Joe Biden's Demise

 

Joe Biden’s Demise

Peter Schultz

 

                  The demise of Joe Biden’s presidency should come as no surprise. After all, consider the demise of LBJ, of Richard Nixon, of Jimmy Carter, of Reagan, of Bush I, of Clinton, of Bush II, and of Trump.

 

                  Failed presidencies reflect failed politics. Consider the failures in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, Central America, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, the 2008 economic crash, COVID, the border crisis. So much failure, but so little thought given to it.

 

                  Maybe it is time to think about our politics, rather than just going on and on and on about the need to restore or revitalize our political culture via “culture wars.” It was once common to hear people talk about “rehabilitating” criminals. But what if those criminals had never been “habilitated” in the first place? That would be a horse of a different color.

 

                  Restore, revitalize or revolutionize our politics? That is the question. And I suspect you actually know the answer.

The Clintons and Whitewater

 

The Clintons and Whitewater

Peter Schultz

 

                  The Clintons and the Whitewater hearings were much ado about nothing. Clinton supporters say that this was the case because the Clintons were innocent of wrongdoing regarding the Whitewater project. There was nothing they could be charged with, at least not successfully.

 

                  Ironically, though, even if the Clintons could have been successfully charged with contributing to the failure of the Madison Guarantee S&L, and/or profiting from that failure, the results would not have been destabilizing in the sense of undermining the Clinton presidency. Why not? Because the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency did not ultimately depend on the corruption or the lack of corruption of the Clintons. Proving or disproving the Clintons’ culpability was, strictly speaking, irrelevant with regard to the president and the legitimacy of his administration.

 

                  Official proceedings such as congressional hearings are politically stabilizing whatever their outcomes. The Watergate hearings, even though they led to Nixon’s resignation, proved to be stabilizing and were praised as such because “the system worked.” But even if those hearings had exonerated Nixon, the result would have been the same, viz., an illustration of the fact that “the system worked.” Congressional hearings like Watergate and Whitewater, while being seen as a way of exposing political misconduct, which they do, do it in a way that reinforces the status quo, making the exposures of misconduct ultimately irrelevant. As a result, such exposures of culpability do not undermine the system. Ironically, they strengthen the system.

 

                  From this, we may learn something important about politics. Politically speaking, the Whitewater hearings were, in fact, much ado about nothing. Ditto with regard to the Watergate hearings. Exposing Nixon’s culpability and eventually forcing his resignation proved to be politically insignificant insofar as it did not change the prevailing political arrangements. Ditto with regard to Whitewater. As a result, even though some thought the Clintons were “guilty as charged,” such thoughts proved to be irrelevant when it came to judging the Clintons politically.

 

                  In other words, the worth of political systems is to be judged not by the character, the morality of its actors. It is not the morality or immorality of political actors that determines the worth of a political system. Political systems or “regimes” should be judged not by such moral standards but by political standards, e.g., by their justice and their humanity.

Stentorian Baboons

 

Stentorian Baboons

Peter Schultz

 

                  Here’s a thought: Christianity originally, or Jesus, were not about morality or moral codes. Moreover, more radically, Christianity or Jesus rejected moralizing in favor of something else.

 

                  Consider, briefly, by way of example, Augustine, one of the earliest and most thoughtful Christians. In his Confessions, Augustine presents himself in all of his immorality. Eventually, he turned away from his immorality, but his turn was not motivated by morality. It was motivated by beauty, by the beatitudes, by a spirituality which included his love for his mother and for God. In other words, morality or moralizing did not “save” Augustine or lead to his “redemption.” It was his spirituality, a spirituality that transcended morality. Put differently, unlike many these days, Augustine was not saved or redeemed by religion, which may be described as formalized morality. It was not the Bible that saved or redeemed Augustine.  

 

                  Think about this politically. Over and over, politicians are heard to say that what America needs is moral reform. Some moral reforms are favored by conservatives, while other such reforms are favored by liberals. But apparently, there is a consensus that what is needed is moral reform. And, hence, we find ourselves in the midst of “culture wars,” where battles are waged over which moral codes are or should be deemed fundamental. Our most important political battles and events are understood as moral fables, as “the good guys” versus “the bad guys,” with disagreements of course over who are and who aren’t “the good guys. “

 

                  What if, however, moral reforms are not what we need? That is, what if, like Augustine, our political “redemption” or improvement depends, not upon morality, but upon something else altogether, something like a new way of thinking about and of living in the world? A new way of understanding the human condition, of humanity, a way that sees humans not as power-seekers but as adventurers, not as acquisitive beings but as inquisitive beings, not as warriors but as lovers, as beings who are best or better when they “make love, not war.” And what if our moral reformers, our moralizers, our politicians merely constitute “a roadblock of stentorian baboons,” standing in the way of redemption or some improvement?

