Making America Great Again: What Does It Mean?

-->

Making America Great Again: What Does It Mean?

P. Schultz

            President Trump wants to “make America great again,” or so he claims. And despite the controversy Trump almost always generates, it seems fair to say that most Americans agree with Trump that being “great,” that is, being a “great” nation is desirable. One indication that such agreement is almost universal is that no one has asked what it means to be a great nation or whether being great is desirable. That is, how do nations become great and, if once great, what is required to maintain or restore their greatness? Further, is acquiring or maintaining such greatness desirable, that is, conducive to or consistent with living well?

            To begin to question the desirability of greatness, consider the following phenomenon. The U.S. has been waging war in Afghanistan now for about seventeen years with, apparently, no end to this war in sight. Now what makes this situation interesting is that, at least among our powerful politicians and many establishment figures, this war, our policy in Afghanistan is not considered a failure. Moreover, those who implemented this policy, as well as those who have executed and are executing it even today, are not thought of as needing to be held accountable for that war. Hence, that war is not seen as a failure and those who started and continue it need not be reprimanded or held accountable for their actions.

            But how can this be? That is, what is it that makes it possible for most Americans, both those in office and those not, to accept a seventeen year long war, a war seemingly without end, as anything but a failure? Is this rather strange mindset a result of thinking of our nation as great? I believe it is.

            Quite often, the U.S. justifies its actions abroad, its foreign policies as the results of the need to maintain the nation’s credibility or prestige or resolve. Such justifications were used to legitimate US “involvement” in the Vietnam War, as well as for US involvement in other wars or military actions. Consider, momentarily as a thought experiment, that such concerns, viz., with credibility, prestige, and resolve, are measures of a nation’s greatness. To be great means to be credible, to have prestige, and to demonstrate resolve. Nations without credibility, without prestige, without resolve are not great. At most, they are second best, bit or marginal players on “the world’s stage.” Great nations, on the other hand, are the leading players on “the world’s stage,” are those around whom the action of the world’s drama revolves. So those nations that step aside or are pushed aside from the world’s action are not, cannot be great. And maintaining credibility, acquiring prestige, and demonstrating resolve require embracing a central role in the world, regardless of the cost involved. In fact, the greater the cost involved in being in the action, the greater the reputation for greatness.

            In this light, U.S. war making in Afghanistan, even after seventeen years and billions of dollars and much bloodshed, including American bloodshed, testifies to the greatness of the United States. Only a great nation could bear such great costs for what is apparently so little return. And it is only a great nation that would bear such costs, that is, choose to undertake great actions despite the possibility or even the likelihood of failure. To lose a war fought for “a noble cause,” as is often said about the Vietnam War, testifies to a nation’s greatness. And if in losing such a war that nation “sacrifices” the lives of many of its warriors, well, this only adds to the calculus of greatness. “Bearing any burden, paying any price” is the way of demonstrating a nation’s greatness. The heavier the burden, the higher the price, the greater the nation, the more glory to be reaped.

            It should be clear that a politics of greatness comes at a great price, that of seemingly endless war. But there is more as well. Being in the action is easily confused with controlling the action, when the latter is far more difficult than is imagined. And when this confusion is exposed, as it almost always is, it reveals the sordid alliances and actions great nations must embrace to be great. Once the veil is lifted, the sordidness underlying national greatness is revealed in a way that only a Machiavelli could make of light of or could reconcile himself to. It is discovered, for example, that while “no one would ever suspect” it, “Ronald Reagan’s staff [was] buying guns from the ‘Evil Empire’” and using a terrorist serving that “evil empire” to do so. “In other words, three separate U.S. networks were purchasing Communist weapons for Iran and the Nicaraguan rebels. All of them were run by Vice President Bush’s planning staff inside the White House . . . .” [The Secret War Against the Jews, 422]

On the other hand, the “common people,” who strive for “common decency,” not greatness, are appalled at what they see behind the veil, which is why the veil is needed and why the “commoners” must be kept in the dark. Or perhaps they should be blinded by “the pomp and circumstance” of their allegedly “brilliant” government, composed of offices of great power and prestige, with flags flying, bands playing, and weapons of war gleaming over “purple mountains’ majesty.”

Both the war making, even futile war making, and domestic propaganda are necessary components of national greatness. So, it is worth asking: Do you want to “make America great?” But be careful what you wish for because, as the old adage has it, you just might get it.

           

Rights Talk and National Greatness

Rights Talk and National Greatness

P. Schultz

[On Sept. 12, 2017, I posted a blog entitled “Let’s Talk About Greatness.” This post is a follow on to that one.]

            There are those, often conservatives or “neo-cons”, who argue that “rights talk” should be supplemented of even replaced by, say, “duty talk.” The people, the many, the demos, these sorts argue, need to recalibrate their psyches and talk less about rights and more about duty or duties. Were that to happen then our society would be better off, more law abiding, more orderly, and hence more livable.

