3 posts tagged “america”

Being sick is never pleasant, so when I began to feel a slight pain in the back of my throat last night I knew after four years of good health the bugs had caught up with me. Oddly, when I'm sick I can't stand reading for extend periods of time but have no trouble when it comes to writing. I don't know if that will spell pleasure or pain [insert evil laughter here] for those of you who read this but there it is.

American Psychosis

Yesterday I was busy taking photos of and distracting my best friend from the headache that is her thesis when I stumbled upon a brilliantly written geopolitical essay on Israel by some fellow's name who now escapes me (this happens to me often). It's been a long time since I spent any time with geopolitics, but the essay sparked some thoughts about the United States. I've argued for some time that the United States is undergoing a period of psychosis. I use the term psychosis because I believe polarization is not appropriate. The United States was polarized in the period preceding the Civil War. Both sides had legitimate, realistic reasons for their views. I don't see that as the case now, and I believe it is especially clear upon examination of how the opposing parties imagine the United States in a global context.

One one side of the scale there are the neoconservatives, phyiscally embodied by the Republican party, who follow a line of Straussian thinking (that is a wiki, if you want real meat on Strauss read The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, along with his own writings listed in the Wiki). The basic line of Straussian thought is this: a class of philosopher elites must rule, and do so covertly because the 'vulgar' (yes, he used that word often) masses cannot understand that wars between societies are a political inevitably. To assuage the vulgar masses and bring them into line with what the elites think necessary the heroic mythologies and religion of that society should be manipulated through lies (which he argued were necessary 'myths'). This strategy is evident among the neoconservatives in America by using religion and the myths of 'American values', along with lesser lies, to achieve their political goals (which are intended to benefit the philosopher elite, I should add. Oh, and I should mention that Paul Wolfowitz was a direct student of Strauss, and in turn I. Lewis Libby was his student).

The Democratic Party, on the other end, is somewhat akin to a Moroccan bizarre. Some prominent party members supported the war in Iraq and now oppose it (Hilary Clinton) while others have lost their place in the party for supporting it (Joe Lieberman) and some gain prominence by constantly damning it (Ned Lamont). The real question is what does the democratic party actually stand for anymore? Their actions are largely reactionary in nature. They have not shown real initiative since the departure of the Clinton Administration. We know the Democratic Party mostly opposes the war in Iraq, unwarranted wiretaps (Today's ruling made me happy even if the NSA was granted a stay), and our (lack of) energy policy. But that isn't really standing for something. Opposition is not a statement of belief. I know they say they want real security, honest leadership, retirement security, economic prosperity and what not, but so do the neoconservatives (even if they aren't going to deliver). Their agenda is a completely superficial reactionary construct that leaves voters with the same kind of "with us or against us" choice that the neocons so often imply. Worse is that many of their own party members have voted for measures that have caused the problems their agenda is reacting to (To go into such a list would take a monumental effort which I don't have the time to undertake. I direct you to Vote-Smart and their database of elections for further information). A lack of direction is no better or worse than going in the wrong direction, and that is where the Democratic Party's reactionary politics have led it.

The above positions leave two primary geopolitical visions of America, as I see it: American the Righteous Crusader, Defender of the Free World, and Champion of Free Enterprise AND; America the Pious, Defender of Civil Liberties asquiescent and subject to United Nations approval for any real foreign interventions, but still willing to defend itself against terrorism.

The first vision, the neocon vision, is based in many American mythologies and the pseudo-moral construct of the religious far-right. America, in their view, is right in state-building to defend itself because America is the global prosecutor of evil (read this as terrorism). This vision is inspired by the constant reminder that the American ethos is under attack by the unrighteous. It helps that those unrighteous are not Christians. It further helps because the fear instilled in people by the constant threat of attack not only on themselves, but their way of life justifies the neoconservative doctrine of necessary pre-emptive strikes on unfriendly states. Such preemptions are also made valid through the great capitalist myth. The nations American attacks to protect itself will be transformed into havens of liberty and freedom where all can prosper through free trade. Unfortunately the neoconservative line of thought is flawed. Iraq is a case study in their failures. Few if any Iraqis have profitted from their newfound ability to explore free enterprise while a select few companies in the United States have (in accordance with their Straussian ideology). And it is apparent for anyone willing to look that civil war is imminent and Iraq has only become a breeding ground and flashpoint for terrorist groups around the world (which further supports the Straussian model). Ultimately this vision of America only benefits those atop the neoconservative hierarchy--everyone else must bear the brunt of it in one form or another (oil prices, travel restrictions, and hightened global animosity for example).

