The Truth

The Truth

P. Schultz

            People think that “the truth” is something we talk about, something we discover in books or in lectures or the Bible. But it isn’t. It is something we experience, something we meet, someone we meet. That is the truth.

            My mother met the truth. She knew without reading a book, without hearing a lecture, without learning any dogma or theology that we are all just human beings. And she knew when we classify human beings, label some gay, some lesbian, and other straight; that when we label some black and some white; that when we label some Christians and others Jews or Muslims or atheists; that when we label some smart and others not smart; that when we label some Europeans and others Asians; that when we do that, we are being untruthful. She knew this and this she passed on to me, my brothers, and her grandchildren. And she knew that no word, no book, no law, no speech could ever make untrue that which is true.

            I am lucky. I met the truth through my mother. May you meet the truth and may it set you free, free of your fears, free of your prejudices, free of your guilt, free to be a human being in the company of other human beings.

Trump Mythologized

Trump Mythologized

P. Schultz

“Donald Trump is a bad casino act, yes. He is a classic demagogue with a mean streak. He is also the catalyst of yeoman America’s ongoing political pushback to globalism, diversity, and progressive dogma. How could this happen, the nation’s elites are wondering. They still have no idea how their arrogance spawned Trumpism or why someone with so many defects has kept against all odds trending up.”

            This is a quote from the first paragraph of an article entitled, “Donald Trump and the Ghost of Christopher Lasch,” a link to which can be found below. Basically, the article is arguing that the “Trump phenomenon” is a reflection of “blowback” against the “revolt of the elites” that Lasch described in a book published after his death, by that title, in 1995. And, as with other such articles, usually written from “the right,” this one includes the assertion that our elites are worried about this phenomenon and how it could upset the stability – and allegedly the decency – of the current regime or political establishment. So, Trump is dangerous and must be stopped, preferably by those who will look after the middle class and its allegedly racist, fundamentalist, homophobic, and nationalistic values.

            Now, while in part persuasive, the problem with this argument is that it fails to see that Trump is hardly a danger to the reigning elites and, in fact, is a gift to them in that his presence, his alleged dangerousness, helps to renew their legitimacy even after they have led the nation into the jackpot it is in. The ruling elites are not afraid of Trump – or even Cruz for that matter - because they know these politicians, when they lose, as the elites will ensure they do, will also help to destroy the insurgency of populism that is feeding Trump’s – and by the way, Sanders’ – popularity. This is the same game plan used by LBJ and Richard Nixon in the late 60s when another popular insurgency was abroad in the land, and also used during Carter’s presidency when the Democrats savaged his presidency and his re-election before coalescing around Reagan, who was said to have a “mandate.” And it is the same game plan that has been used in the face of other popular insurgencies as well.

            Hence, articles like the one cited here also serve the same purpose of reinforcing the ruling elites while pretending to do otherwise. To quote another article along the same lines:

“To the establishment, this breakdown looks like chaos. It looks like savagery. It looks like a man with a flamethrowing guitar playing death metal going a hundred miles an hour down Fury Road. But to the American people, it looks like democracy. Something new will replace the old order, and there are a host of smart, young leaders on all sides who must prove they have the capability to figure out how to create or retrofit institutions that can represent and channel this new energy.”

Note that this is not an argument against “an establishment,” but just the reverse. The “new establishment” will be controlled by “a host of smart, young leaders on all sides who . . . create or retrofit institutions that can represent and channel this new energy.” So, apparently, the American people think of “democracy” as changing one establishment for another and not as undermining establishments in general, which is exactly what those in Washington mean when they say that our government if “broken.”

            But the people aren’t concerned about the government as “broken;” they are concerned about a government, a regime, that is oligarchic, controlled by a few for the benefit of the few. Hence, changing those in charge of the oligarchy will not address the people’s concerns, their anger, whether those in charge are “smart, young leaders” or not. And this is another reason, the Trump phenomenon does not scare the established regime: Because this phenomenon merely serves to reinforce the all-too-common idea that a change of “leadership” will rectify our situation, an idea that the Obama presidency ought to have laid to rest. Hence, unlike the myth the media and mainstream politicians are pushing, the establishment knows that Trump, so far from creating chaos, is merely preparing the way for the reinforcement and extension of the prevailing regime.

