Ah, another wonderful American export. From the indispensable Global Voices Online, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris showed up to back the frontrunner in the upcoming presidential election, only to be hustled out of the country a day later on work permit-related issues.
This gives me a chance to recommend the excellent documentary Our Brand is Crisis, about the adventures of the Clintonite political gurus of Greenberg Carville Shrum on behalf of ex-Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez "Goni" de Lozada. Not to spoil the ending (which is rather impossible to do with a historical documentary anyway), but you might note that Goni is currently in the United States being sheltered from extradition on corruption charges by the Morales government. But that doesn't surprise you, does it?
EDIT: And apparently it's being remade as a feature by George Clooney. Interesting.
EDIT II: Firefox's spellchecker is near-useless.
29 November 2007
27 November 2007
At the edge of the abyss
Here comes your man! The New York Times Caucus blog has dug into the candy bowl and--surprise!--unearthed that perpetual icon of American elections, the Disaffected Moderate.
And what it wants is, always and ever, the Status Quo. So every election cycle we are treated to the same picture of the American electorate; hopelessly disaffected from both parties (which are controlled by extremists) and always in search of the Vital Center, the bedrock of American Democracy. Regardless of what the parties actually represent, the truth is somewhere in the blessed middle, where the majority of good, politicized Americans reside. I call this tendency Broderism, after its most tireless public advocate, the Washington Post columnist David Broder.
Of course, the myth of the great yawning chasm between the two parties is just that, a hollow, nonsensical fable. You'd need three tubs of Vaseline and a bulldozer to squeeze someone into the narrow space where American political discourse is presently contested. But there we have the corporate press, delivering us people like Mr. Harnelink, who totally doesn't conveniently reinforce their narrative at all!
Now conservatives long ago figured this out and learned to play the game to their advantage, by dragging the national discourse to the right, knowing full well the good Broderists would always be able to find the Mushy Middle. I suspect that Democrats are aware of this as well, but simply have no interest in pulling their own weight. Beware the Left Hand of God, where the sinners lie. Broad is the path that leadeth to destruction of the form of fewer campaign contributions.
Oh, about that. You might have read that Democrats are doing ahistorically well in the fundraising department this year. Behold the glorious return of the prodigal son, Big Bidness, back into our waiting arms. I'm sure that won't return with any...complications.
But Big Bidness is also restless. His temporary alliance with the social conservatives has backfired, creating an unpopular monster he can no longer fully contain. Yet he also worries that Democrats will not be able to keep the populists and dirty hippies off his back. Behold, the Broderist fantasy, Unity 08, funded almost entirely by a small group of big donors. Don't worry, though, they'll find popular support. And you'll see it on CNN.
Of course, if the Democrats could be coaxed into supporting that nice Hillary Clinton, perhaps they could be made to reconsider. After all, she's not a flaming liberal or anything.
OK class, time for a little professorial intervention. Many people have wasted a great deal of brain energy trying to pin down that scurrilous idea of "media bias." Let me break it down for you. In our era of heavily deregulated media, the press, when it comes to the Beltway establishment, no longer has to serve anyone else's interests. It is its own monster. It serves itself.
Afterward, I asked Mr. Harmelink – who was raised Republican and votes for candidates from both parties these days – if he had an answer to his own question.“Well, she doesn’t sound like a flaming liberal,” he said.
“It was interesting, she wasn’t just on a rampage against Republicans,” Mr. Harmelink added. “I’m so tired of the extremes on both the right and the left. I’m looking at any candidate who is off the fringes, who wants to work things through in a rational way.”
And what it wants is, always and ever, the Status Quo. So every election cycle we are treated to the same picture of the American electorate; hopelessly disaffected from both parties (which are controlled by extremists) and always in search of the Vital Center, the bedrock of American Democracy. Regardless of what the parties actually represent, the truth is somewhere in the blessed middle, where the majority of good, politicized Americans reside. I call this tendency Broderism, after its most tireless public advocate, the Washington Post columnist David Broder.
