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

1992: A Political Fantasy

I have just published a book on the 1992 presidential election, entitled "1992: A Political Fantasy." It is a "fantasy" of how and why George H. W. Bush deliberately lost that election to Bill Clinton. It is listed on Amazon, the author being me, P. Schultz, and the title as given above. It is available in paperback for $12.99 and on Kindle for $4.99. At those prices, you can't go wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/1992-Political-Fantasy-P-Schultz/dp/1976326370/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512011211&sr=1-11&keywords=p.+schultz

"Higher Education": Not So Much. An Exchange.

“Higher Education”: Not So Much. An Exchange.

P. Schultz

            Below you will find a link to an article published in the Washington Post on why “Trump conservatives” are dissatisfied, allegedly, with our colleges and universities. I posted this link on Facebook with the comment:

“So glad I quit "higher education" when I did. Think about it: Now someone who is a "trained marksman" and can shoot the head off a rattlesnake is considered worth listening to on how to politicize even further than they already are politicized our colleges and universities. And trust me: There is nothing radical or even much that is unconventional going on in those institutions. Most professors seek above all else tenure and success and are as a result, as the smartest students know, just boring mouthpieces who never stray too far from "conventional wisdom." Besides, the BOBs, the Basic Old Bureaucrats, have the real power and these guys are as asinine - read "mainstream' - as any Trumpian conservative or Obama liberal would wish them to be.”

            My comment was met with this response from one of my Facebook friends, who is by the way not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form:

RS: “Not sure I agree. Much movement is occurring in non traditional education. I had a long discussion with our kids who are both in education and way smarter than I am and they explained about so many innovations in the pipeline.
So, take heart, Pete Schultz, the world of education is not all gloom and doom.”

            And this comment elicited the following from yours truly:

“But, of course, it is not "all gloom and doom" in education, or anywhere else, even in the Trump administration. This is the kind of assertion that is impossible and useless to argue with because it is so, well, meaningless or even inane. And I rest my case if your "kids" are defending "innovations in the pipeline." This is BOB, Basic Old Bureaucrat talk, which is generally meaningless, inane lingo having nothing to do with "education." It helps explain how we as a people have come to think that standardized testing is anything other than the means of destroying genuine education and producing more "bricks in the wall" who can work for corporations without realizing how meaningless their lives actually are. And this stuff is dressed up as "No Child Left Behind" ala' Bush, Jr. or "Race to the Top," ala' Obama. But then, again, you can put a dress and earrings on a pig but it is still a pig. Again, so glad I quit.”

            The exchange, illustrates among other things, why people like Trump are successful. Here is someone who, to be direct, knows little or nothing about “the education world” and the battles being fought there but, for the sake of “innovations in the pipe line,” ends up allying himself with those like the green beret marksman who was used as the basis of the Post article and “analysis.” Oh yes!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/elitists-crybabies-and-junk-degrees/ar-BBFCBQy

Vietnam? Not So Much

Vietnam? Not So Much

P. Schultz

“Sometimes the light's all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. Lately it’s occurred to me: What a long strange trip it’s been.”  The Grateful Dead

            I have been reading this book, The Embers of War, about Vietnam in the 1940’s and 1950’s, when the US was just getting involved there, as we say. And all of a sudden I was “blinded by the light.” For the US, it was never really about Vietnam. Rather, it was about the United States and preserving the status quo here, preserving the regime that was being established, that had been established at least since the end of World War II.

            How can you preserve a political order best? It’s rather simple. By dying for it and/or killing for it. And that’s what Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon used Vietnam for, for dying and killing American soldiers – and others – in order to fortify, to preserve, and even to extend the national security state that had been created after World War II.

            That’s why we never seem to learn from “our mistakes” in Vietnam: Because our actions weren't mistakes and the same strategy is being used today, dying and killing in order to perpetuate our flawed, our unrepresentative, our oligarchic political order."Winning" in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere isn't important. What's important is the dying and the killing because that blood offering is that which renders our establishment secure.

McConnell, the Republicans, and American Politics

McConnell, the Republicans, and American Politics

Peter Schultz

            Below is a link to an article from the NY Times, entitled “McConnell Gambled on Health Care and the Alabama Senate Race. He Lost.” This article is interesting because it illustrates the character of American politics quite well and how it differs from what conventional wisdom tells about our politics.

            According to the conventional wisdom, our political parties are conduits through which the popular will is translated into legislation and policies, making our officials “representatives” people of “good will,” who respond to the popular will as it manifests itself in polls and elections. In brief, our political parties are the tools of democracy, headed by well-intentioned politicians seeking to advance the common good.  

            Contrarily, however, what this article illustrates is that our political parties are controlled by “bosses,” here personified by Mitch McConnell for the Republicans, who seek to short circuit the popular will whenever that is necessary to preserve the status quo and the bosses’ power and status. One quote captures this very well: ““I think people here are frustrated, and they have bought into this narrative that Mitch McConnell is to blame, that he’s incompetent, that he’s part of the establishment, that he’s controlled by special interests and synonymous with the status quo.”

            This is a fairly accurate assessment of what is going on – although I would say that McConnell is not incompetent and that he is not controlled by the special interests – which is why the “frustrated people” are buying “into this narrative.” After all, “the narrative” is accurate! They, the frustrated, are beginning to see that their “representatives” in D.C. are not so much interested in representing them as controlling them in order to preserve the status quo. They are even beginning to suspect that the mainstream Republicans never intended to repeal and replace the ACA, insofar as they had seven years to come up with a replacement and did not do it. That is, they are catching on that those who claim to represent them and seek to turn their wants into legislation and other policies are more interested in preserving the status quo, interested in controlling them and not in representing them.

            The thing is: Our political parties and its leaders, its bosses, are not in the game of embracing democracy but, rather, are in the game of stifling democracy or rule by the people. This is, as the election in Alabama illustrated, as true of Donald Trump as it is of Mitch McConnell. It is also as true of Democratic Party as it is of the Republican Party. What are called “special interests” take part in this project but they are not playing the lead roles therein. It is within this project of preserving the status quo that these groups seek to promote their interests.

            People are frustrated across the political spectrum, as evidenced by the relative success of Bernie Sanders’ challenge to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president last year. And their frustration stems from two facts, not taken into account by our conventional wisdom regarding our politics: (1) Our politicians are not, for the most part, people of “good will” who are “well intentioned,” trying to serve the people’s interests and desires. And (2) our political parties are not devoted to making democracy work but are, rather, devoted to ensuring that democracy doesn’t work so their bosses can preserve their power and status.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/us/politics/mcconnell-gambled-on-health-care-and-the-alabama-senate-race-he-lost.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article