The Democratic vision is somewhat in line with who will always be my favorite politican, Teddy Roosevelt. It isn't quite the walk softly and carry a big stick America I'd like to see, but it's close. It is an America that will defend itself when defense is justified, and after going through the proper international channels. This is the cautious vision of America, a reaction to its recent scars in Iraq. But again, as with the Democratic agenda the Democratic vision for America on the global political stage is reactionary and will be governed by their reactions to public responses within the nation. It is an ineffective model. On one hand, they attempt to follow international sentiment (through the United Nations) which is often in opposition to American sentiment (How many Democrats in office balked at the recent conflict in Lebanon? Most didn't, for fear of alienating the centrists, and Jewish vote, or so I would argue). Like their domestic agenda, the Democratic Party's geopolitical vision of America lacks a concerted direction.

This is why I believe America is in a state of psychosis. Neither of its main political personalities can create an effective vision of America that will allow it to function without causing its own global degradation. The neoconservative vision will only service to benefit an elite core at the expensive of the nation's 'vulgar' masses and America's global political capital, while the reactionary approach undertaken by the Democratic Party can only effect indecisiveness when faced with the will of the people it serves and the international community. Both approaches erode the global credibility of the United States and until the psychosis ends the erosion will continue to eats its way into this country's ability to effect its policy, whatever they may be, around the world.

[I will elaborate on this idea over time, but right now I just want to throw it out there, see what everyone thinks]

And now for something completely different!

I love tea. So much so, that I'll treat you with a[horrible] little tidbit I wrote about it:

Tea, I do love thee so,
Hot steaming, and orange spiced,
You're better than blow.
A sip of your tannic twist,
Your cinammon sweet bliss
Matches any needle's kiss.
With cigarettes or just plain
What pleasure
When the caffeine hits my veins.
I'd say you're like sex,
Without emotions to vex
But that's going a little far,
Though you are hot and wet,
As I like my women set,
And while in bed you'd be a mess
You're lacking a woman's caress.
Yet don't feign worry, my favored drink
There's nothing like you
After a night of kink.

Edit: Is this really the only post on all of Vox with 'geopolitics' as a tag? I feel accomplished now.

I'm the black sheep of the office when it comes to politics and my own personal beliefs. The company I work for is a bastion of conservativism. At our company-wide meetings it isn't uncommon for representives of the Republican National Committee to make a presentation and ask for contributions, nor is it uncommon for the owner of the company to lead off company meetings with prayer. I always stick out at either event by leaving the room, or ignoring the prayer completely. Needless to say, this sometimes causes a bit of tension between myself and some of my coworkers.

Usually an uneasy detente exists between us. Politics and religion stop at the door to my office as a rule, and I rarely enter into political discussions at the watercooler or breakroom simply because they stop the moment I walk in. Today, however, that was not the case.

As I headed to the back to grab some coffee (which I don't even know why I drink here--it's Maxwell House, and truly awful) I couldn't help but overhear the discussion was about Lebanon and the current cease-fire. I figured as much would be the conversation de jour, but not that it would have the overtly racist tone it did. Most people involved in the discussion were of the opinion that Israel shouldn't have stopped their offensive until all 'those terrorists are dead and left to rot.' Then came the firestorm. I asked them a very simple question: Which? The Israelis or Hezbollah?

To make a long story sort, the conversation turn to some common themes: they [muslims] hate freedom; arab countries are uncivilized; there won't be peace as long as they exist; and the whole slew of typical stereotypes about Arabs.