Of course, the myth of the great yawning chasm between the two parties is just that, a hollow, nonsensical fable. You'd need three tubs of Vaseline and a bulldozer to squeeze someone into the narrow space where American political discourse is presently contested. But there we have the corporate press, delivering us people like Mr. Harnelink, who totally doesn't conveniently reinforce their narrative at all!
Now conservatives long ago figured this out and learned to play the game to their advantage, by dragging the national discourse to the right, knowing full well the good Broderists would always be able to find the Mushy Middle. I suspect that Democrats are aware of this as well, but simply have no interest in pulling their own weight. Beware the Left Hand of God, where the sinners lie. Broad is the path that leadeth to destruction of the form of fewer campaign contributions.
Oh, about that. You might have read that Democrats are doing ahistorically well in the fundraising department this year. Behold the glorious return of the prodigal son, Big Bidness, back into our waiting arms. I'm sure that won't return with any...complications.
But Big Bidness is also restless. His temporary alliance with the social conservatives has backfired, creating an unpopular monster he can no longer fully contain. Yet he also worries that Democrats will not be able to keep the populists and dirty hippies off his back. Behold, the Broderist fantasy, Unity 08, funded almost entirely by a small group of big donors. Don't worry, though, they'll find popular support. And you'll see it on CNN.
Of course, if the Democrats could be coaxed into supporting that nice Hillary Clinton, perhaps they could be made to reconsider. After all, she's not a flaming liberal or anything.
24 November 2007
All killer
ACADEME, n. An ancient school where morality and philosophy were taught.
ACADEMY, n. [from ACADEME], a modern school where football is taught.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
TomDispatch has the latest must-read Lipsyte. It's fortunate that new Lipsyte only appears bi-monthly, we would be paralyzed with awesomeness if we could ingest it any more frequently.
ACADEMY, n. [from ACADEME], a modern school where football is taught.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
TomDispatch has the latest must-read Lipsyte. It's fortunate that new Lipsyte only appears bi-monthly, we would be paralyzed with awesomeness if we could ingest it any more frequently.
From Pop Warner at the Carlisle Indian School through Bear Bryant at Alabama to Tom Osborne at Nebraska -- who, after I questioned his repeated "forgiveness" of a felonious running back, asked me if I'd rather have the player loose in my neighborhood -- the unstated mission of coaches has been to provide a model for controlling and exploiting young manhood for factories, corporations, and armies.
Coach as God (in their parishes, they are generally referred to without the article), or as Father, or Boss, or at least autocrat of the breakfast table is a model for many ranting, hard-driving business chiefs. I've worked for a few, particularly in television, but only one was honestly upfront about his own role model.
In the past I've written about the vicarious authoritarian thrill many people seem to glean from amateur athletics; dreaming of themselves as coach-avatar whipping the uppity kids into a life of docile servitude; reminding them how lucky they are to donate their slave labor to such a worthy cause. This was before my politics had become too radicalized, but now, of course, it makes sense. One thing leads to another. I also had the fortune of living in one of those regions of the country where this subtext is barely concealed. Other Indiana folks will recognize the name of Murray Sperber, an IU professor and advocate of college athletics reform whose frequent clashes with our dear departed General was a source of much glee for the local yokels, for whom Saint Bobby was a marvelous stand-in, battling the forces of jelly-legged academia, the press, and anyone else who dared stand in the way of iron-fisted capitalism.
20 November 2007
The strategy
Markos Moulitsas is prepping us for the inevitable Democratic half-assery in 2008.
The Democratic Party: Not-Republican Since At Least 2003!
Consequently, to stand any chance of winning next year, Republicans must pray for a national amnesia to erase the previous eight years from the minds of voters. But amnesia only happens in soap operas—and that's why Democrats will win in 2008. As long as Democratic candidates remind voters that the Republican platform and Bush's record are one and the same, victory will be assured.
The Democratic Party: Not-Republican Since At Least 2003!