Kennedy, Nixon, and American Imperialism

 

Kennedy and Nixon and American Imperialism

Peter Schultz

 

Here’s a thought that helps make sense of JFK and Nixon: Both were conventional American imperialists, meaning they embraced an elitist corporatized imperialism, the kind of imperialism that recommends the kind of stability which corporate elites crave and profit from. But this means it was their conventional imperialism that put limits on their anti-communism. Ironic, no? 

So, JFK could oppose invasions of Cuba, both the Bay of Pigs and during the missile crisis because they would be too disruptive and unsettling and, hence, bad “for business,” thereby threatening the US’s conventionally grounded imperialism. Ironically, it was JFK’s imperialism that set limits on his anti-communism. Ditto regarding Laos and Vietnam. Even his counterinsurgency bias can be seen as limiting his anti-communism, keeping it contained, so to speak. 

Nixon appears in the same light: his push for detente with the USSR and his opening to China were in the service of his conventionally grounded, corporatized imperialism that would benefit from stability rather than from anti-communism. 

So, JFK and Nixon were, we might say, shrewd in that they hid their imperialism, dressing it up as a modified or rational anti-communism. That is, they dressed their imperialism up in sexy clothes, especially JFK’s New Frontier and Camelot, that would titillate and arouse while not really changing traditional American imperialism. Of course, JFK, being “glam,” could make his politics look sexier and more seductive than could Nixon. 

But the irony is delectable, I think: It was their imperialism that set limits on their anti-communism. Priceless! 

 

Kennedy and Nixon, Part Two

 

Richard Nixon was smart enough to understand that anti-communism could subvert US imperialism and its drive for hegemony. Thus, Nixon’s imperialism limited his anti-communism vis-a-vis the Vietnam War, the USSR, and with regard to China, just as JFK’s imperialism limited his anti-communism with regard to Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and his Alliance for Progress in Latin America. Similarly, President George Herbert Walker Bush understood that removing Saddam Hussein by going to Baghdad would undermine American imperialism. But his son was not so smart, failing to understand that his GWOT would subvert US hegemony and undermine its imperialism. 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to show for it other than trillions wasted and lives lost and taken. Savagery is one thing; futile savagery is something else altogether. The price of ignorance can’t be exaggerated. 

American Politics as Pornographic Politics

 

Thoughts on American Politics as Pornographic Politics

Peter Schultz

 

Try this: American politics is pornographic. Our politics aims at arousal, appeals to our prurient interests rather than at accomplishments. Trump fits into this scheme rather nicely, joining Stormy What’s Her Name as a “porn star!” Ditto JFK and Bill Clinton. Of course, pornographic politics, like pornographic movies or books, is a way of enjoying stimulation while you’re expected to do very little and to have very little to show when you’re done. 👍🇺🇸

 

The GWOT is clearly pornographic, with assassinations providing the stimulation. In fact, stimulation might even be the goal insofar as the wars go on and on and on. And recall this: the pictures of Obama et. al., glued to watching on a screen the assassination of bin Laden, which was we know now as choreographed as any porno movie. Did anyone in that room get off on what they saw, then or later? Did anyone there want to get off then or later? 🇺🇸✌️

And elections! Whoa: all stimulation devoid of almost any significance. Again, all for the sake of maintaining the status quo, meaning the obscenities that characterize our politics.

 

Question: Is this an American phenomenon or a political phenomenon? Methinks that Machiavelli would say it’s a political phenomenon. And Aristotle in his Politics provides some ammunition for it being political by cataloguing instances where sex and sexual adventures led to revolutions or significant political change. 

 

Oh, would that I were still teaching. I would propose a new course: Politics as Pornography! What fun! 

 

Part Two

 

Pornography aims to titillate, to arouse people by means of sex or violence. To do so, pornorgraphy uses sex and violence but the sex and violence isn’t real. It’s staged and if we saw the staging [as was shown in the movie Love Actually], we would not be titillated for aroused. Similarly, porno politics seeks to titillate and arouse by means of events that are staged, just as the sexual and violent acts that constitute conventional pornography are staged. 

