Politics: Flying as Falling

 

Politics: Flying as Falling

Peter Schultz

 

                  There is an interesting passage in Ray Locker’s book, Haig’s Coup which draws on Richard Nixon’s memoirs regarding Watergate and John Dean:

 

                  “But, as Nixon soon realized, the facts did not matter. ‘I was worried about the wrong problem … I went off on a tangent, concentrating … on trying to refute Dean by pointing out his exaggerations, distortions, and discrepancies. But even as we geared up to do this, the real issue had changed. It no longer made any difference that not all of Dean’s testimony was accurate. It only mattered if any of his testimony was accurate.’” [109]

 

                  If “facts” didn’t matter, what did? If Dean’s misleading testimony didn’t matter, why not? What was “the real issue?”

 

                  The real issue had become Richard Nixon, not Dean. The real issue was not what had Nixon actually done regarding Watergate, but what he had done politically. The real issue had become Nixon’s politics, just as when Nixon had successfully taken on Alger Hiss, the issue had become Hiss’s politics, his alleged communism, and not what he had actually done.

 

                  So, because Nixon was to be judged politically, Dean’s testimony did not have to be completely accurate. It only had to be “more accurate than [Nixon’s] had to be,” and refuting Dean point by point would not help or save Nixon, as Nixon eventually realized.

 

                  But Nixon could not adequately defend himself politically because he had acted duplicitously. He had secretly bombed Laos and Cambodia, and he had told the Chinese and the Soviets that he would not, after “a decent interval” had passed, defend South Vietnam to prevent it becoming communist. Were he to reveal his duplicity it would only confirm his untrustworthiness and, more importantly, it would subvert the legitimacy of the American political order by exposing its duplicitous character. Nixon could not adequately defend himself for the same reason he did not expose the Joint Chiefs of Staff spying on his administration. To have done so would have undermined the legitimacy of the Joint Chiefs and of the political system more generally. Nixon’s only option was to try to cover up the Watergate burglary and other actions of his administration such as the Huston Plan, the bugging by the FBI of NSC staff members and journalists, and the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office., as well as questionable campaign financing decisions and actions.  

 

                  “Funny how falling feels like flying…...for a little while.” Duplicity facilitated Nixon’s successes but also led to his downfall. More generally, it might be said that political life is characterized by the same scenario, a vicious circle of duplicitous behavior that only works for “a little while.” Ala’ the Declaration of Independence: Oppression leads to revolution, revolution leads to government, government eventually becomes oppressive, leading to another revolution, and on and on it goes. The arc of history does not bend toward justice, except of course for “a little while.”

White House Call Girl

 

White House Call Girl

Peter Schultz

 

                  There is a fundamental misconception about the role corruption plays in the American political order. Conventionally understood, the American political order is seen as fighting corrupt phenomena like prostitution, with the police and the courts and other lawful authorities taking the lead. However, a different picture emerges from Phil Stanford’s book, White House Call Girl, about the role prostitution played in Watergate:

 

                  “At the city level, there’s usually an understanding between the police intelligence squad and one or more local call girl rings. In exchange for protection from the vice squad, they’re expected to provide information to the cops. The same pattern holds in Washington, except that there are so many more intelligence agencies working behind the scenes and the stakes are so much higher. The FBI’s avid interest, especially under J. Edgar Hoover, in the sexual habits of American politicians is only the best-known example.” [p. 57]

 

                  So, in fact, the establishment, that is, legitimate agencies like the police, the courts, and other agencies are not fighting prostitution but using it in order to control the political system. Prostitution and other forms of sexual behavior are part and parcel of the political system as much as, say, the FBI, the CIA, and even the White House. Prostitution explains how the system works, by, among other things, feeding intelligence to the lawful authorities.

 

                  This is why one Phillip Bailley, a small-time pimp in D.C., was sent to St. Elizabeth’s hospital for the criminally insane when his case involving his violations of the Mann Act threatened to reveal the prevalence of prostitution in the nation’s capital. As a result, Bailley’s evidence never became public and, thereby, the corruption that underlay political life in the nation’s capital remained hidden. Take note: The authorities, meaning the police and the courts, were not interested in using Bailley’s evidence to attack and undermine prostitution. Rather, they were very much interested in making it disappear – which they successfully did.

