EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dark of Heartness, Part II
Compassionless Conservatives
Part I of this essay can be viewed here.
Et tu, Wolfie? Et tu?
Imagine our shock at Paul Wolfowitz's shock. He not only masterminded humanity's greatest current catastrophe, the US invasion of Iraq, but he did so by fabricating and marketing a complete mythological cosmology of Good versus Evil (Bush good! Saddam bad!), the likes of which might have left even Jim Jones envious and amazed. And he did so in a fashion that no doubt brought a posthumous smile to the face of his graduate school mentor, Leo Strauss, who taught that we of the hoi polloi don't have the right stuff to maintain our democracy, and thus need enlightened elites like Wolfowitz to spoon feed us religion and other fairytales in order to keep us on the right course, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.
But then, of course, the whole dang thing came a cropper in Baghdad, and - as if the symmetries between Vietnam and Iraq weren't already spookily profound enough - Wolfie found himself following the trail of shame pioneered by Robert McNamara, casually parachuting out of his Pentagon office and into the presidency of the World Bank. (Does this mean that, like McNamara, thirty years from now Wolfowitz will be the subject of a feature film in which he kinda sorta apologizes for his grand goof? We'll just have to wait and see if he becomes the last human on earth to recognize the full magnitude of his spectacular achievement in Mesopotamia.) Meanwhile, safely ensconced at the apex of financial (as opposed to military) power, Wolfowitz simply refused any longer to answer questions related to his previous employment. Though the dead and the dying of Iraq will not be any time soon, Wolfowitz had simply moved on.
And, with seemingly nary a whiff of irony about him, he came to his new position preaching the virtues of 'accountability'. Moreover, Wolfowitz - dictatorial leadership style no worse for wear after the last go 'round - blasted into the World Bank declaring that the evils of corruption were the key source of global development problems, and that rooting them out would become job one at the Bank. But now he and his supporters, including the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the White House, profess shock at all the hullabaloo generated by the revelation that the anti-corruption president was ordering up massive promotions for his girlfriend (also his employee) while simultaneously preaching the gospel of squeaky clean, again with no apparent sense of irony. So Mr. Accountability is now running around trying to make sure that no one holds Mr. Anti-Corruption accountable for his corruption. Meanwhile, Mr. It's-All-About-Me is utterly uncomprehending when it comes to understanding other people's feelings about all this.
What's going on, here? Sadly, a pattern.
But at least one which we've finally figured out. Did you here about the recent study in which biologists discovered an overwhelmingly robust relationship between genetics and ideology? It seems that, like chimps (with no offense intended to my furry primate friends), conservatives are 99.87 percent identical to fully developed homo sapiens, except that they are missing one particular strand of DNA that scientists say is intimately linked with the human capacity for compassion.
In the world of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the fact that the above paragraph is not true (or at least not yet; or at least not to my knowledge) would, of course, be a fact of little consequence (in fact, it wouldn't be a fact at all). If the assertion had any utility in advancing one or more of their venal objectives, it would be promptly employed, regardless of its veracity. Like, for example - and I'll just make something up at random here - mushroom cloud smoking guns, or knowing for sure where the WMD were stashed in Iraq (around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat, of course).
And its too bad I'm not self-loathing enough to traffic in the sort of bald-faced lies which have become a staple of the regressive diet in recent decades, because this scientific non-finding concerning the missing bit of DNA would otherwise explain so much, wouldn't it?
Have you noticed with the regressive right how the rules that they love to apply to you and me somehow don't seem to apply to them? And that when those rules inevitably come crashing into even their privileged lives that they miraculously have a change of heart? And it does happen inevitably. As even the non-regressive New Jersey governor Jon Corzine just found out, while politicians may often successfully place themselves above the law, the laws of physics offer no such exemptions to either the rich or the powerful (and Corzine is very much both). (Note to the good folks reading this: Wear your seatbelt. Note to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of youse nasties: Your safety belt usage is optional.)
But, seriously, have you noticed that the only time you see compassion from conservatives is when it applies to them (which means, of course, that it's not really compassion at all)? That's just the pattern, isn't it? That's precisely how it works. The examples are myriad.
Quick, name one conservative figure who is an avid supporter of ending the gun madness which claims thirty thousand casualties in this country every year. Why, it's James Brady. How could we possibly explain the uniqueness of this apostasy by a former leading figure in the Reagan administration? Could it have anything to do with the bullet that penetrated his skull in the course of the attempt on Reagan's life?
And while we're talking Reagans, how 'bout that Nancy, eh? She's a solid citizen, isn't she? A good, old-fashioned regressive from the Marie Antoinette school. A firm supporter of tax cuts for the rich, war-mongering wherever possible, and eviscerating school lunch programs for indigent children (what, you have a problem with counting ketchup as a vegetable?). Except, of course, for one issue where she's broken publicly with the troglodyte tendency: stem cell research. What's amazing about that, if you think about it, is the massive coincidence of her position on that issue and the fact that she suffered for years taking care of her husband while Alzheimer's - a disease likely to be cured by such research - turned his brain to mush. What a bizarre, random, happenstance!