19 November 2007
Smut in the halls of power
Activist filmmaker Robert Greenwald, whose Brave New Films was behind the anti-Fox News documentary "Outfoxed," recently unleashed a new salvo at Uncle Rupert's fascist flagship. Turns out those stalwart defenders of humble American values have an inveterate affinity for softcore porn (video possibly not work-safe, if applicable). It's all in the name of good journalism, of course. Bill O'Reilly just wants you to be aware of all that scandalous behavior (ohhhh!) that those evil, evil secularists (ohhhhhh!) are trying to foist on your innocent children (wheeze).
This shouldn't come as much of a surprise. In fact, it's basically what you'd expect according to the laws of Puritans and Pornographers, the symbiotic cycle of outrage required to sustain each and who, as a result, tend to be represented by the same interests. An industry that is fueled by moral outrage needs something to perpetually provide the energy, and an industry relying on the allure of transgression needs someone to maintain that taboo. I've recently re-read Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, where he sits flummoxed at our Moral Guardians unwillingness to confront the mainstream merchants of sleaze driven by free-market capitalism while trying to pin down an elusive "liberal elite" who secretly control all of the entertainment world. And why should they? That would be self-indictment! (Not to mention bad for business.)
Let me take a moment to invoke Orwell again. You may remember in 1984 that, while the skin magazines were produced by the Party itself, they were strictly forbidden for Party members.. They were for proles only. This isn't a perfectly similar situation, but it is analogous, particularly when you consider the kinds of stories much of the Fox-smut is attached to.
I think there is another angle at work here among the kind of audience Fox typically attracts. I'm talking about the kind of conventionalist suburban professional who benefits politically from the Moral Guardians (and indeed may outwardly be one himself) but who is a little bit embarrassed by their prudery at times. After all, he likes to let his pants down after a hard day running over the American worker as much as the next shlub. I use the male term purposefully, since I suspect these people are almost universally men, and their compromises with the moral compass always have to do with sex. The rules for them can be bent, among other things. And as bad as he thinks those scolding Sunday-school teachers may be, he's sure the hippies are worse.
I'm fond of the saying that there's a fine line between Saturday night and Sunday morning. It's no longer a surprise to anyone that the anchors of our moral code are the ones frequently found violating it. Bill O'Reilly himself is a famous example, settling a sexual harassment suit out of court in 2004 in which his unique affinity for falafel was revealed to the world. But Papa Bear knows his place in the world; to keep you forever pointed in the wrong direction, away from his bosses who actually produce much of the degenerate entertainment the Guardians decry. Indeed, all the proof you need for this relationship's existence is in the Fox network itself, which regularly pushes the boundaries for sex and violence on broadcast TV.
Naturally, they doth protest just enough.
This shouldn't come as much of a surprise. In fact, it's basically what you'd expect according to the laws of Puritans and Pornographers, the symbiotic cycle of outrage required to sustain each and who, as a result, tend to be represented by the same interests. An industry that is fueled by moral outrage needs something to perpetually provide the energy, and an industry relying on the allure of transgression needs someone to maintain that taboo. I've recently re-read Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, where he sits flummoxed at our Moral Guardians unwillingness to confront the mainstream merchants of sleaze driven by free-market capitalism while trying to pin down an elusive "liberal elite" who secretly control all of the entertainment world. And why should they? That would be self-indictment! (Not to mention bad for business.)
Let me take a moment to invoke Orwell again. You may remember in 1984 that, while the skin magazines were produced by the Party itself, they were strictly forbidden for Party members.. They were for proles only. This isn't a perfectly similar situation, but it is analogous, particularly when you consider the kinds of stories much of the Fox-smut is attached to.
I think there is another angle at work here among the kind of audience Fox typically attracts. I'm talking about the kind of conventionalist suburban professional who benefits politically from the Moral Guardians (and indeed may outwardly be one himself) but who is a little bit embarrassed by their prudery at times. After all, he likes to let his pants down after a hard day running over the American worker as much as the next shlub. I use the male term purposefully, since I suspect these people are almost universally men, and their compromises with the moral compass always have to do with sex. The rules for them can be bent, among other things. And as bad as he thinks those scolding Sunday-school teachers may be, he's sure the hippies are worse.
