Random Thoughts on Politics and the Political Life

 

Random Thoughts on Politics and the Political Life

Peter Schultz

 

            What are the trajectories of the political life? Justice or injustice? War or peace? Democracy or polity? Oligarchy or aristocracy? Monarchy or tyranny? Greatness or goodness? What happens when push comes to shove, as it always does in human affairs?

 

            America politics: Is the American political drama toward an ever-emerging democracy or popular rule or composed of recurring efforts to disguise the harshness, the injustices of recurring oligarchies? I think the latter is more persuasive than the former.

 

            One trajectory of political life seems indisputable, that is, toward greatness, not goodness. The most developed, most admired political orders have been empires, Rome, the British empire, and the United States’ empire. The apex of political life is revealed as empire, as greatness, not goodness.

 

            This reflects that humans seek fame or immortality. That is, humans seek, through politics, the eternal, the everlasting, the divine, or in a word “being.” Humans seek to become, through politics, “human beings,” which may be why Aristotle called us “political animals.”

 

            A question: Can humans achieve “being-ness” via politics? Is politics the way that humans become “human beings?” It is very common to think so. Many respectable people speak favorably of “politics as soulcraft.” And many equate “respectability” with being a human being. But is this equation justified? That the respectable have proven themselves capable of great injustices, even of savagery makes this equation doubtful.

 

            So, if the answer to the question above is “No,” are there other ways for human to become human beings? For example, via poetry, music, philosophy, contemplation, religion, love? Just wondering.

JF, LBJ, and the American Empire

 

JFK, LBJ, and the American Empire

Peter Schultz

 

            Because he had established himself as an opponent of the American empire, JFK was assassinated. And his assassination was, in all likelihood, the result of action that was part of what the military called “Operation Northwoods,” whereby a spectacular event would be created that made it look like Castro had attacked the United States, when in fact the attack was a “false flag” operation. The assassination of JFK was such an event and was to be linked to Castro through Oswald, who was to be framed as a Castro-motivated assassin.

 

            LBJ knew that JFK’s assassination was the result of an Operation Northwoods action, as did J. Edgar Hoover. And both acted to short-circuit the intended invasion of Cuba that was to happen in the aftermath of the assassination. To do this, LBJ and Hoover declared, almost immediately, that Oswald was “a long gunman,” having no ties to Castro or Cuba. Both knew that such a claim was shaky and would not withstand scrutiny, so they also acted to create what became known as the Warren Commission which would undertake an “investigation” of the assassination that would point away from Castro as an assassin. Also, the controversy that such a commission finding would generate would prove useful in distracting attention from Castro and any possible invasion of Cuba. Oswald was, as he claimed before he was murdered, “a patsy,” but he may not have known that he was being made a patsy by LBJ and Hoover.

 

            Lying behind the Kennedy assassination were those who were committed to creating an American empire, to making the United States the world’s hegemonic superpower, even if that meant risking war with the Soviet Union via Cuba. JFK’s politics threatened these plans and so had to “neutralized” before he could be re-elected in 1964. LBJ and Hoover, while committed American patriots, were not part of those who sought American hegemony, both knowing from long experience that such a hegemony would require sacrificing traditional American values, e.g., civilian supremacy, as well as creating or fortifying an oligarchy in the United States. Although both LBJ and Hoover were anti-Communists, they did not embrace an anti-Communist crusade world-wide.

 

            Why then did LBJ to “whole hog” in Vietnam? Johnson always claimed that war was never a war he wanted to wage, so it was one he “gave” to the military, while keeping it “limited” and, therefore, a “quagmire.” Johnson is reputed to have said to the generals: “Get me elected in ’64 and then you can have your war.” And that war, because it was an Asian war, was intended to distract attention away from Castro and Cuba, which of course it did, in spades, as it were. Johnson miscalculated his ability to control the military in Vietnam and miscalculated the effects of the war on domestic politics, leading to his resignation before the 1968 presidential election. But he had achieved one purpose: To distract attention from Castro and his alleged ties to the Kennedy assassination. And Johnson even tried to deal with the USSR while the war in Vietnam went on.