If your heart bleeds for Nancy, it must surely go out to Dick Cheney, who could (literally and figuratively) badly use it. Don't you just feel awful for this guy, the way he gets roughed up over his daughter's sexual orientation? When she and her lesbian partner gave birth to a child they are raising together, journalists actually asked Grandad questions about that! With such impudence having consumed the bold gatekeepers of the Fourth Estate, it is no wonder Cheney got all huffy and refused to answer. For crissakes, you'd think he was one of those crass politicians who win elections by using gays as political whipping boys or something! Cheney seems to be saying that people's sexual orientation is their own business, not the government's, and I for one am glad that he's there in Washington making sure that's so. You go, Dick!
I'm also glad that Jeb Bush is out there protecting us from the thinly-veiled racism that politicians of a certain persuasion are fond of using when (gay-bashing having lost its bite), they pontificate with malice aforethought about the current illegal immigration 'crisis'. Not Jeb, though. He's a regular profile in courage. That's why it was reported that "the Florida governor calls the anti‑immigration 'chest pounding' of politicians hurtful". You really have to admire selfless politicians like Jebby, willing to cut across the vicious political grain of the regressive right, with nothing in it for themselves, and stand four-square behind fundamental human rights principles like..., like..., well, like not demonizing immigrants in order to score political points. Oh, did I mention that Jeb's wife Columba is Mexican?
If you're like me, you've long recognized Trent Lott and his Republican colleagues as stalwart advocates for the ordinary guy against the evils of corporate predators continually seeking to ransack hapless Americans, pin them to the wall, and fleece them mercilessly. Frankly, looking at the senator's voting record in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, draconian bankruptcy laws, or meat-axe cuts to social spending can be a bit deceiving. He's really a powerful voice in Washington for the downtrodden who are forever getting kicked around by big business. It was no surprise, then, that Lott was fuming at the despicable treatment that insurance companies doled out to the already miserable citizens of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina destroyed their homes. Who wouldn't be incensed at the insurance companies refusing to pay off claims due to policyholders? "I am outraged," he said. "I'm concerned there are lots of abuses in the aftermath of the hurricane." Of course, given his well-established track record fighting for the little guy, I doubt seriously that State Farm's rejection of Lott's personal claim for his loss of a $400,000 home had anything to do with his position on this issue. (Memo to State Farm CEO: Fire your entire senior management team for a complete absence of political savvy. Memo to State Farm Board: Fire your CEO for making lousy personnel choices.)
You see the same kind of thing with guys like Clarence Thomas, who vigilantly and even vehemently guards the barricades against the societal corrosion endemic to programs like affirmative action. Apparently, nothing so incenses the good justice more than the idea that historically thwarted classes of individuals might get some remedial assistance from governing institutions to overcome the barriers they still face today. Preposterous! Offensive! Outrageous! Rightly so, Judge T. has so far found only one single individual for whom the advantages of affirmative action seem to pass muster against his strict criteria for protection of the endangered commonweal. What is so bizarre is the remarkable coincidence in all this: This person has exactly the same name as the judge! (Whether he also shares Justice Thomas' passion for pornography is unknown at this time.)
But you gotta love Matthew Dowd, especially. With the exception of Karl Rove, perhaps no one in the world is more responsible for making sure that George W. Bush is your president. It seems that Dowd, the chief campaign strategist for the 2004 Bush campaign, was just utterly enthralled with the personality of Young George, going all the way back to Texas days. And who could blame him for that? Smart, articulate, heroic, uniting, tolerant, wise - George W. Bush has it all. "It's almost like you fall in love", Dowd said (not that kind of love, of course - even Cheney's not up for this one). So Matt did what needed to be done (and, trust me on this, there was a lot, and it was ugly) to push The Disaster That Is Bush over the finish line in 2004. Now, barely two years later, he reveals that it was a mistake, so much so that recently he had actually even written an op-ed piece entitled "Kerry Was Right". He somehow never quite managed to submit it, but that's another story.
Dowd ran the 2004 campaign around security fears, arguing that voters "trust this president more than they trust [flip-flopping] Senator Kerry on Iraq". Now he tells us he was wrong. Wow, you don't see that happen every day, and kudos to Dowd for his courageous statements. I'm quite sure they had nothing to do with the fact that the Bush administration is about to ship his son Daniel over to Iraq. I also doubt that fact has anything to do with why Daniel's father now says "I do feel a calling of trying to re‑establish a level of gentleness in the world". I agree that's a pretty good idea, Matt. I even thought it was a good idea in 2004.
These are all great examples of concerned conservative compassion, but my true favorites are the ones regarding criminal justice values. You know, like Rush Limbaugh, who regularly rails on about how we should string up druggies and how there's nothing wrong with denying due process to those bad people incarcerated at Guantánamo. How different was his tune when 'prosecutorial zealousness' and bias led to his arrest for drug abuse, and when he was, I'm pretty sure, glad to have a high-priced lawyer, appellate courts, and the right to throw bail. Then there was Bob Ney and Mark Foley entering alcohol rehab programs after being exposed as thieves and perverts. Gosh, whatever happened to that old time religion of 'personal responsibility'? Or how about Bush administration insider David Safavian pleading for leniency from the court before being sentenced to 18 months for corruption in the Abramoff case. Leniency? I don't remember seeing a lot of that in the conservative playbook. You mean like for indigent African American convicts, former abused children one and all, shipped off to death row without even competent counsel? That kind of leniency?