            This is a rather powerful argument, in part because the idea of duty, being good, is deeply embedded in our psyches and in part because the idea of rights does privilege self-interest over, say, justice or community. There is a problem though. Part of the problem is that this argument in favor of duty almost always ends up as an argument “law and order,” that is, as an argument in favor of obedience to the established order, to the government. The other part of the problem is that those who make it pride themselves as being “political realists,” meaning that when it comes to wielding power the national interest – the rights of the nation - should take precedence over ideas of duty, justice, or community.

            So, having challenged or abandoned “rights talk” for the many, these realists embrace such talk for the nation, for themselves, for the powerful. The nation and they should not be constrained by talk of duty, of justice, or of community. Such talk is unrealistic.

            In other words, these realists don’t really reject “rights talk.” Unlike Socrates, who asserted that it was worse for human beings to do injustice than to suffer injustice, these realists assert or simply assume that it its worse for human beings to suffer than to do injustice. And, of course, once human beings prefer doing injustice to suffering injustice, they will, whenever push comes to shove, commit and even take pride in committing injustice. Such pride, ala’ Pericles, will even be taken as a sign of greatness. That our nation can commit injustice, even great injustice like genocide, reveals our national greatness. And so it should not be surprising that some of those, even most of those who seek national greatness or a return to national greatness are proud of their capacity for injustice. That capacity they take to be a sign of their greatness.

Trump and His Simple Minded Critics

-->

Trump and His Simple Minded Critics

P. Schultz

            The New York Times, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Allen Dulles all asserted – before the Warren Commission had even met – that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in assassinating JFK. And, of course, their assertions were comforting because it reinforced the simple-minded belief that, basically, all was well with the American political order. After all, it is impossible to prevent random, isolated acts of violence, even impossible to prevent the assassinations of our presidents. As one writer put it:

“This [assertion about Oswald] was not just a psychologically motivated denial. What was at stake here was a definition of the supreme power in the land. The universally taught doctrine is that the United States functions under a rule of law, and that that rule, however imperfect, is the highest power there is. If Oswald was the assassin, acted alone, and was apprehended, then the hypothesis (or fiction) of a rule of law has been affirmed.” [Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, p. 296]

            So some, even most cling to the simple-minded notion that JFK’s murder tells us nothing about the character of the American political order where “the rule of law” is supreme and where it is simply, that is, simple-mindedly assumed that JFK could not have been assassinated by a conspiracy of political forces that exist and have substantial power within the established political order. A foreign power or foreign “other” had to be responsible for JFK’s death.

            What is the relevance of this today? Well, it seems to me that the response of many to Trump and his presidency is just as simple-minded. Trump, it is said, must be an aberration; he cannot be a reflection of a defective political order. Hence, many simple-mindedly insist, over and over, that Trump is the worst president, even the worst president ever, and totally unlike his immediate predecessors. And they go on to insist that Trump must be mentally defective, probably illiterate, and psychologically unstable.

            This is, actually, comforting because it means we don’t have to change anything significant in how our government works or in how we govern ourselves. Rather, we just have to get rid of Trump. So, yes, the simple-minded assert, “Impeach Trump! Impeach him!” In other words, once we are rid of Trump all will be well again in the land. And this is a comforting way of “thinking.”

            But what if JFK was assassinated by conspiratorial political forces that exist and wield power within the established political order? That is a very different story than the fairy tale most Americans believe about JFK’s murder. And what if Trump is a reflection of our defective political order? That too is a very different story than the fairy tales we are being told about Trump. It would be good to get this straight.

American Politics 101: A Different Perspective

American Politics 101: A Different Perspective

P. Schultz

            I am reading another interesting book by Peter Dale Scott that is advancing my understanding of the American political order. I guess it is true that one is never too old to learn, even after years of study. I am reproducing here two paragraphs from Scott’s book, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. Enjoy.

            “At the end [of this book], I shall propose that most hypotheses of the Kennedy assassination heretofore, whether the designated culprits have been Communists or Minutemen, the CIA or the Mafia, have suffered from a common defect. This is to look for an external conspiracy violating the systemic political order from without.

            “We shall offer an enlarged and deeper perspective of power as a symbiosis of public government, organized crime, and private wealth with deep connections to both government and crime. From this perspective, the forces behind the assassination no longer appear as extraneous, but as deeply systemic; and the violation to the enlarged power system can be seen as coming from the Kennedys, with their policies of détente abroad and an attack on a CIA-sanctioned Hoffa-crime connection at home. From this perspective, the assassination was not a corrupt attack from the outside of an honest system. The assassination was a desperate, extraordinary defense, or adjustment, of a system that was itself corrupt.” [p. 74]

            And this perspective helps me answer one question that has often bothered me: Why did J. Edgar Hoover, who was perceived and who thought of himself as a or even the protector of the American political order, refuse to go after the Mafia or organized crime? There is no contradiction here once it is understood that the Mafia or organized crime, along with private wealth and a complicit government, lay at the heart of the American political order. And those who oppose that order must be “dealt with,” one way or another.