Elections US Style: 1968 and 2016

Elections US Style: 1968 and 2016

P. Schultz

            From the perspective of citizens, elections are seen as determining who will be “in” and who will be “out.” That is, the focus is how parties and candidates try to win elections, the supposition being that losing an election is never an option for a political party. From the perspective of the parties and their members, however, elections have to be managed carefully to ensure that they, the members who control the party, don’t lose their power. To do this, they must protect the prevailing political order or the regime because it is the regime that has elevated them to prominence, has empowered them. And sometimes, in order to preserve their power and the status quo, it makes sense to “lose” an election. This is something like losing a battle but winning the war.

            Consider the presidential election of 1968. This election occurred at a time of considerable civil unrest. In fact, it is generally assumed that LBJ, the incumbent president, was driven from office because of this unrest, leading him to announce that he would not seek and he would accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. It is generally assumed that Johnson had become such a divisive figure that it was assumed that he could not have been re-elected in any case. Therefore, Johnson stepped aside so the Democrats would have a chance to win the upcoming election.

            But there was obviously more at stake than winning that election insofar as many of those engaged in civil disobedience and others who were angry over the Vietnam War wanted more than withdrawal from Vietnam. Many saw themselves as harbingers of a “new” or different kind of political order, a political order where the likes of LBJ, Richard Nixon, or Hubert Humphrey would be outsiders. In other words, these “activists,” as is often the case with activists, were interested in “regime change,” to use a contemporary expression.

            Hence, mainstream politicians, those invested in the status quo, needed to find a way to control or disarm these activists, these insurgents. Because the threat came primarily from the Democratic Party, it was necessary and would be beneficial for the Democrats to lose the election. And Johnson shrewdly accomplished both of these objectives, disarming the insurgents in his party and losing the election, when he withdraw for the race and claimed that he was doing so in order to be able to work for peace in Vietnam full time. In this way, Johnson stole the fire of the peace movement and claimed for mainstream, status quo politicians the cause of peace. The proof is in the pudding and here the proof is that Richard Nixon, as mainstream a candidate as can be imagined, built his campaign around his assertion that he had a “secret plan” to achieve “peace with honor” in Vietnam. Against all odds then, Nixon ran as a “peace candidate, thereby co-opting the most powerful appeal of the insurgents. And as a peace-seeking president, Nixon could continue persecuting the war, even expanding it, because he was, allegedly, working for “peace with honor.”

            In this way, LBJ and Nixon, almost as if they were working together, managed the election in a way that preserved the status quo in the face of significant popular dissatisfaction and even civil unrest. And they did this without actually responding by means of change to the popular dissatisfaction abroad in the land. The degree to which they were successful was illustrated by the fact that Nixon was not hamstrung in his conduct of the war, which he kept going for four years, and by the fact that the goal of US policy in Vietnam became withdrawal, a withdrawal disguised as “peace” and as “honorable.” That is, the main issue was no longer the character of the American political order; rather, the main issue was bringing the troops and the POWs home. Or, put differently, the issue was reframed as rectifying “the mistake” of Vietnam, and “mistakes” are quite common, require correction, but don’t require fundamental or regime changes. Those who had sought such changes had been co-opted and rendered inert.

            Not to lose sight of the argument here, let me reiterate that Johnson and Nixon treated the 1968 election, not as a means of seeking the kinds of changes that the popular unrest seemed to warrant, but rather as a means to avoid such changes in order to preserve the prevailing regime; that is, to preserve the regime which took the nation into Vietnam in the first place. Johnson was perfectly willing to withdraw from the race for the sake of peace and even willing to have the Democrats lose the election insofar as those eventualities would help to preserve the status quo and the power of mainstream politicians, even if these politicians were Republicans. In fact, insofar as the insurgency’s home was in the Democratic Party, mainstream Republicans would be preferable to mainstream Democrats. And Johnson knew that Nixon would make a far stronger president than Humphrey and, therefore, would be far less likely to cater to the insurgency.