I'm fond of the saying that there's a fine line between Saturday night and Sunday morning. It's no longer a surprise to anyone that the anchors of our moral code are the ones frequently found violating it. Bill O'Reilly himself is a famous example, settling a sexual harassment suit out of court in 2004 in which his unique affinity for falafel was revealed to the world. But Papa Bear knows his place in the world; to keep you forever pointed in the wrong direction, away from his bosses who actually produce much of the degenerate entertainment the Guardians decry. Indeed, all the proof you need for this relationship's existence is in the Fox network itself, which regularly pushes the boundaries for sex and violence on broadcast TV.
Naturally, they doth protest just enough.
18 November 2007
16 November 2007
America forever
From last night's Democratic debate in Las Vegas:
What we say goes.MR. BLITZER: So what's more important, human rights or national security?
SEN. DODD: Well, obviously national security, keeping the country safe. When you take the oath of office on January 20th you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously, yes, all right?
MR. BLITZER: All right. Okay, thank you.
SEN. DODD: Now secondly, this doesn't mean -- elections are only one note, as they say, in the tune of democracy here. Be careful what you wish for. If they were totally free elections in many of these countries we're talking about today, the Islamic jihad or the Islamic Brotherhood would win 85 percent of the vote. That's not a great outcome for us at this point here.
MR. BLITZER: All right.
....
MR. BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights.Senator Clinton, what do you say?
SEN. CLINTON: I agree with that completely. I mean the first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.
And there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States. That's what's so tragic about this situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were. We are now in a bind, and it is partly -- not completely, but partly -- a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
ATNNFFARP
All The News Not Fit For a Real Post
Remember the fan consortium attempting to buy an English football club? They've found one; Ebbsfleet United of the Blue Square Premiere, the fifth tier of English football.
Awesome-sauce story of the week. The U.S. Women's Bridge Team has caused a worldwide furor with a spontaneous anti-Bush sign at an international competition. The local brownshirts are unhappy.
A Tiny Revolution explains the world. It's important to remember that, by their nature, right-wing nationalist regimes will inevitably come in contact with each other and, as a result, adopt legitimate critiques of the other. There's no need for progressives to feel embarrassed about the neocons sudden concern for human rights in Iran, being as transparently opportunistic as it is now that they'd like to bomb the Iranian regime. It's not easy to do this, of course, but important.
Remember the fan consortium attempting to buy an English football club? They've found one; Ebbsfleet United of the Blue Square Premiere, the fifth tier of English football.
Awesome-sauce story of the week. The U.S. Women's Bridge Team has caused a worldwide furor with a spontaneous anti-Bush sign at an international competition. The local brownshirts are unhappy.
A Tiny Revolution explains the world. It's important to remember that, by their nature, right-wing nationalist regimes will inevitably come in contact with each other and, as a result, adopt legitimate critiques of the other. There's no need for progressives to feel embarrassed about the neocons sudden concern for human rights in Iran, being as transparently opportunistic as it is now that they'd like to bomb the Iranian regime. It's not easy to do this, of course, but important.
15 November 2007
13 November 2007
On the wall
I've been meaning for awhile to put up a more thorough analysis of the recent explosion of aggressively anti-religion* literature and its tripartite vanguard of evangelists Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. Mostly because I have little interest in actually reading any of their screeds, which seem to amount to little more than "fundamentalism sucks, therefore all religion is a cancer." It also reeks of the kind of intellectual elitism ("easy enlightenment through rejection of theism!") that tends to be incompatible with genuine left-populist politics (witness the decline of the aforementioned Hitchens, whose "bomb Teh Moozlims!" repetition has soured some of the AAR crowd but shouldn't surprise them.).
There is also the occasional habit of these folks to exhibit some of the more annoying features of the religious fundamentalists they claim to abhor. Most recently, concern that the Hollywood film version of Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass will downplay the book's anti-religious sentiment. Flip sides and reverse two years, of course, and you could have found much the same thing being said about the film version of Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.** Altemeyer's book only describes in detail what he calls "right-wing authoritarians" (RWA) and the difference between them and anti-authoritarians. However, he does mention in passing left-wing authoritarians, the kind of people who slavishly follow whichever leaders are trying to overthrow the established order. Altemeyer doesn't elaborate much on this except to cite some radicals of the 60's and 70's as potential examples of LWAs. I think I have an idea where he might find a few of them remaining.
