Ellsberg v. Oliver Stone

  

Ellsberg v. Oliver Stone

Peter Schultz

 

                  There is a fundamental misperception regarding the Vietnam war: That the U.S. and Hanoi, et. al., wanted the war to end and were working to end the war during 1968.

 

                  Daniel Ellsberg, in his memoir, Secrets, forces us to wonder if that was the case. As Ellsberg makes clear, LBJ’s decision not to seek re-election in 1968, which he, LBJ, presented as part of his attempt to end the war, was not intended to do that. In fact, it was LBJ’s way of preserving the power of the established elites, the “cold warriors,” which would allow for continuing the war.

 

                  Hubert Humphrey, as well, could not afford to publicly seek the war’s end because “if he did declare some independence [from Johnson], ever so slightly, he faced … forms of retribution from an enraged president.” And this enragement from Johnson gives away his commitment to the war.

 

                  Hanoi, as Ellsberg points out “wasn’t acting as if it [wanted]… to get our bombing stopped or to end the war by making concessions…. Neither party was ready to make any significant concessions…. [222]

 

                  And Nixon wanted the war continued because that would help ensure his election to the presidency, which is why he worked covertly to get Thieu to reject any negotiations to end the war. And, of course, continuing the war was the key, Nixon knew, to his re-election in 1972.

 

                  So, when Oliver Stone, in his movie “Nixon,” melodramatically uses an alleged confrontation between Nixon and a young, female protester at the Lincoln Memorial to illustrate the power of “the system” – which produced a war that allegedly no one wanted – his melodrama misleads. Powerful human beings in Washington, Hanoi, and Saigon, for various reasons, wanted and saw to it that the war would go on.

 

                  So, even when “They did get into direct, formal talks, … that was what had happened: nothing. The war went on…. Thus, by itself, ‘stopping the bombing’ of the North altogether, unconditionally, permanently, was … a false issue, almost a distraction, when it came to ending the war.” [222, emphasis added]

 

                  When it came to ending the war, it did not end because the most powerful human beings did not want it to end. It was not that “the system” rendered these powerful human beings powerless. It was that these powerful human beings used their power to make war. They chose to make war, to continue to make war. So, if the war was “a quagmire,” it was a quagmire constructed, deliberately, by powerful human beings, who then used the “quagmire story” to disguise their embrace of an obscenely violent war.

 

                  And as a result of Johnson’s decision not to run in 1968 and because “we had two major candidates going around the country not talking about ending the bombing,” the war went on and even “more or less disappeared from the mainstream of American political debate as a major issue … [from] March 31,1968 to Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia on April 30, 1970.” [226] As Ellsberg points out: “The lack of public controversy … reflected a tenacious belief … that Johnson’s March 31 announcement … constituted a conscious and decisive turning point toward the prompt ending of American involvement in the war in Indochina.” [226] The lack of public controversy regarding the war was precisely what the established elites in Washington wanted because that allowed them to continue the war without threatening their power and authority by empowering antiwar activists and other left wingers. This conspiracy would be so successful in the long run that Richard Nixon would be rewarded with a historical landslide victory in the 1972 presidential election, a victory that buried the legitimacy of any left-wing political alternatives. Ultimately, that burial may be said to have made possible the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. So it goes.

 

 

 

 

 

March 1968: LBJ v. Tom Hayden, et. al.

 March 1968: LBJ Defeats Hayden, et. al.

Peter Schultz

In March 1968, LBJ defeated the likes of Tom Hayden and
helped extend the Vietnam War.

On March 25, BJ told "the wise men" that "The country is
demoralized. I will have overwhelming disapproval in the polls and
elections. I will go down the drain. I don't want the whole alliance and
military pulled in with it... Senator McCarthy and Senator Kennedv
and the left wing have informers in the departments. The Times and
the Post are against us. Most of the press is against us. How can we
get this job done? . We have no support for the war....

On March 31 LBJ announced that he would not seek reelection.
Tom Hayden, head of the SDS, claimed "We have toppled a
president... We have ended a war." But, as Daniel Ellsberg points out,
Hayden was wrong. The war was not over; it was not even ending.

LBJ's decision was taken not to end the war but to extend it. He
knew he himself couldn't do that. As he said, "I will go down the
drain." By not seeking reelection, LBJ said he would be working for
peace, thereby displacing the left wing groups, like SDS, who were
also working for peace. LBJ, by resigning, made working for peace
mainstream, a task to be entrusted not to "lefties" like Hayden or
Senators McCarthy and Kennedy, but to mainstream, non-left wing
politicians like Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon. And those
politicians would not be burdened as LBJ had been, and as Nixon
demonstrated, the war could be extended, even for four more years
as the quest for peace, "peace with honor" went on. And Nixon and
other mainstream politicians would reap the glory of ending the war,
not the left wingers. Nixon, et. al., buried the left wing peaceniks, and
they remain buried even until today.

