This and That: JFK and Vietnam

 

This and That: JFK and Vietnam

Peter Schultz

 

            To understand what was going on during the Kennedy presidency with regard to Vietnam, you have to forget about Vietnam. The war in Vietnam and America’s role in it was nothing more than a battle between imperialists, those who wanted to impose an American hegemony on the world, and those who were opposed to such a hegemony. JFK was in the latter group and, as a result, he was quoted as saying that were he to win the 1964 presidential election he would break up the CIA into a thousand pieces. His positions on the war in Vietnam and America’s role in it reflected his rejection of the imperialistic agenda of others, including even several of his advisers.

 

            Hence, if it were true that Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy operating within the US and even within the US government, this would make sense insofar as Kennedy was correctly perceived as a threat to the imperialistic project embraced by many in the government and other US elites. Insofar as this is true, then it is fair to say that JFK “died” when he made it official that he would be pulling out of Vietnam, that is, in October, 1963. His death was absolutely necessary in order to ensure that he would not be able to win the 1964 presidential election and carry out his plans to leave Vietnam and pursue policies that the imperialists were opposed to. The imperialists knew that Kennedy’s agenda was acceptable to the American people, who didn’t understand why the US was making war in Vietnam, a place many of them couldn’t locate on a map. His re-election had to be prevented at almost any cost.

 

            Kennedy facilitated his own death because, like the imperialists, he was practicing a politics of deception. While his deceptions were geared toward avoiding war in Vietnam, the imperialists’ deceptions were geared toward Americanizing the war in Vietnam. Because both were practicing a politics of deception, the most important issue – whether the US was justified in making war for the sake of US hegemony – was never addressed in the political arena. So even if Kennedy had been able to win in 1964 and had pulled American troops out of Vietnam, the imperialists and the imperialistic agenda would not have been defeated. It would only have been postponed.

The Eternal Recurrence of Intolerable Servitude

 

“The Eternal Recurrence of Intolerable Servitude”

Peter Schultz

 

            The following is from a book, The Counterrevolution,” by Bernard E. Harcourt, a book about the political order that currently exists in the United States. This passage is from the last chapter of that book, and in the context of Harcourt discussing the resistance of Franciscan friar William of Ockham to the then prevailing tyranny of the Avignon papacy. The title of the chapter is: “Ockham’s Razor, Or, Resisting the Counterrevolution.”

 

            “The eternal recurrence of new forms of intolerable servitude, and with them new forms of resistance, reveals that human history – rather than a progressive march toward absolute knowledge, the withering of the state, or the end of history – is a constant struggle over our own subjection, a recurring battle over the making of our own subjectivity, of ourselves as subjects. Once we recognize the perpetual recurrence of this struggle, then and only then will we know our task, for today and for the future: to resist the always encroaching forms of tyrannical power, those violent desires for subjection, the constant and recurring attempts to govern through fear, through terror, through absolute domination.

 

            “Today, it is not the inquisitorial theocratic tyranny of Ockham’s time that we face, even though the inquisitorial dimensions are not entirely absent. No, what we face today in the West – in the United States and some of its allies – is a new form of governing rooted in the military paradigm of counterrevolutionary war. The very methods and strategies that we developed to contain the colonized other have come back to inflect the way that our government now governs us. We in the West now live, at home, shoulder to shoulder with the insurgent other – ourselves – and have started to govern ourselves, at home and abroad, as we brutally and mistakenly learned to govern the colonized others.” [p. 215]

Was Nixon's Demise a Successful Right-Wing Coup?

 

What If Nixon’s Demise Was a Right-Wing Coup

 

            Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 and re-election in 1984, it’s obvious that American politics has had a decidedly right-wing tone and substance. But what if it hasn’t been recognized the degree to which the rise of right-wing politics in the US was facilitated by left-wing politicians and players participating in the overthrow of Richard Nixon? That is, what if Nixon’s overthrow was engineered by conservatives who hated both his domestic and his foreign policies and that they were successful because they had left-wing allies who, for various reasons, also hated Nixon? And what if these left-wingers didn’t understand that they were actually undermining the possibility of a left-wing politics arising in the United States, a possibility that seems until this day impossible? 

 

            To understand this, it is necessary to also understand that the conventional narrative regarding the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s demise is more or less a fairy tale. While Nixon was guilty of obstructing justice in trying to cover up the burglary at the Watergate, the motivations that led to those burglaries were nothing like those attributed to the Nixon administration. Moreover, what Nixon and his supporters did regarding the 1972 presidential election had been done quite often and was anything but unique. The motivations of Nixon’s enemies, his right-wing enemies, were political while they knew or didn’t care that the burglary itself was not political. These right-wingers were out to get Nixon because he was willing to betray South Vietnam by seeking “peace with honor” [but not with victory], because he went to mainland China wanting to make China a legitimate member of the international community, and because he sought détente with the Soviet Union. He was willing, therefore, to bargain with “evil Communist empires.” From the outset of his administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been spying on Nixon and Kissinger, which led to the creation of “the Plumbers,” Nixon’s way of trying to keep control of his agenda. When Nixon learned of this spying, he refused to hold those responsible accountable, in large part because he feared how the military would respond were he to do so. And even to the end of his administration, Nixon seemed unaware of just who his enemies were, e.g., Alexander Hair, Howard Hunt, and John McCord. 