 

            Moreover, it’s conceivable that LBJ’s “Great Society” was part of his attempt to sidetrack and stop the forces in the United States seeking US hegemony in the world, via what Eisenhower had called “the military-industrial complex.” The Great Society would focus attention on domestic politics and political programs within the United States, thereby encouraging the country to turn inward, toward building within the United States a reformed, even transformed political and social order. Of course, Johnson’s plans were undermined by the controversy created by the Vietnam War, unrest that was not unwelcome by those seeking US hegemony. What better way to reinvigorate the military-industrial complex short-circuited by Johnson’s Great Society than with “a stab in the back” explanation of the US military failure in Vietnam? And the civil unrest that characterized US society generally in the 60’s and 70’s also served to undermine the Great Society, much to the pleasure of even those liberals who jumped on the anti-war bandwagon.

 

            Both left and right attacked Johnson, attacks that allowed those seeking US hegemony in the world to regain power, leading eventually to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, when Reagan could reclaim the Vietnam War as “a noble effort,” an effort that should and would be repeated throughout the world. And these forces helped to take down Nixon because, like JFK ad LBJ, Nixon questioned whether it was desirable for America to become the world’s hegemonic superpower. And, like LBJ, Nixon’s attempts at seeking détente with the USSR and China were undermined by both liberals and conservatives.

 

            As an interesting aside, in the presidencies of Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, there’s evidence of presidential resistance to the creation of an American empire, to making the United States the world’s hegemonic superpower. Was it because they saw that the death and destruction required to achieve such a goal would be overwhelming, would require what is now labeled “endless wars?” Perhaps. In any case, in opposition to these presidencies, the forces seeking such a hegemony became visible and, of course, are not only visible today but predominant. Today, no president or aspiring president may question America’s “exceptionalism,” its allegedly indispensability to what is claimed to be a progressive political and economic order. Whatever death and destruction occur now is justified as progressive, as making or keeping America “great,” the first empire in human history not driven by greed and managed by savagery. The flags wave, the jets fly and bomb, the drones incinerate, all for the good of the world and the glory of “America the Beautiful.” Even the assassination of JFK fades to black as our Christian soldiers go marching, killing, and dying to, allegedly, make men holy, to make men free. “My eyes have seen the coming of the Lord….” Or maybe not.

Political Life

 

Political Life

Peter Schultz

 

            Recently, I wondered why Americans (and others) are so eager to believe and support what their government and political elites tell them. Conversely, why are they so offended by criticism of their government and political elites – generally, that is – even to the point of significant anger, even to the point of thinking such criticism criminal or “treasonous.?” Why are they so invested in politics? Because, as Aristotle argued, we humans are “political animals.”

 

            Being political animals means our lives, even our beings, we think, are politically determined. For Aristotle, this was an observation about humans, as assertion of fact, a description, that is. It’s meaning needed to be figured out, as well as its value; i.e., whether being political served human beings well or not. For example, it could be that being political makes humans war-like or, as Plato allegedly said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” And because Aristotle was making an observation about human beings, his Politics is then his working out its meaning. Aristotle didn’t write his Politics to advance an agenda but rather to illuminate the meaning of “the political,” i.e., whether the political life is beneficial, is valuable, is healthy for humans. And because we humans are political, Aristotle’s “analytical” approach will seem, at the very least, controversial. By making our being political questionable, Aristotle adopted a trans-political stance toward human beings.