By resigning then, LBJ outplayed the likes of Hayden and other
left wingers, so that the predominant forces, "the whole alliance and
the military" were not undermined by left wing ideologues like the
SDS. And, by the by, BJ demonstrated that duplicity was - and is
the coin of the realm. It is how the political game is played

Enemies II

  

Enemies II

Peter Schultz

 

                  The political world is filled with “enemies,” a concept that is packed with meaning. Are there “friends” in the world viewed and lived politically? Doubtful. “Allies?” Yes. “Enemies?” Yes. “Friends?” No.

 

                  Central to politics, to power politics especially is identifying, controlling, fighting, and eliminating enemies. This is the citizen’s view, his or her reality, his or her way of life. Once the US treated the Vietnamese as enemies, “My Lai’s” were only a matter of time. One way or another, enemies must be defeated and eliminated. Enemies are central to imperialistic politics.

 

                  Rick, at the end of Casablanca, was wrong: his interaction with Frenchy, like the US relationship with France, was not “the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” Friends, unlike enemies, are not intrinsic to a world lived in politically. In fact, they are nowhere to be found. As later confirmed when the US considered eliminating De Gaulle, perhaps even with “extreme prejudice.”

 

                  In a world lived in politically, Elizabeth and Darcy would not be lovers. Politically, their love would have been impossible, as illustrated by Lady Catherine De Bourgh’s view of Lizzy as a potential polluter of Pemberly, Darcy’s estate. British politics, Britain lived politically “disses” love and romance, as was illustrated recently by the television series The Crown, as well as by Austen’s novel, Persuasion and her anal sex joke about the British navy. In Britain, and perhaps elsewhere, living romantically or even lovingly is radical. [For another representation of this, see the movie “The American President.”] While living ambitiously and avariciously is all-too conventional and repeatedly praised as central to living politically. Hence, the avaricious and the ambitious dominate politically. So it goes.

 

                 

Enemies

 Enemies

Peter Schultz

From Daniel Ellsberg's book, Secrets:
"I heard her say, 'I come from a culture in which there is no concept
of enemy.

"A strange statement. Hardly comprehensible. No concept of
enemy? How about concepts of sun and moon, friend, water? I came
from a culture in which the concept of enemy was central, seemingly
indispensable - the culture of Rand, the U.S. Marine Corps, the
Defense and State Departments, international and domestic politics,
game theory, and bargaining theory. Identifying enemies,
understanding and predicting them so as to fight and control them
better, analyzing the relationship of abstract enemies: All that had
been for years my daily bread and butter, part of the air I breathed.
To try to operate in (a) world ... without the concept of enemy would
have seemed as difficult, as nearly inconceivable as doing
arithmetic, like the Romans, without a zero." (P. 211) (emphasis
added)

The regime, the way of life Ellsberg is in revolved around the concept
of enemy, the alleged reality of "enemies." And isn't that concept
intrinsic to the political? At least it was for Carl Schmitt, et.al. As
Ellsberg notices, the enemy concept permeates the U.S. way of life,
the U.S. regime and its thinking and institutions.

Conspiracies and the Political

Conspiracies and the Political

Peter Schultz 

 

 

https://dissentmagazine.org/article/cultural-marxism-conspiracy-frankfurt-school/ 

Interesting stuff. What the author doesn’t entertain is that conspiracy is at or is the heart of the political. "“Conspiratorial play is a universal of power politics….” [Oglesby] And because it is universal, because it permeates the political, it disappears, as it were, just like the atmosphere “disappears.” It is hidden in plain sight, just like “Mother Culture.” 

Thus, those who speak or write about particular conspiracies, like those who speak or write about Mother Culture, are labeled “theorists;” that is, they are not empiricists, they are not being empirical. They are not seeing reality, but they construct theories while residing in their ivory towers….or the CIA. Hence, the term “conspiracy theorists.” And, of course, it is relatively easy to concoct and subvert “theories.” 

"“It isn't the rebels who cause the troubles of the world, it's the troubles that cause the rebels.”  

― Carl Oglesby   

 Or: It isn’t conspirators who cause the troubles of the world, it’s the troubles that cause conspiracies.  Hence, like troubles, conspiracies are intrinsic to politics. 

“The expansionary dynamic of Western culture has been the root, the denominating constant, of modern history. The grandeur of Western liberalism, its material abundance, the flourishing of its arts and sciences, its painful construction of constitutional democracy -- these interconnected achievements have been financed by the sustained theft called imperialism.” 
― Carl Oglesby, Containment and Change 

Imperialism, always troubling and intrinsic to politics, is conspiratorial, always. 

The Half Never Told: May 21, 2026

  

The Half Never Told: May 21, 2026

Peter Schultz

 

         “In 1787, the Constitutional Convention allowed the [slave] trade to go on.” And Baptist focused on the “owners” who “would drive decisions about him [the slave].”

 

         But it wasn’t just about “him” and, most importantly, it was about slavery itself and the decisions that sanctioned, created, promoted, protected, and constructed slavery as an institution taken as justified. And because thought of as justified, as justice, a slave regime was created. And this was the crucial issue, not the slave trade.

