Controlling Politics, Part II

More on Controlling Politics, USA Style

P. Schultz

April 3, 2013

            The following comments are drawn from the book, The Time of Illusion, by Jonathan Schell, and they relate to another way the powers that be control our political discourse and practice.

            In May, 1972, J. Edgar Hoover died, while Richard Nixon was president. Of course, Nixon spoke at Hoover’s funeral, giving a eulogy. In that speech, Nixon spoke about “The trend of permissiveness in this country, a trend which Edgar Hoover fought against all of his life, a trend which has dangerously eroded our national heritage as a law-abiding people, [but which] is now being reversed.” And Nixon asserted that “The American people today are tired of disorder, disruption, and disrespect for law. America wants to come back to the law as a way of life.”

            So, according to Nixon, our public morality was trending toward “permissiveness” and it was the likes of J. Edgar Hoover and, of course, Richard Nixon who were reversing this trend, per the wishes of the American people. It was government that would reverse the declining morality of the nation, a decline whose causes Nixon did not speak about or identify.

            It is, however, interesting to note what else was going on at this time. I will quote from Schell’s book:

“The day before the President delivered his eulogy, a White House mugging squad arrived at the foot of the Capitol steps, where Daniel Ellsberg was speaking to a group of anti-war demonstrators….Its task was to beat up Ellsberg. The squad’s leader, Bernard Baker, told his men, ‘Our mission is to hit him – to call him a traitor and punch him in the nose. Hit him and run.’ In the event, members of the squad attacked some of the people listening to Ellsberg but were stopped by the police before they could reach Ellsberg himself. It had, of course, been in part Hoover’s reluctance to ‘nail’ Ellsberg in the manner described by the Administration that led the President to set up the ad-hoc team to destroy Ellsberg. Now a truculent President was standing over the Director’s coffin urging a return to ‘law as a way of life.’”

            I would not be surprised if almost every plea by a government official for the government to reinforce, to fortify the public’s morality is merely a disguise meant to conceal violations of basic political principles by that very same government. At the very least, such an agenda diverts attention away from the relationship between government and morality, a relationship that is fraught with conflict because it subordinates moral concerns, and even concerns with justice, to the interests of the state and its actors.

Controlling Politics, USA Style

-->

Controlling Politics, USA Style

P. Schultz

April 3, 2013

            I am currently reading a book entitled An American Melodrama, which is about the 1968 presidential election written by three Brits. It is way too long and detailed for my tastes but it does have some interesting passages. One of these passages occurs in a section entitled “New Politics and Old Pols” and a chapter therein entitled “Two Cases Studies of Insurgency.”

            One of these “insurgencies” was that undertaken by Nelson Rockefeller as he tried, at the last minute, to take the Republican nomination away from Richard Nixon. While doing that, Rockefeller’s handlers took a poll in which they asked people to rank problems they were concerned about in order of intensity. The list ended up looking like this:

1.     Vietnam; 2. Crime and juvenile delinquency; 3. Keeping our military strong; 4. Rioting in our cities; 5. Preventing WW III; 6. Prices and the cost of living; 7: Drug addicts and narcotic drugs; 8. Maintaining respect for the US abroad; 9. Government spending; 10. Communist China; 11. Raising moral standards in the country; 12. The threat of international communism; 13. Keeping NATO and our alliances strong; 14. Relations with Russia; 15. Improving our educational system; 16. Reducing poverty; 17. Negro racial problems; 18. Ensuring lower income families have adequate medical care; 19. Air and water pollution; 20. Trend toward a more powerful federal government; 21. Rebuilding our cities.

As the authors write, “Clearly, this list reveals an extremely conservative set of priorities in the minds of voters.” Yes, that is one plausible and persuasive interpretation. Another would be that the choices presented to voters pretty much guaranteed that the outcomes would be as set of “extremely conservative priorities.” This was 1968 when the country was being torn apart by the war in Vietnam and by rioting in the cities, especially after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Why would anyone think that “rebuilding our cities” or “reducing poverty” would elicit as intense a response as the war or riots?

