Monday, September 24, 2007

Post-Mortem America

We are told that in the weeks before 9/11, then CIA chief George Tenet and his colleagues across the intelligence community were so alarmed by the flood of reports about an impending major terrorist attack that they felt their "hair was on fire." God only knows what the truth of this self-serving, after-the-fact assertion might be, but it is indeed an apt term for a sense of imminent doom in the public sphere. And given the headlong rush to a new war against Iran, and the G-force acceleration into the tyranny of a lawless, all-encompassing surveillance state that is unfolding before our eyes -- not to mention the Democratic Party's complete abandonment of even the pretense of carrying out the people's mandate and opposing the Administration's maniacal, murderous, criminal policies -- anyone whose hair isn't on fire today is either brain-dead, bought-off, or an active, eager, conniving traitor to the American people, and the human race.
Chris Floyd wrote that today. It is a fitting introduction to this post I've been trying to try to write for weeks now.

I'd strongly recommend reading this Chris Floyd essay from 3 weeks ago, as well as these 3 responses to it: Arthur Silber, IOZ, and Jim Henley. Those links contained well expressed thoughts by excellent writers. All of them have their hair on fire. So do I. And if you don't, you're either brain-dead, bought-off, or an active, eager conniving traitor to the American people, and the human race.

Floyd begins:

Tomorrow is here. The game is over. The crisis has passed -- and the patient is dead. Whatever dream you had about what America is, it isn't that anymore. It's gone. And not just in some abstract sense, some metaphorical or mythological sense, but down in the nitty-gritty, in the concrete realities of institutional structures and legal frameworks, of policy and process, even down to the physical nature of the landscape and the way that people live.

The Republic you wanted -- and at one time might have had the power to take back -- is finished. You no longer have the power to keep it; it's not there ... Beaten, abused, diseased and abandoned, it finally died. We are living in its grave.
I don't think there's really any question that Chris Floyd is right. We're living in a different country than the idealistic America we grew up believing in, and we're little more than subjects of an elite ruling class that cares nothing for anything but preserving and expanding their own influence. Read his entire essay.

Then go read Arthur's, which puts the Bush carnage in a larger context.

The destruction of America has been accomplished in the manner of a particularly skillful and diabolical con game: it has been done completely in the open. No one was fooled or misled. The ruling class has always stated explicitly exactly what they intended to do -- and then they did it. You didn't think they meant it, not really, not all the way down.

But they did. They counted on the great majority of Americans not to believe what was directly before their eyes, or to identify its full, inevitable meaning. Most of you obliged. Most of you still oblige. They could not ask for more.

And most Americans still don't believe the destruction has already occurred, because there is no thunderous crashing of chords, no widespread calamity or destruction (at least, not yet, although we've had some previews) or, as Chris puts it, it won't come "with jackboots and book burnings," or with "tanks on the street." Poor, pitiful, pathetic Americans: it isn't like a movie.

And so it has come to pass. The lives of most Americans will go on as before, for that is the plan and the point. Be careful not to credit the ruling class with too much cleverness or intelligence for having achieved their heinous end, for most of them don't begin to understand what they're doing either. They are moved for the most part by the views of the "consensus," which views come from they not know where, nor do they care about or understand the original reasons. Their concern is much narrower: consolidating and expanding their own power, and that of the State. Their focus is on how power is actualized in the petty, sordid details of their pallid, drab, arid lives. The larger dynamics never concerned them, and they don't give a damn about any of that today.

So now that we see the big picture for what it is, the question now is what the hell are we supposed to do about it? It is impossible to imagine the massive uprising that would required for genuine change actually coming into being.

Winter Patriot had the idea of a general strike on 9/11/07. Did you hear about that? Me neither.

Capt. Fogg reacts understandably to the whole mess:
I'm past caring. America will do the stupid thing - we always do and when the piper presents his invoice we will spend generations rewriting history to protect the idiots - we always do. And then we'll do it again, using fake lessons from this debacle to justify another one. We always do.
It takes the slightest knowledge of history to get the "we always do" sentiment, unfortunately Americans have no understanding of history. And Americans won't do shit about any of this. So,
First noting that we're now past any Liberty-or-Death moments for the salvation of the Republic, and further noting that violent revolutions, even where possible, aren't generally advisable or supportable, the question naturally arises: what now? The answer is not much. In large part the more pertinent question is simply how do we as individuals comport ourselves to post-citizen lives? Where do we make accommodations and accessions, and where do we offer our small resistances. What does will it mean to be a subject in the era after consensual government? What power, if any, will we have to mitigate the evils of empire abroad? Since the institutions of democracy will remain superficially central to the United States (Rome retained a Senate), to what degree is it useful or valid to participate in the preserved processes of actual democracy? Is it now meaningful to take sides in the factional disputes that will continue in the immediate future as our governors sort out their tribal affiliations and solidify a neater process of succession? What are the ethical and moral obligations of the subject, as opposed to the citizen, for the actions of his nation? If we are to some degree absolved of responsibility and culpability for something like the coming bombing of Iran, does that also abrogate our calling to speak out against it? To what extent does it remain valid to cite the extant catechisms of Republican government--the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the ideals of the Framers--and to what extent is that citation merely willful complicity in a charade?