 

            Blaise Pascal argued that both Plato and Aristotle thought of political life as a madhouse, and therefore wrote about politics ironically. Political life is a drama, but its actors, those who are invested in it, don’t realize the unreality, the real character of what they are doing. For example, political actors are constantly talking about, acting on behalf of justice; but when queried they reveal that they have little idea about justice. In fact, Aristotle claimed that every conception of justice that humans espouse is partial or incomplete. There is, apparently, no complete conception of justice, although humans customarily talk and act as if there were, with democrats embracing democratic justice as complete or oligarchs embracing oligarchic justice as complete, etc., etc. Some conceptions of justice might be “better’ and some “worse,” but no conception of justice is complete, which is why all regimes, all political arrangements are unjust as well as just. And this is why Aristotle argued that a good man cannot be a good citizen without ceasing to be a good man; i.e., without ceasing to be a complete human being. To be “a good democrat” requires that one embrace, defend via punishment, violence, or even war an incomplete form of justice.

 

            In other words, a healthy democracy requires unhealthy or incomplete human beings, and so too for all other forms of political life. All forms of political life promote or require unhealthy or incomplete human beings.

 

            This may be referred to as “the limits of politics,” those limits being illustrated in Plato’s Republic and in Aristotle’s Politics, as both are critiques of what we like to call “political idealism.” Political idealism is both delusional and deadly, as should be obvious to humans by now. And so political life is both delusional and deadly, as reflected by the fact that the greatest political achievements, great empires, have been the most delusional and the deadliest. The pursuit of political greatness is then both delusional and deadly, as the history of the United States may easily be used to illustrate.

Built on Slavery, Maintained by War

 

Built on Slavery, Maintained by War

Peter Schultz

 

            It has taken some time, but I finally get “it.” That is, I finally get that the US proxy war in Ukraine is essential for maintaining the existing regime in the United States. Opposing that war, like the opposition the Vietnam War, even if successful will prove to be futile unless the existing regime is changed. And there is no reason to suspect that such a change is possible.

 

            I also finally get that the United States has been built on slavery and is maintained by war. If you are interested in the evidence consult two books, Slavery by Another Name and The CIA as Organized Crime.

Politics and Fanaticism

 

Politics and Fanaticism

Peter Schultz

 

            The following arose as a response to this sentence in Douglas Valentines’ book The CIA as Organized Crime: “As were the Christian missionaries of old, the modern AID worker is a highly indoctrinated fanatic.” [p. 370] And the question arose: Why?

 

            One of Aristotle’s puzzling assertions was that humans are political animals. One possible explanation of this puzzle is that humans seek being through politics. All humans seek being, but it is most commonly sought through politics, through political life. But what the fanatics – like some Christian missionaries, AID workers, CIA agents, politicians, or warriors – fail to  realize is that when it comes to accessing being, politics is a dead-end. Politics is in any and every form, whether it be monarchic, aristocratic, democratic, oligarchic, despotic, communistic, capitalistic, socialistic, is a dead-end. Even the best regime is a dead-end – except as a contemplative phenomenon. It is through imagination, through inspiration that humans have access to being, that is, to the truly beautiful, to the truly inspiring, to the genuinely spiritual, to genuine friendship, to love, to that which actually humanizes.

The Trump Indictment

 

The Trump Indictment

Peter Schultz

 

            Anyone who thinks the Trump indictment represents the onset of holding our politicians accountable is a fool. Sorry, but there’s no other way to describe these people.

 

            In fact, the Trump indictment will be used to avoid holding other politicians, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Barack Obama, each one accusable of the war crime of waging aggressive war, accountable. Already on Twitter, posts are available pointing out “my president, Barack Obama, was not indicted for multiple crimes.”

 

            References to Watergate as an illustration of political accountability – limited by Ford’s pardon of Nixon of course – only underlines my point. Watergate didn’t represent the onset of holding politicians accountable. In the blink of an eye, the Reagan administration got away with the crimes of Iran-Contra and George H.W. Bush pardoned the criminals involved without suffering any political blowback to his reputation. Rather, Watergate was, as the most comprehensive account of that scandal put it, a Silent Coup. The right wingers, with the aid of left wingers, got rid of Nixon and, therewith, jettisoned his policies promoting détente with the USSR and Communist China, policies that are still an anathema to our oligarchs in D.C.  