 

                  The significance of this needs to be underlined: Corruption lies at the heart of the American political order – and perhaps at the heart of all political orders. Corruption is a political fact of life, an irremediable political fact of life. It is, perhaps, even more fundamental than justice as a central feature of political life, a fact that even “the realists” don’t quite come to grips with.

 

                  But, of course, given that humans always need to think of themselves as just, this fact must be hidden, which accounts for the duplicity that is “the coin of the political realm.” Duplicity and cover-ups are essential to political life, as the multiple Watergate cover-ups illustrated. Nixon covered up, the CIA covered up, the FBI covered up, John Dean and Alexander Haig covered up, Woodward, Bernstein, and Deep Throat covered up, the Washington Post covered up, the Joint Chiefs of Staff covered up, and even the Watergate investigative committee covered up. It’s just the nature of political life. Or, more succinctly: So it goes.

Corruption and Politics

 

Corruption and Politics

Peter Schultz

 

                  There is a misconception about what many call “corruption,” i.e., the very common phenomenon where politicians and officials appoint their family and friends to government posts despite the fact that the appointees are not qualified for the posts. The misconception is that this kind of duplicity is not a political act. These appointments are seen as self-serving rather than as actions with and undertaken for political reasons.

 

                  However, like other forms of duplicity, such appointments are political in that they serve to maintain and fortify the status quo. As a result, even though exposed such appointments continue. The political benefits ensure that. This duplicity, like other forms of duplicity, plays an essential role in maintaining the fortifying the established order.

 

                  Think of it in light of the question, why do businesses so often hire those they know as family and friends even though the hires lack the qualifications to do the job. Obviously, it is thought that such hires do more to fortify the business than undermine it, regardless of the hire’s competence or lack of competence. The variable that is often overlooked in assessing such behavior is loyalty. Loyalty very often trumps competence in preserving and fortifying organizations. And duplicitous hires are in the service of loyalty., which is a “two-way street.”

 

                  In the political arena, loyalty is even more fundamental that it is in the “private” sector. Incompetence – think here of the response to the events of 9/11 – rarely undermines politicians, whereas disloyalty very often does. What brought Richard Nixon down if not disloyalty? And whatever incompetence Nixon displayed would not have brought him down had he not been betrayed by colleagues like John Dean, Alexander Haig, James McCord, or “Deep Throat.”

 

                  So, the “corruption” of allegedly self-serving, nepotistic behavior is not corruption at all in the sense of behavior that undermines the existing or established political arrangements. Ironically, such “corruption,” even when exposed, continues to serve the status quo and the careers of those politicians and others overseeing the status quo. Such “corruption” is, in fact, essential to any existing or established political order and, so, will be practiced faithfully despite threat of exposure. The political arena, it seems, is ineradicably corrupt. And, as a result, “public service,” so highly touted by many, is corrupting. So it goes.

Duplicitous Politics Isn't

 

Duplicitous Politics Isn’t

Peter Schultz

 

                  That is, duplicitous action in the political arena is a way of making politics and political questions disappear, transforming them into personal questions so that politics is identified with, reduced to the personal.

 

                  For example, consider the questions of whether George W. Bush acted duplicitously to get into the Texas Air National Guard and whether he acted duplicitously by going AWOL once in. As one author has noticed: “While the media thinks it is reporting an electoral contest with Madison Avenue gloss, something deeper and more insidious … is going on, largely unexamined.” [Baker, Family of Secrets, 464] Namely, “the political process has been subverted and the public sandbagged.” [ibid]

 

                  So, what has been happening is that duplicitous politicians, like the Bushes, have, via their duplicitous politics, subverted politics and made political questions disappear. The questions of George Bush’s military service, or lack thereof, displaced questions about the Vietnam War and about American foreign policy generally, whether America’s war in Vietnam and American foreign policy generally were imperialistic. And “the result [has been] a government that in essence was not unlike those of third world oligarchs – a vehicle for military dominance and bountiful favors for supporters and friends.” [466]

 

                  When duplicitous behavior becomes the focus of political discourse, then the political order, even though oligarchic and militaristic, goes unexamined. Duplicity masks the political with the personal and, ironically, protects the duplicitous politicians and fortifies the status quo, no matter how imperialistic or oligarchic. Exposing a politician’s duplicity does not represent a fundamental personal threat insofar as the politician in question supports the existing political arrangements, i.e., is patriotic. However questionable Bush’s behavior may be shown to have been, those questions did not subvert his legitimacy because he supported the existing political order. And, of course, by focusing on his alleged – and easily deniable – duplicity, the status quo goes unquestioned, being accepted as fundamentally sound and even praiseworthy.