Moreover, note that the most highly ranked “problems” are those, generally speaking, that lend themselves to being “solved” by action thereby creating the impression only an “energetic” politics, a forceful politics, or bold, aggressive, and “proactive” politics can “solve” them. The message is clear: A pervasively powerful government, headed by energetic and bold leaders, is needed in order to solve our social and political problems.

There is no indication, however, that it just might be that at the root of our less than satisfactory situation lies our pervasively powerful government, headed by energetic and bold leaders. Perhaps, for example, without such a government, the lead issue, Vietnam, would not exist at all. Or, to take another example, perhaps improving our educational system would be less pressing were our schools controlled locally rather than nationally or at the state level.

Anyway, this makes it crystal clear that one way to control the political discourse is through the allegedly “neutral” practice of public opinion polling. By means of such polling, the “priorities” of the voters are given a certain cast, here, a cast that favors “an extremely conservative set of priorities.” Of course, the result of polling might be to favor an extremely liberal set of priorities as well. The problem is not that polling favors either conservatives or liberals. Rather, it is that such polling excludes altogether certain issues and that these issues might well be more important than most of us could know.  

[An addendum to the above: Note how the "problems" are presented. For example, the leading issue is "Vietnam," not "imperialism." Number 17 is "Negro racial problems," but not "racism." Or not "white racial problems," apparently because whites don't have any such problems. Number 6 is "price and the cost of living" while number 16 is "reducing poverty," not "capitalism." 

It is as if these "problems" have arisen not because of the choices we have made but rather despite our choices. So, by implication, we don't have to change; we simply have to recognize the problems and undertake to "solve" them. This is, of course, a marvelous way to underwrite the status quo while appearing not to!]

Mansfield, Again

 

Mansfield, Again

P. Schultz

April 2, 2013

            Attached is yet another interview with Harvey C. Mansfield, which is just about as interesting as the other interview I have written about here. This interview is from the Harvard Crimson, is entitled “The Harvey Mansfield Story: Harvard’s Political Philosopher,” and was published in 2012. Here are some observations based on this interview.  

            Once again, Mansfield seems content, despite his appeals for the virtues of “Manliness,” to play the victim.

“Mansfield has kept teaching—and researching, and writing—for the past five decades, but he says he feels he has been passed over by the academic elite. He mentions, for one, that he’s never been honored by the American Political Science Association. “It doesn’t bother me a whole lot because it goes with the territory,” he says, referring to his conservative convictions and controversial stances.”

And again:

“The problem transcends Harvard. Mansfield is routinely frustrated when his graduate students don’t get appointments at other universities, and he bristles at the suggestion that this is because of anything other than a bias against their approach. “It’s not just a feeling,” he declares. “It’s an observation.”

“Mansfield wants Harvard to practice affirmative action for conservatives.”

            Ah yes, the difficulty Mansfield’s students have had getting positions at “other universities.” I imagine that really is a great difficulty although no examples are provided of this apparently national campaign of discrimination against those with “conservative convictions” who take “controversial stances.” Some of the names mentioned and some of those Mansfield students who are quoted could make one wonder about the efficacy of this campaign, such as Bill Kristol and Nathan Tarcov to name just two. 

            But there is an issue here that the article does not adequately explore: Just how “conservative” or “controversial” is Mansfield and his “convictions” and “stances?” In a review of his book, Manliness, Martha Nussbaum wrote

“that Mansfield might not be the patient philosopher but instead be a familiar character from Plato’s dialogues: the sophist. “Far from seeking truth, the sophist seeks to put on a good show. Far from wanting premises that are correct, the sophist seeks premises that his chosen audience will find believable.”

I mean how “controversial” is it to be a fan of Margaret Thatcher? Or a fan of Ronald Reagan? Or Mitt Romney? Or the Republican Party because you “like to win?” Where is the controversy in such “stances?” And how controversial is a book on the “forgotten” virtue of “manliness,” in a society that has embraced its warriors and war with a passion most often unleavened by any questions? 