*I don't like to use the term "atheist" to describe them, since their beliefs typically greatly exceed the limited definition of atheist, which is simply a metaphysical statement about the existence or non-existence of a deity. It has nothing to say about "delusional, irrational, child-abusing God-botherers." "Anti-religious" casts a much wider net, and dismisses the term "fundamentalist atheist," which the AARs love to claim is a contradiction in terms (which it may be, but it's also irrelevant, as they aren't merely atheists.)
**Not coincidentally, in a way, since Pullman intended His Dark Materials to be a counterpoint of The Chronicles of Narnia. General consensus seems to be that Pullman was moving along fine through the first two books, before the third book devolved into an anvilicious nightmare. Which is what you'd expect from someone who doesn't trust his unenlightened audience to appreciate the Very Important Message he's preaching.
There is also the occasional habit of these folks to exhibit some of the more annoying features of the religious fundamentalists they claim to abhor. Most recently, concern that the Hollywood film version of Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass will downplay the book's anti-religious sentiment. Flip sides and reverse two years, of course, and you could have found much the same thing being said about the film version of Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.** Altemeyer's book only describes in detail what he calls "right-wing authoritarians" (RWA) and the difference between them and anti-authoritarians. However, he does mention in passing left-wing authoritarians, the kind of people who slavishly follow whichever leaders are trying to overthrow the established order. Altemeyer doesn't elaborate much on this except to cite some radicals of the 60's and 70's as potential examples of LWAs. I think I have an idea where he might find a few of them remaining.
*I don't like to use the term "atheist" to describe them, since their beliefs typically greatly exceed the limited definition of atheist, which is simply a metaphysical statement about the existence or non-existence of a deity. It has nothing to say about "delusional, irrational, child-abusing God-botherers." "Anti-religious" casts a much wider net, and dismisses the term "fundamentalist atheist," which the AARs love to claim is a contradiction in terms (which it may be, but it's also irrelevant, as they aren't merely atheists.)
**Not coincidentally, in a way, since Pullman intended His Dark Materials to be a counterpoint of The Chronicles of Narnia. General consensus seems to be that Pullman was moving along fine through the first two books, before the third book devolved into an anvilicious nightmare. Which is what you'd expect from someone who doesn't trust his unenlightened audience to appreciate the Very Important Message he's preaching.
08 November 2007
The great commission
Saw this sad bit of business at LGM on Monday.
Something I've rattling around in my head for a couple of months--mainly due to my Orwell binge last summer--is the idea of the USA as a parallel to the mid-to-late stage Soviet Union, particularly in its willing ignorance of The Rest of the World (TROTW). The Soviets, of course, tried to convince the population of the decadent West, which, because it was depraved and unsustainable and always facing imminent collapse, was always scheming and plotting ways to choke off the Motherland. Americans likewise have a fantasy about TROTW and its far-reaching anti-American conspiracy fueled by its Godless, socialistic heresies which, any day now, will bring it to its knees.
During the Cold War, Americans used to boast that they were electing "the leader of the Free World." It was never suggested that the rest of the Free World should perhaps get to vote on the people who are going to have such monumental influence over their lives. But American voters have never taken the thought of voting with a more global conscience particularly seriously. And, as anti-immigrant stories like the one above show, we're increasingly shutting out how TROTW lives from our consideration.
I'll write more about some of the possible institutional reasons for this phenomenon when I write about Michael Moore's Sicko this weekend.
Something I've rattling around in my head for a couple of months--mainly due to my Orwell binge last summer--is the idea of the USA as a parallel to the mid-to-late stage Soviet Union, particularly in its willing ignorance of The Rest of the World (TROTW). The Soviets, of course, tried to convince the population of the decadent West, which, because it was depraved and unsustainable and always facing imminent collapse, was always scheming and plotting ways to choke off the Motherland. Americans likewise have a fantasy about TROTW and its far-reaching anti-American conspiracy fueled by its Godless, socialistic heresies which, any day now, will bring it to its knees.