 

Why is porno politics appealing? Because it allows controlling elites to create the appearance of political conflict while actually doing nothing more than preserving their power, their status, their notoriety. The political conflict is staged, just as the sex and violence of pornography is staged. But it is titillating, arousing, gratifying to think it real, to accept and even embrace it as if it's real because little is more gratifying than believing you live in a “democracy” where important, even crucial issues are decided by the people. And that is probably as gratifying as believing people are capable of sexual or violent acts that could only be performed by supermen and superwomen. And it is definitely more gratifying, more exciting than believing you are being “played” by elites that control your lives while benefitting themselves at your expense. 

 

Part Three

 

How about more pornographic politics? And Bibi is just another porn star? 

 

I would say they’re repeating the same porn movie. Why? Because it emphasizes how porno politics is titillating and arousing. Unlike porn movies, porno politics lets people think something historical is happening. And, so, with porno politics, people can feel as if they are witnessing and/or taking part in historical events, which makes them feel important. You know, the kinds of things that are analyzed and that books are written about. 

 

So, staged events like elections and even assassinations, like the killing of bin Laden, titillate and arouse in part because they take on historical importance, even though they are for the most part unimportant, having no significant impact on the prevailing situation. They excite, titillate, arouse, but change very little. Think about the assassination of Awlaki, for example. Or think of the Trump presidency or, for that matter, the Obama presidency and ask: Other than preserving the status quo, did either presidency have any significant impact on our society or our politics? 

 

Further, with porno politics, partisans can “get off” when their stars “score,” but the scoring is no more meaningful than masturbatory sex, or sex between “fuck buddies” or as the result of “booty calls.” Clinton got off with Monica; Clinton destroyed a pharmaceutical plant. One is about a meaningful as the other but both titillated and aroused. 

 

So it goes. 

 

 

 

 

The Political World

 

The Political World

Peter Schultz

 

                  In the political world, a person can conduct assassinations of people whose identities are unknown to her, including civilians and women and children, and still be described as “a person of genuine moral rectitude.” And, more generally, in the political world “vindication [comes] through combat and devastation.” Combat and devastation, savagery so to speak, are consistent with “genuine moral rectitude.” Indeed, they are seen as the result of genuine moral rectitude and are rewarded. That’s a strange world.

 

                  And, so, the only way to sustain belief in one’s cause is “by resorting to the imaginary and the hypothetical.” [75] War narratives are always be dominated by “mythical figures … shaping fictional events.” Similarly, political narratives are also dominated by such mythical figures shaping fictional events. The only way to sustain belief in the redemptive character of the political is “by resorting to the imaginary and the hypothetical.” And those who expose such narratives must be silenced, “assassinated” one way or another.

 

[Quotes are from The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans, Charles Royster and Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, Jeremy Scahill]

Obama's Virtues

 

Obama’s Virtues: His Political and Military Calculations

Peter Schultz

 

                  “Yemen and the United States, 2010: As thousands of US troops deployed and redeployed to Afghanistan, the covert campaign in undeclared battlefields was widening. US drone strikes were hitting Pakistan weekly, while JSOC forces were on the ground in Somalia and Yemen and pounding the latter with air strikes. All the while, al Qaeda affiliated in those countries were gaining strength. When I met with Hunter, who worked with the JSOC under Bush and continued to work in counterterrorism under the Obama administration, I asked him what changes had taken place from one administration to the next. He quickly shot back: ‘There’s no daylight. If anything, JSOC operations have intensified under this administration, there’s been a greater intensity in what their being asked to do, where they are being asked to do it and how they’re being asked to do it,’ he told me. ‘There are things transpiring now, around the globe, that would be unthinkable to the Bush administration, not just because of vocal opposition within the cabinet, or within the Pentagon, but because they would not have the ultimate support of the president. In this administration, the president has made a political and military calculation – and this is his prerogative – that it is best to let the Joint Special Operations Command run wild, like a mustang, in pursuit of the objectives that [Obama] has set.’”

 

From Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, Jeremy Scahill, p. 350.

 

When you see the world as a battlefield, as our presidents have consistently done, then all the world’s inhabitants, civilian as well as military, are fair game, so to speak. As one Yemeni said in the aftermath of the massacre at al Majalah, where fourteen women and twenty-one children were incinerated by US missiles: “If they kill innocent children and call them as Qaeda, then we are all al Qaeda. If children are terrorists, then we are all terrorists.”

 

Exactly. When you turn the world into a battlefield, all humans are potential enemies and massacres are inevitable.