I asked them if they really knew what freedom and liberty were and they looked at me in a quizzical manner. How dare I ask them if they knew. Of course they knew. Freedom was being free, it was America, what we fought for, how we lived, etc etc...

The more I think about it, the more it came together in my mind. The definition they gave me, the things they thought encompassed freedom and liberty in a democratic government were all grade school notions. Almost every American will invariably learn about the freedoms and liberties of America, and how great they are. What they don't understand is that freedom and liberty, as applied to government, are not what they seem to be. No one is truly free in the United States, nor does everyone have true liberty. Liberty and freedom are surrendered at the formation of any government. That is the basis of all government (along with private property, if you choose to accept Locke). Of course, we all have assured rights under the contracts we have forged with our government, but nontheless, few people in this nation are aware of such.

They take freedom and liberty to mean something wholly different, to mean something tangible which can be attacked and taken away by an exterior force. They don't understand it doesn't exist in the first place, and that the only thing that can take away the rights we as a people have in our contract with the government is the government itself (and subsequently ourselves), not Islamic terrorists.

More frightening is that people would argue for the destruction of a race to perserve something they never had in the first place. If anything, it illustrates the lethality of stereotyping. To assume the Arab nations in the Middle East seek to take away our 'freedom', or that they are 'uncivilized' is simply wrong. It places our rights, as human beings, above the rights of others, and that can only result in more of this cycle of violence and hate.

I seriously doubt it will ever happen, but I would like to see students introduced to the writings of Thomas Paine, John Locke, Alexander Hamiliton, John Jay, James Madison and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  Students in high school government classes are taught about those people and what they wrote, but seldom are they required to read what they wrote, opening a comprehensive understanding of the foundations of our government and constitution to them in a way that no summary can. Perhaps if students understood that their right to vote is not in itself freedom, but a referendum on which rights they wish to reinforce and which they wish to relinquish they would vote more often. Liberty and Freedom are not granted de facto with the right to vote, but in the exercise of the right to vote, just as tyranny all too often occurs because two few people realize it is not enough to have a right--that right must be exercised.

There are better ways of learning civic virtue than reading the primary texts that helped form this nation. Those lessons come with a loss of rights and fear and tyranny, and once learned cost far more than any trip to the ballot box to rectify.

This is my rather long-winded way of saying use it or lose it--sadly, I think we lose a little bit more of it with every soundbite from the White House

Change to your TV to any news channel and you're likely to find the media recounting the failed plot by Islamic militants to blow up ten airlines in mid-air. As the media does when it seizes upon a story, they give the impression that they are exploring every angle by positioning reporters at various airports whose sole purpose is to make the story 'more human' by interviewing people as they discard bottles of water, make up and lipgloss into trash cans just outside the security checkpoint. The reporter will then talk about how everyone is taking the new travel guidelines in stride followed by the inevitable soundbite: someone saying the increased restrictions are okay because "they make it safe to fly."

I've watched Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and BBC and the message is all the same: our government must be doing something right for catching these guys and reacting so quickly (nevermind that it was the Brits who did the footwork). I'll return to this point shortly, because it is the real meat of this post, but before I do I feel the need to comment on the politics of this situation.

This plot is further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated, and constantly changing their tactics. On September the 11th, 2001, they used box cutters to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of innocent people. This time, we believe they planned to use liquid explosives to blow up planes in mid-air. In response, we've adjusted our security precautions by temporarily banning most liquids as carry-on items on planes. I know many of you will be traveling during this busy summer vacation season, and I ask for your patience, cooperation, and vigilance in the coming days. The inconveniences you will face are for your protection, and they will give us time to adjust our screening procedures to meet the current threat.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about 9/11 again. I know this shouldn't surprise anyone since the President mentions it at least once a week, but in my mind the dogma and rhetoric surrounding 9/11 is more than just the politicization (and subsequent political polarization) of a tragedy for the Republican party's gains, but a glaring invocation of the litany of failures this administration has racked up. Of course, that isn't the case according to President Bush: "Because of the measures we've taken to protect the American people, our Nation is safer than it was prior to September the 11th."