And Nussbaum’s description of the sophist does not emphasize that the sophist seeks not the truth but prominence and power. I mean a sophist might stumble upon the truth, in fact perhaps often does, but that is not the goal. And unlike Socrates, the sophist does not seek to “make his soul the best possible.” Rather, the sophist is looking to make himself great, just as was Athens. 

And how “conservative” is the pursuit of greatness, both individually and politically? One could argue that the differences between the Federalists, the supporters of the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, the opponents of the Constitution, come down to a difference over whether human beings should pursue greatness or goodness. One could also argue, quite easily today, that it is far more controversial to ally oneself with the Anti-Federalists in this debate than with the Federalists, to advocate for the “small republic” than for the “large, commercial republic” of the Constitution. Or, to put it more succinctly, where is the controversy in putting “the Constitution on a pedestal?” 

I will conclude with the following. Having read Mansfield’s work, most recently his work on Machiavelli, as near as I can determine – and this is in reference to my limitations, not Mansfield’s – it is about as thoughtful and insightful as anything I have read. He sees in ways that few human beings do. But then there is what might be called this “public persona” which seems to relish supporting some of the most shallow persons and causes available, and supported with an abrasiveness that borders on arrogance and sometimes even crosses that line. 

Is this not irresponsible, especially when the shallowness of our politics is fortified with power that allows us to destroy and kill almost at will? How do the important questions, those of imperialism and oligarchy for example, get raised if we are content to “put the Constitution on a pedestal” and to support, aggressively if not arrogantly, the likes of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, or from the other side Barack Obama? Mansfield’s public persona does not then serve the cause of genuine diversity, diversity that forces people to see and grapple with the really difficult questions, those that would force people to confront what I like to call “conventional wisdom,” which amounts to little more than a shallow and war-like patriotism. And this is, at bottom, irresponsible.  

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/3/1/harvey-mansfield-scrutiny-FM/

And another post on Mansfield:

http://www.anti-federalism.com/2012/12/mansfield-pontificates-obfuscates.html

 

What's It All About, Alfie?

What’s It All About, Alfie?

P. Schultz

March 31, 2013

            Here are some questions or one question that struck me early today for which I don’t have answers or an answer.

            As a friend of mine pointed out to me, the speed with which the issue of “same sex marriage” has taken on a new dimension or has been propelled in a new direction is quite remarkable. And although there are some holdouts, politicians seem to be almost falling over themselves to express their support for gay and lesbian marriage. And it could be that even the Supreme Court will get in on the act as well, if as some predict they decide to refuse to decide the Proposition 8 case from California, which would mean that the lower court decision overturning the result of Proposition 8 would stand. And also as some predict the Court seems prepared to overturn DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, it could be that our legal landscape regarding gays and lesbians will be markedly different a few months from now.

            Now, while these events are transpiring, I have not seen any analysis about just what is going on. I mean, yes, the legal and social landscape regarding gays and lesbians is changing and, often, this is presented as almost “natural,” just another example of the current of equal rights carrying the American political and social order to its destination. And perhaps this is all that is going on. But I cannot help but ask: What’s it all about? Why now?

            What lies behind my question is the assumption that our political order does not respond to “historical forces” as much as it responds to the decisions of those who hold the power in this order. That is, our political class makes decisions that affect, deeply and invasively, the way we live. Our government is not a barometer that moves as the winds of history make it move as much as it is a tool that the powerful use as they fit and as they believe feasible. Given these assumptions, my question, what’s it all about, arises.

            Another way to pose this question is to ask: Why is now the time that our political class has decided to lay the issue same sex marriage to rest, so to speak? Because once same sex marriage receives the imprimatur of acceptability, then it seems to me that it will be laid to rest, that it will pretty much disappear from our radar screens and recede into the background, much as has interracial marriage. [“What?” you ask. “Why do you even mention interracial marriage?” My point precisely.]

            Or we could ask: Cui bono? Who benefits? Or we could ask: How does our political class benefit? Of course, many want to think that gays and lesbians will benefit and, in terms of social acceptability and legitimacy, that is obviously correct. Whether their relationships will benefit seems to me, at the very least, questionable, given the incidence of divorce and separation, both actual and virtual, among “straight” couples. [Not every “intact” marriage is characterized by bliss or even satisfaction.] But how does our political class benefit, insofar as that class never does anything from which it does not benefit?