The Utter Madness of American Politics

The Utter Madness of American Politics

P. Schultz

The following illustrates just how mad, how insane our “involvement” in Vietnam was: First, the government of Vietnam, that is, Diem, and the U.S. destroyed the village life that most Vietnamese in southern Vietnam knew and had known for hundreds of years, by barring the French from executing the laws and banishing the Chinese merchants who provided the financial basis of village life. And then, when “the stronger men of the village banded together to get water, salt, and the other necessities of life by the oldest means known to man: banditry,” which was "not political or ideological” but was “a last resort to obtain simple and elementary needs,” the following happened: “Back in Saigon, the Diem government and its American advisers  were totally unaware of the true causes of this unrest, but they were ready with their Pavlovian interpretation.. It was, they said, the result of ‘Communist subversion and insurgency.’” [JFK, the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, L. Fletcher Prouty, 92-93]

And so, after creating unrest, the Diem government and its American advisers reacted to it as if it were communist inspired, thereby creating the basis for US intervention in Vietnam and the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and 58,000 plus American troopers before the madness was ended in 1975. Prouty argues that this is the result of a grand conspiracy that wants endless war because such wars are profitable. Somehow, that speculation seems to me a more comforting explanation than that this state of affairs was the result of good, old fashioned hubris, of the utter ignorance and inhumanity of America’s “best and the brightest.” For it is the latter explanation that makes me want to take the flag “a grateful nation” presented to my parents at my brother Charlie’s funeral and burn it.

JFK, LBJ, and Vietnam

JFK, LBJ, and Vietnam

P. Schultz

            For several reasons, few of them worthwhile, and for some time I have been wondering about I what call “the policy-making paradigm of politics” as a particular and peculiar kind of politics – in a manner of speaking. I also call it “the problem-solving paradigm of politics.”

            Having recently read a very good book by John M. Newman,  JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power,” I have found some illumination on the workings of such a paradigm. Toward the end of his book, Newman points out the similarities – as well as the differences – between JFK and LBJ as follows: “The key to understanding how this campaign problem differed for these two men is this: Kennedy had to disguise a withdrawal; Johnson had to disguise intervention.” [442] That is, both Kennedy and Johnson engaged in deception, Kennedy to keep combat troops out of Vietnam while Johnson did so to get combat troops into Vietnam.

            And they both did it for the same reason. Kennedy disguised withdrawal because he was fearful that if he went public with his policy, he would lose the election of 1964, being defeated as an “appeaser” of communism, as the one who “lost” Vietnam. Johnson shared the same fears. “I am not going to lose Vietnam. I am not going to be the President  who saw Southeast Asia go the way that China went.” [442] But Johnson didn’t make these views public during the ’64 campaign because he, like JFK, was fearful if he did so he would lose the election. So, neither man went public with his views, Kennedy disguising his withdrawal and Johnson disguising his intervention. Neither man was willing to give the American people the choice to withdraw or intervene. And both men were willing to and did engage in deception and intrigue in order to have their way.

            It is important to see that this behavior is part and parcel of a policy-making or problem-solving politics. In such a politics, Vietnam was a “problem” needing a “solution” and our politicians, our officials were expected to have such a solution, which then they would “sell” to the American people. The solution thus takes precedence over “the consent of the governed” and if that consent is not forthcoming, then politicians should work around, should manipulate, should even deceive the people to implement the solution. A policy-making or problem-solving politics is a way of short-circuiting popular rule or “people power.” The politicians choose both the problems and the solutions, not the people.

            Hence, the chant, common during the war, “One, two, three, four, we don’t want your bloody war!” was “radical” in that it rejected the policy-making paradigm. It meant, among other things, that Vietnam was not a problem, not our problem, and so we Americans had no business being there. It is only a short step from this to the idea that our intervention in Vietnam was indefensible, even immoral. A policy-making paradigm cannot deal with such an argument and, hence, has to marginalize such assertions of the popular will as thoughtless, as ignorant, as illegitimate, or as simply unworthy.

            But politics or self-government would seem to require, at the very least, that the people be given choices, here the choice to decide whether to withdraw or intervene in Vietnam. Neither Kennedy nor Johnson was willing to do this, abrogating to themselves the power, even the right to make that most basic choice about a war in Vietnam for the people. Once that step is taken, once that right is claimed, then “deception, intrigue, and the struggle for power” will follow, follow as night follows day, follow as darkness follows light. And, for sure, there will be no “light at the end of the tunnel.”

Dealing With "the Donald"

-->

Dealing with “the Donald”

P. Schultz

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/07/big-money-rules/

            The above is a link to a review by Diane Ravitch, of the two books, those  being Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, and The One Percent Solution: How Corporations are Remaking America One State At A Time.

            I am posting this for those who think the way to oppose Trump is labeling his supporters 'racist,' or 'moronic.' Trump and company are so far beyond such tactics that such name-calling merely facilitates those who have undermined our republic. Trump et. al. have an agenda, one that has the support of many of the very wealthy and is disguised as "libertarian" or "freedom loving." To defeat these people, you need an alternative agenda, and calling Trump "Orange 45" or lambasting his tweets or his followers won't do it. And, sad to say, the Democrats don't have such an alternative agenda, which is why they dream the impossible dream of impeachment.

Here is an example of an alternative agenda from Elizabeth Warren, but I bet you won't hear many Democrats pushing such an agenda. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/elizabeth-warren-monopolies-american-economy