Everyone who isn't deaf has heard those words come out of the President's mouth, just as they've probably heard these:

Still, we must never make the mistake of thinking the danger of terrorism has passed. This week's experience reminds us of a hard fact: The terrorists have to succeed only once to achieve their goal of mass murder, while we have to succeed every time to stop them. Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face.

America is fighting a tough war against an enemy whose ruthlessness is clear for all to see. The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women, and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology. They're seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations. These killers need to know that America, Great Britain, and our allies are determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty. With patience, courage, and untiring resolve, we will defend our freedom, and we will win the war on terror.

[I wasn't going to copy the whole thing, but I believe I would be doing my point an injustice to leave out a single sentence of these two paragraphs]

Two things are occurring here.

First, examine the language. "We must never." There is an imperative there, implying something ominous is coming, and it does: terrorism. If there is any one word that will get at least half this country worked into a fervor, it is terrorism. But saying we must never forget terrorism looms is not yet fear-mongering, as it is indeed a fact [That the policies of this administration have only strengthened the recruiting tools of terrorist organizations, I am sure, escape the President]. It is the keywords in his statement that invoke fear: 'mass murder', 'kill civilians', 'spread their totalitarian ideology', 'take over countries', and 'attack free nations' all render images of fear, of an America always on the brink, held hostage by the vague threat of unseen militants lurking in every mosque. More important than Bush's use of fear-inspiring keywords however is the way he brings the people out of that daze of fear by switching immediately to the kind of language small town politicians use on the 4th of July: 'determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty', 'patience', 'courage', 'untiring resolve', 'defend our freedom', 'win the war on terror.' Notice how the fear-mongering is drawn out. It is first hinted at by invoking September 11th, then amplified with fearful keywords spanning much of the second paragraph until in two brief sentences the President can issue a masterful rhetoric coup, emphasizing 'classical' American ideals, those same ideals that are taught to every American child when they learn about Patrick Henry, George Washington, and the Alamo. Thus he assuages the fear he created, as though only through his policies the specter of terror can be defeated.

The second thing in the above paragraphs is even more subtle. By grimly rehashing 9/11 at the beginning of his speech, then triumphantly raising it as a benchmark event the nation's security is now cable of thwarting, he is implying his own administration's self-perceived sense of success at bolstering national security, while reminding his conservative supporters of the same. The real genius is was follows: "Unfortunately, some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage. We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face." This at once strikes down those that charge the administration with complacency and casts the administration's opponents as, at best, the antagonists of developing a sound defense against terrorism, and at worst unwilling partners in crime with those who wish to hurt us. Combine this with the aforementioned fear-mongering and remember the Alamo gung-ho and the real message comes through: if you aren't with us, you're with them, the terrorists. There is, however, one problem with the President's speech.

America is no safer now than it was on or before September 11th because the complacency of the Bush Administration to act on their rhetoric about national security has pre-empted any meaningful changes. One such meaningful change would have been using our intelligence on known terrorist methods to create effective counter-measures against them. The current foiled plot is a perfect example.

According to the New York Times the current plot "mimicked a failed plot in the Philippines in 1995 financed by Osama bin Laden to blow up airplanes over the Pacific. That ended when the chemicals exploded at an apartment in Manila." Eleven years is plenty of time to create detection equipment and screeners for liquid explosives and their components, no matter how hard Homeland Security officials are saying they are to detect. Or are these liquid explosives really so difficult to search for?

9/11 has become the symbol of complacency for this nation. There is no reason people should not beable to bring liquids onto airplanes other than the failure of our government to act on information it already had. To invoke 9/11 now, in light of an effort that could have very easily been prevented even if there had been no investigation in place if the proper counter-measures were used, is to claim a victory when all there is is defeat. Americans should not sit by, quietly acquiesing their liquids to TSA personnel because it makes 'flying safe', they should be furious about the ineptitude of their government that has failed them once again, that has only given them one more reason to fear, and one more reason to surrender rights to the wolves that herd them with fear and assuage them with frivolous, patriotic rhetoric.