 

So, even though Bush were to be deemed personally disreputable, the existing order would retain respectability. Status quo sustained, even fortified. Ironically, duplicity works even when it is exposed. And, hence, the great appeal of cover-ups.

Duplicity: How It Works

 

Duplicity: How It Works

Peter Schultz

 

                  So, here’s an illustration of how duplicity works in order to disguise the injustices of any political order.

 

                  George W. Bush had managed to acquire a place in the Texas National Air Guard, obviously in order to avoid having to go to war in Vietnam and just as obviously through his connections, family and otherwise. But then, acting duplicitously, Bush and others claimed that his family connections had nothing to do with his admission to the Guard. And there followed news articles from journalists questioning whether in fact the Bushes were telling the truth about the family connections. The controversy was quite impressive as far as controversies go.

 

                  Take note, though, that this controversy displaced another possible controversy, viz., a controversy over the justice of having such alternative “military” places that allowed a few select people to avoid going to war in Vietnam, or in other wars. Such places for a select few, however chosen, would appear to be unjust to the vast majority of Americans who were subject to the draft and to having to serve, involuntarily as it was, in the war in Vietnam.

 

                  So, duplicity hides this justice question and Bush’s sense of justice is never questioned. The “justice question” is replaced by a “conspiracy question,” you might say. The question whether George W. Bush was just is displaced by the question whether he “conspired” via his connections to avoid the war in Vietnam, a war by the way he supported. And even the justice of his alleged conspiratorial behavior is not debated.

 

                  As a result of the duplicity, which was facilitated by Bush’s defenders, the justice of providing a select few with a way out of fighting the nation’s wars is never raised. The established order, even though it seems to unjustly favor the select few as the expense of the many, is fortified, even legitimized because it was never questioned. Duplicity, by hiding the injustice of favoring the select few over the many, serves the status quo and its attendant injustices.

 

Romantic Comedies v. Politics

 

Romantic Comedies v. Politics

Peter Schultz

 

                  I am a fan of romantic comedies, something even my wife makes fun of me for. But here’s the thing: Why do people put their faith in politics instead of romantic comedies? After all, what do people like LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris have to offer us? They have nothing to offer me, as near as I can tell, not a blessed thing! So, why do people go on believing that politics offers hope? Whatever one thinks of romantic comedies, it cannot be as delusional as what people think about politics!🇺🇸

Duplicity

 

Duplicity

Peter Schultz

 

                  Duplicity is not a moral problem. It is a political problem. That is, it’s a problem that arises from the character of political life, from the defective character of justice and of political life.

 

                  Justice, in all its forms, is partial, incomplete, less than comprehensive. Just like rule in all its forms. There is no rule of all. Ruling and being ruled in turn is perhaps the best we can do. This means that doing justice always involves doing injustice. Democrats are unjust toward oligarchs, because democratic justice and oligarchic justice are not only different but contentious. Aristocratic justice is injustice vis-à-vis the non-aristocratic; hence, the prevalence of “aristocratic hypocrisy,” and “aristocratic arrogance.” Even in the best regime there is injustice because “the best” is only “as good as it gets.” And if Aristotle was correct, then the best regime not only has but requires slavery. And, of course, there has never been a political order devoid of crime, criminals, and prisons.

 

                  Hence, duplicity arises in order to deal with the injustices that necessarily exist in all political orders. Take note: “in order to deal with” those injustices because they cannot be eliminated. Justice and injustice always appear together. So, duplicity arises in their train and exists to deal with the flawed character of justice, i.e., with the flawed character of political life. So, while eliminating duplicity might seem desirable, to try to do so shows an ignorance of the political and will prove to be futile.