            As far as 2016 is concerned, the question is how are the two parties, that is, the establishment members of the two parties, dealing with, managing the pervasive popular discontent abroad in the land? I believe the establishment Republicans are as content as Johnson was in 1968 to lose this presidential election, especially as the nominee of that party will be from the insurgency. And if the candidate loses in a landslide, all the better for the establishment members of the Republican Party. In this way, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz “works” for the mainstream Republicans as both have been painted as extremists unfit for the White House. And as in 1968, there is an establishment candidate waiting in the other party, the Democratic Party, and one that establishment Republicans need not fear insofar as Hillary Clinton’s policy preferences are, for the most part, in sync with the Republicans. So, it would appear that the Republicans have little to lose by losing this election and, in fact, they seem to have much to gain by doing so. It is not the establishment members of the Republican and Democratic parties that will lose in 2016. Rather, it is the American people who will lose, as another chance for significant change passes by. And while this may be less than horrible, it cannot be said to be characteristic of a genuinely popular government.

The Lesser of Two Evils

-->

The Lesser of Two Evils

P. Schultz

            “I am voting for ‘the lesser of two evils.’” A most popular argument for many. These voters recognize, they claim, that the differences between our candidates, say a Bernie Sanders and a Hillary Clinton or even the latter and Ted Cruz, are not as stark as their similarities, that they are all “evil.” These voters might even recognize that this argument reveals the corrupt character of our political order. So it seems like a respectable argument, promoting respectable behavior.

            But leaving aside, momentarily, this argument, what kind of experience is it, does it reveal? It is not an experience shared by our politicians themselves, who never say, “I am [the lesser] evil. Vote for me!” So perhaps it is not a political experience at all. That is, it is an experience that makes it possible, even legitimate, not to judge our politicians and their political choices, but merely to accept them. But we accept them not as evil at all but as realistic, acceptable, and even ultimately as legitimate or good. “The lesser of two evils” argument allows people to experience evil as good.

            And this is why those who make this argument, who experience this choice, don’t speak of their choice as evil. Just like our politicians, these people don’t say: “I am choosing to vote for evil.” As if it were part of a magic show, a choice for evil becomes, with the wave of a wand, a choice to vote for good. And, thus, a most amazing transformation takes place: A political order that offers us only evils to choose between becomes a political order that promotes, allows us to choose only good. Hence, there is no need to re-arrange our political arrangements; there is no need to re-order our political order. As a common saying these days has it: “It is all good.”

            Ah, but here’s the rub: What if our choices, our only options are evil? If so, then we are in “a jackpot.” But not only are we in a jackpot; we don’t even know, really know we are in it! Unlike Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, we don’t know we are fiddling or even that “Rome” is burning. Such a situation will not, cannot end well.

Trump: All About Borders

Trump: All About Borders

P. Schultz

            “The unparalleled advances in scientific discovery and technological innovation of the 20^th century, which made possible exponential increases in the killing power of weaponry, had also contributed to the erosion, and ultimately the near dissolution, of the boundaries between military forces and civilian populations.” [Dominance by Design, Michael Adas]

            The blurring, if not the dissolution of boundaries, of borders has much to do with “the Trump phenomenon.” Boundaries and borders are crucial human artifacts, so crucial that they can be made to appear “natural.” So, when boundaries or borders are blurred, it often feels like a violation – e.g., as happened to Americans on 9/11 – and such violations can shake people’s confidence in what they take to be “the natural order” of things. So exposed, so violated, people are fearful and angry. And they seek the safety of those who promise to restore the boundaries, the borders that, for them, defined and thereby made sense of their world.

            Not coincidentally, Trump’s rise to prominence began with his promise to restore the border separating the United States from Mexico, a border that had, allegedly, become so porous that rapists and other criminals passed through regularly. And not only would Trump restore this border by building a wall, but he would make Mexico pay for the wall.

            However outlandish Trump’s stance might appear to be, it is by boundaries or borders that Trump took his stand and acquired his popularity, his power. Along with restoring the U.S.-Mexican border, Trump opposed those trade deals, like NAFTA, made by mainstream Republicans and Democrats because they led to loss of American jobs which “went overseas,” went beyond our borders. From the standpoint of these disappearing jobs, it was as if there was no border, no boundary preventing American jobs from “moving overseas,” as if these jobs were “flowing” out the country all on their own.