            If you sense I am stalling, you are correct. And I am stalling because I am hoping that some burst of light will come to me and I will be able to argue persuasively what it is that can account for this wave of support for same sex marriage. And as you have figured out from reading this paragraph, that has not happened yet.

            Perhaps though this question is difficult to answer because the issue itself is so inconsequential. That is, once this issue is resolved in favor of same sex marriage, the impact on how we live will be minimal at most. As noted above, resolving this issue in favor of same sex marriage will have all the impact that resolving the issue in favor of interracial marriage had on society, which was and is exactly no impact at all as near as I can tell. Or one could say that resolving this issue in favor of same sex marriage will have all the impact that killing bin Laden had; again, meaning no impact at all.

            And at this point another question arises: Why is it that our politics revolves around issues that are, quite often, not really issues of any consequence at all? Ah, now there is a question that is worth thinking about, whereas thinking about same sex marriage is not worth much time and effort. As Kurt Vonnegut might say: “So it goes.” Indeed.

How Government "Works"

How Government “Works”

P. Schultz

March 30, 2013

            The following, which is meant to illustrate government “works,” is based up a book by Jonathon Schell, entitled The Time of Illusion.

            On November 3, 1969, President Richard Nixon gives a nationalizing televised address on, primarily, the Vietnam war. In that speech, using language and arguments that would easily justify sending more troops to Nam, Nixon announces that he is withdrawing some 30,000 troops from that country. Also, however, Nixon uses the speech to take on those who are opposed to the war, saying that there are those, a minority of Americans, who are trying to subvert majority rule and the Constitution to impose their will on the American people. After appealing to those he called “the silent majority,” Nixon also says, “North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.”

            As Schell notes, as a result of this logic the primary front for the Vietnam was to be at home and the secondary front was to be in Nam. And “Now, in the eyes of the President, the war was a domestic struggle with some serious international consequences. Thereafter, the Vietnam war would be waged in the United States.” [pp. 65-66] Of course, Schell is correct as the “war” being waged is one to preserve the status quo.

            To demonstrate his own acumen and popularity, Nixon “had set in motion an elaborate hidden machine for manufacturing the appearance of public enthusiasm for himself….he had sent himself rigged telegrams and letters of support. Then he had put the telegrams and letters on display before the public that had supposedly sent them. Then he had arranged to have the Vice President [Agnew] praise him effusively.” [p. 70]

            With regard to the latter event, Vice President Agnew gave an address on November 13^th in which he had argued that the President’s address, which Nixon had “spent weeks in preparation of,” had been subjected “to instant analysis and querulous criticism…by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts” who were hostile to the president’s remarks. As Schell remarks, “The Vice President was calling outright for an end to criticism of the President on the most controversial issue facing the nation.” [p. 68] And, of course, Agnew appealed to the people to write to the networks in protest, which they did or seemed to do anyway.

            The media, perhaps not surprisingly and with very few exceptions, took the bait and “plunged into self-examination,” focusing not on the impropriety of Agnew’s attack on the president’s critics or on presidential criticism generally but rather on examining such phrases as “instant analysis” or “querulous criticism.” As Schell says, “the networks almost seemed to welcome the opportunity to rethink their coverage of the Nixon Administration.” [p. 68] And, of course, Republican politicians chimed in with support for Agnew and a defense of the president, with George Romney, for example, saying that Agnew was the “champion of the old culture that values historic and democratic principles.” Of the few angry remarks directed at Agnew, Averill Harriman said that Agnew’s speech “smacked of a totalitarianism….” [p. 68] Of course, as Harriman had been criticized by name in Agnew’s speech, his anger could be and was dismissed at personal pique.  