During the Cold War, Americans used to boast that they were electing "the leader of the Free World." It was never suggested that the rest of the Free World should perhaps get to vote on the people who are going to have such monumental influence over their lives. But American voters have never taken the thought of voting with a more global conscience particularly seriously. And, as anti-immigrant stories like the one above show, we're increasingly shutting out how TROTW lives from our consideration.
I'll write more about some of the possible institutional reasons for this phenomenon when I write about Michael Moore's Sicko this weekend.
07 November 2007
Paulyannas
Greenwald yesterday had an interesting piece on Ron Paul, the Libertarian-slash-Republican presidential candidate who caused a stir recently by announcing a record day of internet fundraising ($4.2 million in 24 hours). He salutes Paul for making waves outside of the acceptable boundaries set up by mainstream pundits, and the Republicans have been playing Whack-A-Mole trying to make him go away. Even though this is only really true of Paul's foreign policy stances, it's still worth celebrating modestly.
Paul's views on interventionism have been getting him a lot of mainstream attention, and he obviously enjoys a lot of support from techno-libertarians who prowl the internet like predators looking for any mention of Paul they can pounce on.* What's particularly disappointing, however, is that Paul is sucking up a lot of support that could be occupied by a similarly antiwar but progressive candidate were they not all cowed by the ever-present smears of "Naderism." Paul even sprinkles his antiwar messages with terms like "imperialism" that you'd expect to hear from a hippy-dippy lefty, but the best we can do remains bumblin' Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich, God love him, seems like a nice guy who's only running because he's the only one naive enough to think he can make the Democrats pay any attention to the progressive caucus of their party.
Of course, I have a long list of disagreements with the rest of Paul's political philosophy, and even his isolationism is based more on old-fashioned chauvinism** than international cooperation, but if the Paulites manage to somehow pull it off in the Republican primary it would be an unequivocally positive development. Reforming the imperial strategy will, I think, be the most important issue of the 2008 election, and he is infinitely saner than all the other Republicans, and even some Democrats, here. If nothing else he would throw the Democrats a curveball of the standard Republican bogeyman they've grown so accustomed to attacking.
It's also possible, as I mentioned in a previous post, that Paul could jump ship and run as a third-party, particularly if he fares well in the primaries. I don't think this is terribly likely, but Paul is 72 years old and might just go for the hell of it. He has previously run as the Libertarian nominee in 1988. All these possibilities for major party crackups are just too delicious to be true. If Paul does win the Republican nomination, they will almost certainly prop up a Big "Murica establishment candidate against him, possibly Bloomberg who, although no longer a Republican officially, would have a niche to fill. You have the Dobsonites threatening to split if Rudy's the nominee, though they'd likely settle for the anti-abortion Paul. You have the Broderist wet-dream Unity08, which deserves its own post. And any combination or all of this would liberate a lot of progressives from the yokes of Democrats whining about spoilers, especially if Hillary is the nominee, which seems nearly inevitable now. If only we could find a candidate....
*Elsewhere at Salon, Andrew Leonard considers the prevalence of the techno-libertarian. It's a compelling case, but I see it as more simply a belief in inevitable improvement through technological progress with themselves as the vanguard, who ought not be encumbered by the concerns of the non-interfacing mortals ("who will rid me of these troublesome proles?").
**I disagree with Greenwald here that Paul's connections to extremist groups are entirely irrelevant. While this isn't to say he endorses all of their doctrines, there is a good reason why he tends to be the favorite of white supremacists and ultra-nativists.
Paul's views on interventionism have been getting him a lot of mainstream attention, and he obviously enjoys a lot of support from techno-libertarians who prowl the internet like predators looking for any mention of Paul they can pounce on.* What's particularly disappointing, however, is that Paul is sucking up a lot of support that could be occupied by a similarly antiwar but progressive candidate were they not all cowed by the ever-present smears of "Naderism." Paul even sprinkles his antiwar messages with terms like "imperialism" that you'd expect to hear from a hippy-dippy lefty, but the best we can do remains bumblin' Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich, God love him, seems like a nice guy who's only running because he's the only one naive enough to think he can make the Democrats pay any attention to the progressive caucus of their party.