 

         That this was the crucial issue is confirmed by the vast expansion of slavery that took place after the slave trade was outlawed. The outlawing of the slave trade was, from the point of view of ending slavery, meaningless. [By the by, those slaves who were captured by the government when illegal slave traders were captured were sold into slavery in the US. They were not freed in the US or elsewhere.]

 

         Similarly, the Missouri Compromise was meaningless insofar as post-compromise “active white opposition to slavery dwindled toward the vanishing point.” That compromise was merely a tinkering with the parts of the slavery regime that existed.

 

         “The interstate slave trade mocked the hopes of abolitionists that slavery would die out on its own.” [186] Of course it did because slavery was not a growth. It was a regime and regimes don’t grow; they are constructed.

 

         “Slavery expansion was consciously chosen, a crime of intent.” Well, not so consciously chosen in a slave regime and definitely not criminal in that regime. So: “Most whites, … North …  and South, believed that slave owners had obtained their slaves by orderly business transactions, well recorded by law.” [188] Indeed, they had! Slave trading was legitimized by the regime, which like all regimes defined the just and the unjust. That’s what regimes do, construct beliefs about what is just and unjust.

 

         Focusing on the slave trade hides the crucial issue, slavery and the slave regime. They become the “back story,” so to speak. When treated as such, such stories are powerful because they permeate the action that more visible stories do not. So, when Jane Austen, e.g., treated slavery as such a “back story,” she was in fact favoring that story and revealing its dominance. E.g., in Mansfield Park slavery actually dominates that story because it dominated life at Mansfield Park, even having the made the Park possible. Just as the British military dominates the action in Pride and Prejudice.  And, of course, quite clearly, how the British Navy – and Austen’s anal sex joke about “rear admirals” – dominates the action in Persuasion. [Another example of slavery serving as such a back story occurs in Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. In Twain’s Connecticut Yankee, the back story of significance is that the Connecticut Yankee is an arms manufacturer, and he serves as a foil to Merlin who is a magician. He also creates a holocaust, which is quite some commentary on modernity.]

 

Jefferson’s obfuscation: Jefferson asserted once that slavery was like riding a wolf, holding on, and not knowing whether to hold on or to let go. But that’s a soft sell. In a slave regime, the wolf is on the loose, and in control. The choice? Kill it or die or succumb to it. We’re not riding the wolf; it’s chasing us, threatening to devour us.  

 

Did Lincoln realize this? That he wondered and spoke about the perpetuation of our institutions suggests he did. Slavery as a regime made perpetuating America’s original institutions as conventionally understood highly unlikely. And appeals to the spirit or ghost of Washington or to strict law-abidingness would be insufficient for that perpetuation. What was sufficient, ala’ Lincoln? Read his second inaugural as he provides his answer there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modernity and Slavery

  

Modernity and Slavery

Peter Schultz

 

                  A question: Does modernity starve or feed slavery? This question assumes that slavery is natural; that is, is intrinsic to political life, whether it is just or unjust.

 

                  Herbert Storing argued that Locke’s natural rights provided “an uncomfortably large opening toward slavery.” This makes it sound as if this “opening toward slavery” was a by-product, an accidental result, as it were, of Locke’s understanding of natural rights. Slavery was a result, but it was not the agenda. Locke’s understanding of natural rights allows slavery to emerge, but that understanding doesn’t enhance slavery’s status. Slavery exists but it isn’t valued.

 

                  However, it could be both. That is, slavery is, and it is valued. It was chosen and not just accepted because it was unavoidable. And, as an aside: Is this the meaning of what is labeled “realism?” That is, realists embrace slavery, e.g., as valuable. Being realistic means embracing both war and slavery, along with torture and other inhuman practices.

 

                  In reading Edward Baptist’s book, The Half Has Never Been Told, two considerations emerge. First, there is the role, the central role that slavery played in the creation and development of the United States. Baptist does a marvelous job of illuminating just how central slavery was to the economic and political development of the United States, serving to create a wealth producing economy that eventually made the United States the economic powerhouse it has become. But slavery also served to unify the politics of the United States, as that unity built around slavery, its extension, and fears of slave revolts.

 

                  Second, there is question of slavery’s role in political life. That is, can the political be affirmed without affirming slavery in one form or another? Affirming the political is best understood as affirming the quest for greatness, for empire, for political, military, and economic greatness. Given the overwhelming appeal of such greatness, the question arises over how slavery can be starved or deterred. If Storing’s take on Locke is correct, then it would seem that modern natural rights, modernity that is, will not, cannot starve slavery.

 

                  The Enlightenment, as it is called, might be more limited in its ability to ameliorate the human condition than many have claimed. And, perhaps, those limitations stem from the Enlightenment’s disparagement of hedonism, understood as the joys of contemplation of the beautiful or the joys of discovering and participating in the beautiful, which some have thought of as the promise of mysticism, of some “revealed” religions. Insofar as enlightenment is understood as secularizing for the sake of “progress,” just so far enlightenment cannot starve the appeal of slavery. And as Baptist shows, the enslaved in the United States embraced hedonism, e.g., song, dance, and love to maintain their humanity, insofar as that was possible. Could it be that a genuinely human politics is hedonistic? It just might be.