            So, there was an obviously orchestrated “presidential offensive,” which was not labeled as such in all but a very few analyses of these events. And these events were entirely staged, let us say from start to finish, with the president becoming, as Schell puts it, “his own most ardent and prolific supporter,” insofar as Nixon was responsible for Agnew’s address praising Nixon and insofar as “The President had set in motion an elaborate hidden machine for manufacturing the appearance of public enthusiasm for himself” by “rigging telegrams and letters of support.” [p. 70]

            It is easy to see why so many are willing criticize those who are, allegedly, guilty of endorsing what are called “conspiracy theories” involving our government. It is because, at bottom, it is all too clear at times that more than often than not, our government does engage in conspiracies. To be sure, these conspiracies might not be the complicated, intricate manipulations that capture the imagination, such as staging moon landings or blowing up buildings. But, nonetheless, as this illustration makes clear, our officials are adept at and government is so constructed that conspiracies are commonplace and remain, even to those thought astute in these matters, invisible.  

Spinning the Polls

-->

Spinning the Polls

P. Schultz

March 22, 2013

This will have to be a quickie. Below is a link to an article from the Washington Post written by Andrew Kohut, founder of Gallup Polling, in which he claims that it is the hard core conservatives in the Republican Party that are the issue, at least for Republicans. As he notes, 58 percent of the public holds an unfavorable view of the Republican Party and this is due to their hard core conservatives.

But at the same time, he notes, in passing, that 46 percent of the public holds an unfavorable view of the Democrats. Now, perhaps this is just me, but what this tells me is that the public can hardly support either party and, if that is the case, why focus on the hard core conservatives as the cause of these low ratings. Sure, 47% of the public have a favorable impression of the Democrats but that makes their support a wash, cancelled out by the 46% that is not favorably disposed to the Democrats.

Seems to me that what these polling numbers indicate is that the public is fed up with the status quo. But then I have never been very good with numbers!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-numbers-prove-it-the-republican-party-is-estranged-from-america/2013/03/22/3050734c-900a-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html?hpid=z1

Iraq: Ten Years Later

-->

Iraq: Ten Years Later

P. Schultz

March 21, 2013

            Well, I fell into “it,” again. That is, I bought into the story line being aired and published about Iraq at the ten year anniversary of the start of that war.

            That story line is something like this: We did get rid of Saddam Hussein but at a considerable cost, especially to Iraq and its people. In fact, that cost was so high that the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq could – and to a lot of people does – look like failure. We meant well but were unprepared, not for the war itself, but for the “follow up,” where we were expecting to greeted as liberators but were not. We made mistakes and that is obvious to almost everyone now. We seem to be even somewhat humbled by our “experience.”

            So much for the story line being propagated broadly, even by some critics of the Iraq war. But what if it is all wrong? What if what we have today in Iraq is pretty much or even exactly what was planned? That is, what if the goal all along was to decimate Iraq, leave it floundering, its people mired in difficult circumstances, and its government, well, pretty much non-existent especially when it comes to security? More summarily put, what if what we see today is actually “success” and that those “mistakes” that we made were not mistakes at all but part of the plan?

            Of course, it would be impossible for any one to actually argue that the goal, the primary goal, was to decimate Iraq without seeming to be and actually being inhuman and cruel in a way that would be unjustifiable. So, it is necessary to disguise our intentions, saying although not quite actually believing or taking steps sufficient to make it happen, as building “democracy” in Iraq and, eventually, in the Middle East. And when that building isn’t successfully erected, we can talk about our “mistakes” as well as the failing of the Iraqis, pretending that we are concerned with our “failures” there.

            This take on Iraq and our strategy there would help to explain why, as some like to argue, “no one has been held accountable for the fiasco in Iraq.” Well, that’s true, but then you don’t hold people accountable for what are successes, and especially not for successes that are disguised to look like “failure.” It would also help to explain why Dick Cheney feels he has nothing to be sorry for: Why would he feel sorry for a success? And it would make sense of the rather implausible conclusion, made by both supporters and opponents of the Bush war in Iraq, that the administration, through an “oversight,” was unprepared for the aftermath of the invasion and overthrow. They were unprepared because they didn’t care if “it all went south.” As illustrated by Rumsfeld’s well known remark about the insurgency,
“Stuff happens,” it can even be said that the administration got exactly what it wanted: The decimation of Iraq.