Of course, I have a long list of disagreements with the rest of Paul's political philosophy, and even his isolationism is based more on old-fashioned chauvinism** than international cooperation, but if the Paulites manage to somehow pull it off in the Republican primary it would be an unequivocally positive development. Reforming the imperial strategy will, I think, be the most important issue of the 2008 election, and he is infinitely saner than all the other Republicans, and even some Democrats, here. If nothing else he would throw the Democrats a curveball of the standard Republican bogeyman they've grown so accustomed to attacking.
It's also possible, as I mentioned in a previous post, that Paul could jump ship and run as a third-party, particularly if he fares well in the primaries. I don't think this is terribly likely, but Paul is 72 years old and might just go for the hell of it. He has previously run as the Libertarian nominee in 1988. All these possibilities for major party crackups are just too delicious to be true. If Paul does win the Republican nomination, they will almost certainly prop up a Big "Murica establishment candidate against him, possibly Bloomberg who, although no longer a Republican officially, would have a niche to fill. You have the Dobsonites threatening to split if Rudy's the nominee, though they'd likely settle for the anti-abortion Paul. You have the Broderist wet-dream Unity08, which deserves its own post. And any combination or all of this would liberate a lot of progressives from the yokes of Democrats whining about spoilers, especially if Hillary is the nominee, which seems nearly inevitable now. If only we could find a candidate....
*Elsewhere at Salon, Andrew Leonard considers the prevalence of the techno-libertarian. It's a compelling case, but I see it as more simply a belief in inevitable improvement through technological progress with themselves as the vanguard, who ought not be encumbered by the concerns of the non-interfacing mortals ("who will rid me of these troublesome proles?").
**I disagree with Greenwald here that Paul's connections to extremist groups are entirely irrelevant. While this isn't to say he endorses all of their doctrines, there is a good reason why he tends to be the favorite of white supremacists and ultra-nativists.
05 November 2007
Dead certainty
Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight is the kind of no-nonsense, straight-laced documentary that has the critics swooning and Academy Award nomination written all over it. While I don't think it is the be-all and end-all for Iraq films, it is very powerful inside its limited scope, though I did find it lacking one important element.
The great majority of the film concerns the calamitous first six months of the occupation, where one disastrous decision after another by the Bush Administration quickly ended any possibility of a peaceful transition to democracy (provided any such possibility ever existed, which I'll talk about in a moment). Widely praised for his strict adherence to "insiders" as talking heads, former reconstruction officials, journalists, etc., Ferguson covers a time period which often goes forgotten and chronicles the policy of ignorance and outright callousness that is frequently shocking and always infuriating.
It began with the reassignment of Iraqi reconstruction from the State Department to the Pentagon, ignoring the piles of research State had already compiled. Rumsfeld then turned a deaf ear to several of his top generals suggesting that far more troops would be needed for the occupation and instead sent in a force inadequate to stop the widespread looting and trashing of the country that immediately followed the end of the war--including the destruction of much of the Iraqi National Museum, home to some of the most prized treasures of ancient Mesopotamian archeology.
The film interviews at length Gen. Jay Garner, the man initially left in charge of the reconstruction without much in the way of a plan or support from his superiors, a oft-repeated lament from other reconstruction staffers. Garner was quickly replaced by L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which proceeded to turn a budding disaster into a hellish catastrophe. Bremer staffed much of the CPA with the recently-graduated sons and daughters of Republican donors, often in positions where they had no experience or training, such as handing over control of Baghdad's traffic control to one fresh-faced "intern" with no municipal planning experience. Years later, the rest of the world would learn of the American preference for cronyism when we found out the hard way that the man in charge of emergency response was much better qualified to maintain Arabian horses (but he was Somebody who knew Somebody, and that's how our capitalism works).