 

            Trump has always been useful for redeeming what was an increasingly despised oligarchy run by the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, whose policies were legitimated by Barack Obama. And, of course, Trump made his own contributions to this agenda by playing the fool, a lascivious, loud-mouthed arse, which made him so despicable. By being so despicable, Trump and his indictment obscures, obfuscates the need for accountability regarding our “mainstream” politicians. Trump has lowered the bar of respectability so much that even the likes of Bush and Cheney look respectable. And, of course, the mediocrity named Joe Biden looks to many like “a statesman.”  

Politics, Pacification American Style

 

Politics, Pacification American Style

Peter Schultz

 

            In order to govern the United States, an oligarchy has formed which pacifies the American people. They do this by creating “heroes” who “save” the country from “crises” that allegedly threaten what is called “American democracy.” For example, Daniel Ellsberg is one of these “heroes” who allegedly ended the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon Papers. Another hero was John Dean who helped take down Richard Nixon during the Watergate “crisis,” thereby “saving” American democracy. Woodward and Bernstein, the allegedly heroic reporters working for the Washington Post, were also deemed heroes of the Watergate crisis.

 

            But all of these “heroes” have their own secrets, which, if exposed, would reveal the character of the oligarchy that controls our politics. The Vietnam War was created by the oligarchs, and it was ended by the oligarchs when it served their purposes to do so. Ellsberg was merely a tool of the oligarchy, nothing more, nothing less. The oligarchs created Richard Nixon and got rid of him when it served their purposes to do so. And, remarkably, the oligarchs created Donald Trump and got rid of him when it served their interests to do so.

 

            Politics almost always involves pacification, that is, the management and control of the many by a few. The few in control in the United States are the wealthy and they have established an oligarchy and do all they can to maintain their control. They create political “stars,” and they shoot them down as needed. They start wars and end them, as needed. And, most importantly, they create official narratives involving “heroes,” among them certified celebrities, symbolic stars, who prove the system works. And, indeed, the system does work, but primarily for the oligarchs and not for the rest of us.

Politics: Defined and Illustrated

 

Politics: Defined and Illustrated

Peter Schultz

 

            Politics defined: Politics is a socially acceptable way of expressing and acting on criminal tendencies.

 

            Politics illustrated: Larry King interview with Bill Bennett, then the US Drug Czar, June 15, 1989:

 

            “My question to Mr. Bennett. Why build prisons? Get tough like Arabia. Behead the damned drug dealers. We’re just too darned soft.”

 

            “So spoke a caller on a talk show featuring William Bennett. Bennett responded: ‘It’s actually – there’s an interesting point. One of the things I think is a problem is that we are not doing enough that is morally proportional to the nature of the offense. I mean, what the caller suggests is morally plausible. Legally, it’s difficult. But say…..’”

 

            Larry King: “Behead?”

 

            Bennett: “Yeah. Morally, I don’t have a problem with that.”

Democrats: Connecticut Yankees?

 Democrats: Connecticut Yankees?

Peter Schultz

 

I love how the Democrats keep doing things that are subversive, that undermine the legitimacy of our political order. Two failed impeachments of Trump, 1/6 and it’s aftermath, and now Trump’s pending indictment. About 81 million Americans voted for Trump, only a few of whom are “deplorables,” ala Hillary’s take. 

I am hopeful the Democrats will continue undermining our political order, the savage oligarchy that it is. I want it to fail, the sooner the better. The downside is that the Democrats have to keep making war in order to prop up the reigning regime. Thousands, even hundreds of thousands will die, nations will be destroyed, ala’ Libya, Iraq, Syria, et. al., all to prop up our imperialistic oligarchy. But our elites have been digging this hole for a long time, since the end of WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq. If it ends in a nuclear holocaust, ala’ Mark Twain’s prophecy in his book, “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, don’t be surprised. Just sayin’!