatism has waged a relentless and successful campaign to convince U.S. voters that it is wasteful, foolish, and stupid to pay taxes to support domestic programs here at home, but it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes to support a military establishment that costs more than all other militaries put together and that is used not to defend American soil but to fight wars mostly on behalf of other people. In other words, Americans became convinced that it was wrong to spend tax revenues on things that would help their fellow citizens (like good schools, health care, roads, and bridges, high-speed rail, etc.), but it was perfectly OK to tax Americans (though of course not the richest Americans) and spend the money on foreign wars. And we bought it."

When people glance back briefly at history (which isn’t anywhere near often enough), while catching some History Channel presentation or some movie at the box office that has history in it,  they often say things like: “How could those people…” (fill in the blank: have been so cruel, so ignorant, so ruthless, so uninformed, so accepting, so crude, so blind, so meek, so obedient, so selfish, so greedy, so emotional, so mob-like, etc. etc. etc.).

It is the human limitation to rarely recognize the same traits in themselves.  The better question might be: “If they could be that way, my God, what if I could too, what if we all could?”

THAT question is one of the first fields of defense, for an attempt to question one’s feelings and one’s thoughts is one of the best armors that money can’t buy.

The time is fast slipping away where America can significantly shape its destiny.  The choices it makes—or doesn’t make—for itself will determine how much “Independence” Day has true meaning.

Deals and Squeals

Madame,

I have returned, but after submitting a 40 page paper on the general subject of American strategy, I find my prose batteries have been momentarily drained.  Fear not!  I recharge quickly, as those who know me can groan in acknowledgement! :)  Here’s a deal for you: I will take the next two posts (this Wednesday and coming Sunday), and I won’t be meeting any brevity guidelines.  If electrons could squeal, you’d be hearing them already! :)