As a wise man once said, How the fuck should I know?
I think there are two reasons we ask those kinds of questions. First, we have some sense of moral decency (a.k.a. "moral casuistry and solipsism"). When we see something bad happening, we want to try to stop it. But what if we can't? That leads to the the second reason, which is for the sake of our own sanity.

Chris, Arthur, and IOZ seem to converge on two main strategies for dealing with our moral and mental health concerns. We can refuse to acknowledge the illegitimate power our government has amassed, with Thoreau-like nuggets of civil disobedience, taking that as far as we can safely take it. And we can insist on calling things by their rightful names.

"Torture is torture. War crimes are war crimes. Police-state procedures are police-state procedures." Jim Henley says that calling things by their true names is what "bitching on the internet" (a.k.a. blogging) is all about. It helps us feel less crazy in this up-is-down, black-is-white world, and it offers some feeling of moral contribution, because "[a]t minimum, the collective record of American dissent might be some minor use to the next crew that decides to give the liberty thing a go."

So is there anything more we can do than honest bitching and minor resistance? What about Winter Patriot's general strike? Floyd concludes his article today with the acknowledgment that any efforts are almost certain to fail to divert disaster. But,
We must keep sounding the alarm, even in the face of almost certain defeat. What else is our humanity worth if we don't do that? And if, in the end, all that we've accomplished is to keep the smallest spark of light alive, to help smuggle it through an age of darkness to some better, brighter time ahead, is that not worth the full measure of struggle?
Do something. Anything.

2 comments:

Mox said...

I'm intrigued - how do you reconcile your knowledge of history with your other point, which is that this particular and most recent affront is somehow the end of democracy in the U.S. (as opposed to all the other awful things our government has gotten up to in the past, including the ridiculous Alien and Sedition Acts of the post-revolutionary period and the Espionage Act and Sedition Act of the WW1 era, which are clearly even more despicable infringements of free speech than the Patriot Act and associated government goings-on of the recent past). This isn't to play down your anger at the way our government is functioning today, I just wonder if you REALLY think this is somehow a special case. I think the devil's advocate position that this is, in fact, the way that human governments/societies function, and have always functioned, is quite strong - all the way back to Rome and its Senate, and beyond.

chuck zoi said...

I'm down with your line of thinking, and to some extent when people start talking about how terrible Bush is, I wince for this exact reason. The truth is that I have no idea how to objectively judge whether the line was drawn in 2003 or 1940 or 1919 or 1776 or 100 BC or fucking 10,000 BC.

So to answer your specific question, I'm not sure that it is quite my own point that this particular and most recent affront is the end. I'm not sure that that which is supposed to be ending really ever existed. My point, if not the way I wrote it earlier, then now, is that the illusion is over, at least for me. If it ever lived, it is definitely dead now. If I anyone ever had an excuse to believe in it, that excuse is gone. And that might be only because these most recent affronts were so fucking egregious that they made me go learn some history and make sense of it all. Actually this was kind of the point Arthur made today:

It is true that the style of the Bush administration is notably crude and aggressive. But if genuine, widespread opposition to the administration's policies had existed, Bush would never have been able to enact his program in the first place -- and the Democratic Congress would not continue to ratify and sanctify his crimes, as they have done and continue to do. When one appreciates the historic continuity which gave rise to this abominable administration and without which this administration would not have been possible, and when one considers the particular style in which Bush, Cheney and the rest present their program, it is as if they are saying -- both to the nominal "opposition" party and to all Americans:

**We're doing what this government has done for over a hundred years. We start wars of aggression to establish American dominance around the world. We began that policy in the 1890s, and we've never stopped. Sometimes we do it through covert operations, and by toppling regimes that won't do as we demand. Sometimes we simply invade and bomb them.

And we've used torture as a standard means of warfare for decades. We just used to hide it better, and we had better PR about how we weren't "really like that." Some of you even said you wanted torture to be brought out "into the open." So we did that.

Beginning with Woodrow Wilson and even before that, the ruling class has wanted a powerful police state here at home. We never kept it a secret, but we made it go down more easily with flowery talk and nice phrases.

We decided to do away with all the camouflage. We recognized what the actual aims had been all along and we agreed with them, so we decided to bring it all out into the open. We didn't want to waste time with all those nice speeches that make people feel better about themselves. Oh, sure, we still do that to some extent. We have to, because you're not willing to face the truth about what we've been doing around the world for 60 years and more, and what we do today.

But we stripped away a lot of the delusions. We knew no one would stop us -- because this is what you've wanted all along, and it's what you want now. You like making the rest of the world do what we tell them. You enjoy it. And whenever you have the slightest excuse for it, real or imagined, wide scale murder doesn't bother you in the least.

You like it. It's what you want. If it isn't, why don't you stop us? You could, you know. If enough of you made your objections known in ways that mattered, we'd have to stop. We're not worried, because we know you won't.

But go ahead. Try to stop us. Try to stop this war and the wars to come, and the mass slaughter, and the growing authoritarianism. Aren't you going to at least try? Aren't you?

Go ahead. We dare you.**

And what's the answer from almost all of you, and from almost all Americans?

Exactly. That's what they counted on. They were right.