            Similarly, Trump’s critique of the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well as his criticism of other U.S. military actions abroad, also reflects his concern with restoring America’s boundaries. American blood and treasure have been wasted in Iraq and elsewhere, as if the body politic itself were hemorrhaging. The integrity of that body depends on there being boundaries, which must be restored or “death” will result. And it is “staying home,” respecting our borders and boundaries, that will stop the bleeding, just as erecting a wall along the Rio Grande will keep the nation unsullied from without. Borders and boundaries require both keeping undesirables out and staying home, “minding our own business,” taking care of our own.

            That Trump is concerned with securing, fortifying our borders helps to explain why his “over the top,” “beyond the pale” rhetoric does not disturb his supporters. That his rhetoric “crosses the line” of socially acceptable speech is redeemed for his supporters because it is in the service of reasserting, reinforcing other, more important lines, other more important boundaries or borders. Just as Sarah Palin’s “going rogue” oddly appealed to conservatives, so too Trump’s “border crossing” rhetoric is redeemed for his supporters by his essentially conservative goal of restoring the nation’s integrity by restoring and respecting its boundaries.

            And speaking of Trump’s supporters or others who sympathize with but don’t openly support him, it is a mistake to see them as racists, sexists, or hate-mongers. Some of them may be such, but that is neither how most of them see themselves nor how they act. They respond favorably to Trump, some openly and others covertly, because they feel disoriented, feel adrift, as a result of their perception that there are no borders, no boundaries, at least none that are sustainable. And they feel this way for many reasons.

            For despite “exponential increases in the killing power of [our] weaponry,” the United States’ “homeland” is no longer inviolable, as it seemed to be with the triumphalism that followed the end of the Second World War. The Cold War, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the 60s, black power, Watergate, the Iranian revolution, Islamic fundamentalism, and, above all, 9/11 brought our vulnerability to the fore, made it so real that it could not even be erased by the collapse of the Soviet Union or the de-radicalization of what was once called “Red China.” In the midst of such changes, which seemed to reflect or to threaten the loss of all boundaries, that Trump has gained the popularity he has seems unsurprising insofar as he is addressing real concerns, concerns that can’t be met with promises of “hope” or vacuous slogans like “Yes We Can.” And because these concerns are real, they are misunderstood if they are seen as merely ghosts inhabiting the minds of the uneducated or the unsophisticated. Trump is “real,” and he hasn’t gone away because the human need for boundaries, for borders is real and it isn’t going away.

Trump: He's to Blame?

Trump: He’s to Blame?

P. Schultz

            Blaming Trump, standing up to Trump, has become the new measure of virtue, according to Elizabeth Warren and others, because “being silent” makes one complicit in his kind of politics.

            Hmmmm, I wondered. This seemed a bit strange to me, or it did at least until I remembered some history. This is a nation that blamed gays and lesbians – the Lavender scare that accompanied the Red scare – for undermining its national security in the Cold War; that once blamed protesters, “long haired hippie types,” for losing a war, while honoring those generals who actually lost it; that blames the many for the decisions of the few who have the power and use it willingly; that says its government is “broken,” when that government continues to fund multiple wars – to the tune of billions of dollars – and fight them “smartly” – despite thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths – and spies upon its citizens indiscriminately; that imprisons non-violent drug offenders by the hundreds of thousands while letting those responsible for the loss of billions of dollars of net worth not only go unpunished but also to profit via a “bailout;” and that held no one, I repeat, no one, in power responsible for 9/11.

            Given this history, that this nation would now see a crass, vile, rambunctious billionaire with really bad hair as the epitome of its failures is not or should not be surprising, even though this billionaire had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with creating “the jackpot” it is in now. Given its past behavior and how that nation honors those who are actually responsible for this “jackpot,” why am I surprised by this nation’s current condemnation, packaged in something resembling hysteria, of the billionaire? “Bogeyman politics” never goes out of style; its only the “bogey” that changes, from gays and lesbians, to “youths,” to druggies, to Muslims, to “illegals,” to “socialists,” to “peaceniks,” even to “moms” at one point, and on and on and on.

            This convinces me that Lincoln was correct when he said that “You can fool some of the people all of the time,” as illustrated by the political farce labeled a “presidential campaign” continues unabated. Standing up to and defeating Trump, by empowering those who are actually responsible for our situation, yes, that makes a lot of sense; actually, it makes about as much sense as thinking we “won” the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty, and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Iran.