 

            As the right-wing opposition to Nixon grew and gained strength, they managed to ally themselves with left-wingers who hated Nixon for his past sins, his earlier anti-Communism, his take down of Alger Hiss, his “dog whistle” politics, and his rejection of their bona fides as proper elites. The Watergate burglary was like a gift to right-wingers because they could use it to draw left-wingers into their opposition to Nixon and to use them to ensure his demise, even his removal from the presidency. Thus, although the Watergate burglary had very little to do with electoral politics, it could be used as the centerpiece of what was said to be Nixon’s attack on American democracy. In fact, Nixon and his minions did very little that was unusual with regard to “dirty tricks.” Nonetheless, the left-wingers were only too happy to go after “Tricky Dick,” even to the point of not considering what the broader political implications would be of his demise. They didn’t seem to realize what was actually going on, that by undoing Nixon, who was not a right-wing Republican, they would be contributing to a right-wing coup so that anyone following Nixon in the presidency would have to embrace right-wing causes, like ending détente with the Soviet Union or rejecting a broader rapprochement with mainland China. Not surprisingly, when Ford and Carter tried to continue some of Nixon’s policies, both failed because of right-wing resistance, as was to be expected. 

 

            By successfully removing Nixon from the presidency, the right-wingers then took center-stage, so to speak, in the drama of American politics. And along with Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, which destroyed the legitimacy of the McGovern alternative in the Democratic Party, once Nixon was gone, driven from office by both right-wingers and left-wingers, the strongest forces in American politics was right-wing forces. So, by allowing themselves to be blinded by their hatred of Richard Nixon, the left-wingers undermined themselves and the possibility of a left-wing politics in the United States. The best they could do was to rally around “New Democrats,” like Bill Clinton; that is, around Democrats who seemed like “right-wingers lite.” And, of course, Clinton did little more than continue what was called “the Reagan Revolution,” while trying to disguise this fact with such meaningless programs as “Reinventing Government.”

 

            So, it would seem that the left-wingers did not recognize the political implications of Nixon’s demise; that is, the implications for the character of American politics broadly understood. And whatever the cause of this phenomenon, by participating in the overthrow of Nixon, the left-wingers had sealed their own fate. Henceforth, they would not, could not be a powerful political force or play a central role in the American political drama.

This and That: Social Media, Jane Austen, the Project, Watergate

 

This and That: Social Media, Jane Austen, the Project, Watergate

Peter Schultz

 

            Social media will never usher in a new age. Social media displays of violence, say, police violence, do not show us who we are. Rather, they immunize us to what is actually going on, that is, what is going on officially, as a matter of policy.

 

            Graphic displays of official violence allow us to think: “Oh, that’s not us. That’s not what we approve of because otherwise we wouldn’t be shocked and we wouldn’t be showing it on Facebook.” But it is behavior that is approved, and these videos hide that fact, along with absolving us of responsibility for them. Then we can say, “Oh, it’s a few bad apples.” And, thereby, once again we have absolved ourselves of responsibility for the racism, the savage racism that has characterized the United States for more than 200 years.

 

            Other ways of absolving ourselves of responsibility: Critical Race Theory, taking down statues celebrating racists, and even apologies. And along with absolving ourselves, there phenomena fortify the status quo, just as voting fortifies the status quo.

 

            The Project: The guardians are protecting us. We have little to fear, we’re told, besides fear itself because the dangers are external, the threats are exterior. No real threats are internal, e.g., the assassins of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, or Fred Hampton. And, hence, Assange and Snowden must be silenced, delegitimized like Gary Webb.

           

            Watergate: Had to be transformed into a morality play, with the good guys combatting the bad guys and the good guys winning. As a morality tale, we the people are absolved of responsibility for that scandal. The immoral ones are to blame; not legitimate institutions like the CIA or the presidency itself. To what extent was Watergate systemic? But because we caught the criminals, we really don’t care. To what extent is the Trump phenomenon systemic? A question not all that many are willing to ask.       

 

Jane Austen: was Jane Austen writing about Great Britain or about the human condition? To do the latter, Austen would have had to be persuaded that there is “a human condition;” that is, that there are unchanging, fundamental alternatives offered to human beings.