The dizzying failure climaxed with "deBa'athification", the firing of much of the former government staff, and the disbanding of the Iraqi military. Not only did this remove a large pool of ready-made knowledgeable civil servants and security forces, it left many influential people angry and unemployed, a great many of whom were also very well-schooled in the art of blowing things up.
What the film doesn't offer is any kind of explanation for why Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bremer made those disastrous decisions. There's never any suggestion of whether there was an official malicious philosophy or whether they were simply Very Stupid People making Very Bad Decisions. The film did take some antiwar criticism for providing cover to the "incompetence dodge" of liberal hawks who claim everything would have gone just swell if only they had been in charge rather than Bush's bumbling band. There might be something to this, although we should perhaps give Ferguson some benefit of the doubt; none of the aforementioned Bush dead-enders would appear on camera, and no one suggests that a more competent reconstruction would have justified the military action. (As you might guess, I think there were reasons, but they'll have to wait until I get to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which has been sitting on my desk waiting for a review for a few weeks now.)
Despite its flaw, though, the movie does have its utility, particularly for those few straggling remnants of the Gospel Band looking for American benevolence in Iraq, convinced every bit of bad news is courtesy of the stab-in-the-back liberal media. If their persistence survives No End in Sight, they are truly impervious to reality.
No End in Sight trailer
The great majority of the film concerns the calamitous first six months of the occupation, where one disastrous decision after another by the Bush Administration quickly ended any possibility of a peaceful transition to democracy (provided any such possibility ever existed, which I'll talk about in a moment). Widely praised for his strict adherence to "insiders" as talking heads, former reconstruction officials, journalists, etc., Ferguson covers a time period which often goes forgotten and chronicles the policy of ignorance and outright callousness that is frequently shocking and always infuriating.
It began with the reassignment of Iraqi reconstruction from the State Department to the Pentagon, ignoring the piles of research State had already compiled. Rumsfeld then turned a deaf ear to several of his top generals suggesting that far more troops would be needed for the occupation and instead sent in a force inadequate to stop the widespread looting and trashing of the country that immediately followed the end of the war--including the destruction of much of the Iraqi National Museum, home to some of the most prized treasures of ancient Mesopotamian archeology.
The film interviews at length Gen. Jay Garner, the man initially left in charge of the reconstruction without much in the way of a plan or support from his superiors, a oft-repeated lament from other reconstruction staffers. Garner was quickly replaced by L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which proceeded to turn a budding disaster into a hellish catastrophe. Bremer staffed much of the CPA with the recently-graduated sons and daughters of Republican donors, often in positions where they had no experience or training, such as handing over control of Baghdad's traffic control to one fresh-faced "intern" with no municipal planning experience. Years later, the rest of the world would learn of the American preference for cronyism when we found out the hard way that the man in charge of emergency response was much better qualified to maintain Arabian horses (but he was Somebody who knew Somebody, and that's how our capitalism works).
The dizzying failure climaxed with "deBa'athification", the firing of much of the former government staff, and the disbanding of the Iraqi military. Not only did this remove a large pool of ready-made knowledgeable civil servants and security forces, it left many influential people angry and unemployed, a great many of whom were also very well-schooled in the art of blowing things up.
What the film doesn't offer is any kind of explanation for why Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bremer made those disastrous decisions. There's never any suggestion of whether there was an official malicious philosophy or whether they were simply Very Stupid People making Very Bad Decisions. The film did take some antiwar criticism for providing cover to the "incompetence dodge" of liberal hawks who claim everything would have gone just swell if only they had been in charge rather than Bush's bumbling band. There might be something to this, although we should perhaps give Ferguson some benefit of the doubt; none of the aforementioned Bush dead-enders would appear on camera, and no one suggests that a more competent reconstruction would have justified the military action. (As you might guess, I think there were reasons, but they'll have to wait until I get to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which has been sitting on my desk waiting for a review for a few weeks now.)
Despite its flaw, though, the movie does have its utility, particularly for those few straggling remnants of the Gospel Band looking for American benevolence in Iraq, convinced every bit of bad news is courtesy of the stab-in-the-back liberal media. If their persistence survives No End in Sight, they are truly impervious to reality.
No End in Sight trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