            As George Carlin once pointed out, the farcical character of our politics was evident enough when someone proposed, seriously proposed, taking away, outlawing toy guns while protecting the real ones! Yes, let’s take out Trump, a potential disaster to be sure, while keeping those in power who have been actual disasters. Makes sense to me!

Hillary's "Sex" Appeal

-->

Hillary’s “Sex” Appeal

P. Schultz

            To understand what I am calling Hillary’s “sex appeal,” it is necessary to go back to JFK and his appeal, as understood then. His “sex appeal” was “strength,” “power,” “masculinity,” “virility,” all of which was necessary to offset the imagined and prevailing “feminized and infantilized” culture of the United States. JFK represented “a third way,” located between a “politically emasculated” – read “bureaucratized” -  business and/or entrepreneurial class and sentimentalized left-wingers. Both what was called “momism” and “organizational men” were sapping America’s strength, her vitality, thereby undermining the nation’s ability to confront and defeat the USSR and worldwide communism.

            Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the in-house historian of Camelot, characterized the Soviet threat as follows: “By the early 60s the Soviet Union . . . [would] have a superiority in the thrust of its missiles and in the penetration of outer space.” Due to its superior thrust, the Soviet Union would be able to penetrate deeper than the United States. For Schlesinger, the Soviet threat could be sexualized, as confirmed by his characterization of the age as so “sexually ambiguous . . .  that homosexuality [was] enjoying a cultural boom new in our history.” For Schlesinger and others, even Betty Friedan of The Feminine Mystique, women were causing or reflected debilitating effects – e.g., consumerism or “momism” – that were sapping the nation’s vitality or virility. For Schlesinger, “women [were] aggressive, seizing new domains, while men [were] on the defensive . . . hardly able to hold their own.” [Schlesinger, “The Crisis of American Masculinity”]

            So, what does this have to do with Hillary and her appeal? Quite simply put, Hillary “the phenomenon” reassures us that aggressive women, women not suffering from what Friedan called “the problem with no name,” will not, when once in power, undermine the virility, the masculinity needed to ensure the nation’s security, its greatness. Rule by this woman, “Hillary,” reassures us, that her election need not lead to either the “feminization” or the “momism” of society.

            And as seems clear, very few take Hillary to be either feminine or a mom, nor is this how she presents herself. It is not even clear that many see Hillary as sexual, perhaps in part because of her spouse’s dalliances.  But this is all good insofar as we need reassurances as a people that the virility of our leaders is uncompromised, and Hillary, as unfeminine, as un-momlike, as asexual, provides such reassurance. Although it is difficult for us - and for others - to separate female sexuality from femininity and motherhood, Hillary seems, ala’ Elizabeth I or Margaret Thatcher, to transcend the dichotomy, widely assumed to be unbridgeable, of manly strength or feminized weakness.

            This may help explain why Hillary’s appeal to young[er] women is not as strong as her appeal to old[er] women. Young[er] women want to be sexually appealing, at least in part because they are not yet married or mothers. Sexual ambiguity of the kind Hillary projects is not high on the social agendas of the young, either men or women. For young[er] women, feminism devoid of femininity is less desirable because it makes them less desirable. They might “ban their bras” but they do so for very different reasons than those women who did so in the 60s. Young[er] women are attracted to masculinity displayed, i.e., masculinity as virility, potency, as “thrust” and “penetration.” Old[er] women, not so much.

            More generally, reports are available about how Hillary’s female supporters seem more “lukewarm” than, say, those supporting Trump. Trump, of course, has done little to downplay his or others’ sexuality, even to the point of behaving like an adolescent male, both with regard to Megyn Kelly and “little Marco.” Hillary, as sexually ambiguous, cannot generate the “body heat” Trump does. In this sense, Hillary is a “thoroughly modern Millie,” while Trump is the “traditional male.”

            Can this modern woman prevail in a race for the White House, a largely traditional “place” and office? Of course, winning such a race will depend on much more than the sexual politics at play here. But it might behoove a modern woman to be aware – and to beware – of the controversial character of her persona as a modern woman, especially when confronting someone like Trump, who is more than willing to employ traditional taunts. It is more difficult for a man, any man, to successfully challenge a feminized woman, a mom, than to challenge a feminist. One way to defend against such attacks is to disguise one’s modernity, to present it in traditional garb. And, who knows, such a “disguise” just might be an improvement over the alternative.