Ben Afflect, JLo and Harry and Sally

 

Ben Afflect, JLo and Harry and Sally

Peter Schultz

 

            In their recent nuptials, Ben and JLo are seeking something, something beautiful. What’s the likelihood of they’ll find it? They’ve been fooled into thinking that what they’re seeking will be found in or as the result of a beautifully choreographed wedding, like a beautifully choreographed movie script. Not quite.

 

            But it’s when Harry met Sally that the real beauty is to be found, something it took Harry twelve years to figure out. The beauty, although reflected by a marriage, wasn’t about a marriage. It was about the beauty of a love affair that others could see better than Harry and Sally. Even Helen, Harry’s ex, saw it, as did Jess and Marie. Harry didn’t know he was in love with Sally and Sally thought she hated Harry when it was impossible for her to hate him because of the things he said. “That’s just like you, Harry. You say things like that and you make it impossible for me to hate you. And I hate you, Harry. I really hate you!”

 

            We humans pursue, we crave beauty, and most of us find it together as “a couple,” maybe married, maybe not. I have loved several women in my life and I still love them, unashamedly, because I now realize and embrace the beauty we shared. It is more than enough to see me through this vail of tears.  

Why Jane Austen Teaches Bad Morality

 

Why Jane Austen Teaches Bad Morality

Peter Schultz

 

            At the end of her novel, Persuasion, Jane Austen owns up to the fact that she’s teaching “bad morality,” which she does for the sake of “the truth.” What’s the “bad morality” that Jane Austen is teaching? That the young who are in love and want to marry should do so, even though it would be “imprudent” because they are poor or “little likely to be necessary to each other’s ultimate comfort.” As Austen wrote: “This may be bad morality to conclude with, but I believe it to be the truth….” [Persuasion was the last novel Jane Austen completed.]

 

            Good morality counsels prudence, the kind of prudence that Lady Russell used to persuade Anne Eliot to reject Frederick Wentworth, despite the fact that Anne and Frederick were deeply in love. Frederick was poor and had only some future prospects to rely on. Apparently, though, for Jane Austen, being deeply in love trumps or should trump such moral or prudent considerations. Why? Well, perhaps, morality doesn’t “know” love or recognize it for what it is, viz., the source of the best kind of human happiness. Morality may promise certain things – stability, safety, prosperity, even character – but it cannot promise happiness. It is not in the restraint of our passions that we humans find happiness but, rather, in their fulfillment. And romance, the romance of deep, erotic love is the way to happiness because through it, we humans may know, may even dwell in the realm of the beautiful. Such knowledge, such a dwelling is the peak of human happiness. And whatever morality promises us will always fall short of genuine happiness.

What If: The Saudis and 9/11

What If: The Saudis and 9/11

Peter Schultz

 

            There is a passage in Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack, that raises some interesting possibilities about Saudi Arabia and the attacks o f 9/11. To wit:

 

“Saudi Arabia was in a particularly precarious position in the Muslim world. Bid Laden had started al Qaeda…by charging that the Saudi king, who…is officially and spiritually…the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques…, had let in the infidels, the United States military, before, during and after the 1991 Gulf War. Its continued collaboration with the Americans was fueling the extreme fundamentalist movement.” [262-263]

 

            Now in light of Saudi Arabia’s “particularly precarious position in the Muslim world,” we may ask what did the Saudis gain as a result of the 9/11 attacks? Those attacks delegitimized bin Laden, as well as al Qaeda, even significantly in the Muslim world. Those attacks also fortified or even legitimized the Saudi’s collaboration with the Americans, and did so even in the Muslim world. Also, it may be asked what did those attacks cost the Saudis, and it is difficult to identify any such cost.

 

            So, what if the hijackers were Saudi loyalists, that is, loyalists to the Saudi family that rules Saudi Arabia, loyalists disguised as al Qaeda? If this were the case, it would help explain some of the strange coincidences that characterize the run-up to the attacks, such as two of the hijackers residing in San Diego with a man who many consider to have been connected to Saudi intelligence agencies. It’s often been said that its unlikely that bin Laden, or anyone else, would have been able to pull off those attacks from caves in Afghanistan. What if, in fact, these doubts were correct?  

 

            And what if Saudi support for “Gulf War II,” as Woodward labels it, was the price the Saudis paid for 9/11? So, what if when the Americans came to the Saudis and told them that it would be necessary to use the 500 mile border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq to launch Bush’s invasion, unspoken was the Americans saying to the Saudis, “You owe us?” And what if the Saudis agreed because they were given assurances that Saddam would in fact be removed? For as Woodward reports, the Saudis argued that “if [Saddam] is attacked…and he survives [again], he will be larger than life…everybody will follow his word. If they say attack the American embassy, they will go and attack it.” [267] And, of course, the Saudis were referring to the American embassy in Saudi Arabia, meaning that if Saddam survived both the Americans and the Saudis would be grievously harmed. But of course Saddam didn’t survive and the American-Saudi collaboration is as strong as it’s ever been, to the benefit of both countries.