Now comes the visage of Alberto Gonzales, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. Back in the day, the "Judge" (as he likes his staff to call him) was the plausible deniability guy for a Texas governor named Bush. Gonzales would give Bush the most wonderfully brief and narrow summaries of death row clemency appeals that could possibly be put together and, amazingly, Bush would always deny them. This was all done in the name of getting tough on law and order, mind you. Now the Attorney General's former top staffer has testified before Congress that Gonzales lied about his involvement in firing prosecutors for political reasons. Records released so far also prove he's lied. And another top staffer has taken the Fifth to avoid testifying at all. It kinda looks like Gonzales is going down, doesn't it? And I'm just guessing, but I bet that when he seeks a pardon from the president for his crimes, he'll be thankful that he himself is not writing the brief.
Anyhow, you get the picture here? Me, I'm thinking about renouncing my silly moral hangups about truth and all that junk, and just going with the genetic story after all, 'cause it seems so damn true! Is there any doubt but that conservatives are simply missing the compassion gene? Nancy Reagan couldn't give a damn about your specific healthcare problem until it became her problem, then she figured it out - but only that. Don't hold your breath waiting for enlightened leadership on Social Security, a living wage or even general healthcare delivery from the wife of the president who couldn't even mouth the word "AIDS" while the disease was beginning its march to the sea in the 1980s, taking out a wide swath of Americans along the way.
Matthew Dowd not only sold us a lying president and his prevarications about war just three years ago, but he built an entire campaign around an even more egregious lie - that his candidate was a war hero, and that the other candidate, an actual war hero, was a weak imposter. Now, as his own misdeeds loom up with the potential to bite him back hard, like some figure out of Shakespeare or a Greek tragedy, he finds doubt and regret. Doubt? Regret? I tell you what, man, you go drink down one percent of the blood you've spilled, first. You go apologize on your hands and knees to one percent of the families you've decimated. You go pay back one percent of the treasure you've wasted - money needed for healthcare and education. Then come tell us your self-serving tales of doubt and regret. Because, funny, somehow we never got that vibe from you in 2004.
If it seems like conservatives are congenitally incapable of compassion until they've had to struggle with something themselves, that's because it's true. If you think the whole business of wealthy Americans demanding additional tax cuts for themselves to pay for their third yacht while others go to bed hungry is part of the same mentality, that's because it is. If you're horrified that people are capable of such rampant hypocrisy, you ought to be. This is truly a scary bunch, with the full intellectual firepower of adults, but with social ethics that could make the dynamics of a kindergarten sandbox seem positively Gandhian by comparison.
And that leaves we more enlightened grown-ups with just two choices. We could make sure that every conservative in the White House or Congress loses a child in Baghdad, has another one shot-up with the assault rifles the NRA defends, contracts AIDS, gets wrongly accused of a capital offense and is forced to take a court-appointed drunken lawyer getting paid $6.75 and hour and sleeping during court, is forced to live off a Wal-Mart wage, gets kicked off the voting rolls because of their race, lives in New Orleans and depends on FEMA for housing assistance, gets knocked-up and has to figure out how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, gets stomped to a bloody pulp because of their sexual orientation, and has to cope by themselves with a parent whose mind has been destroyed by Alzheimer's. That's one alternative. And wouldn't they (and, more importantly, we) be better off for it?
Or, better yet, we could instead make sure that there simply are no more conservatives in the White House or Congress. Progressives, and especially Democrats, need to regain the courage of their convictions, and stop standing by as passive observers while these emotional midgets with their constipated compassion capacities kick our sorry political asses up and down the street. People don't want the garbage they're selling, and just about all we have to do is point out that it is garbage in order for it to be rejected.
Right now, regressives are peddling a lovely mix of war, debt, environmental destruction, torture, division at home, hatred abroad, a tattered constitution, a shaky economy and a healthcare system in free-fall, as well as lies and corruption that could make Imelda herself blush. How is it these guys even exist? How is it they are even allowed within a hundred yards of government buildings? Is there a shortage of ankle bracelets? Even if they were Iraqi suicide bombers blowing up government they couldn't begin to equal the damage they've already done in government.
If emotionally-stunted regressives can't get to compassion on their own, maybe they can learn from the lesson of Lee Atwater, the man whose major contribution in life was to inject a pure and virulent fresh dose of racism into American politics via the Willie Horton ad. Imagine having that as the first line of your three-line obit. (But, hey, it resulted in that really great George H. W. Bush presidency, so it was worth it, right?) When he later got a brain tumor, Lee at last found that elusive compassion thing and apologized on his death bed. Like Matthew Dowd, Atwater's timing was impeccable. And like Dowd, his completely altruistic absence of a motivating self-interest was plain for anyone to see.
I don't wish retribution on even those who have brought harm to the rest of us, and, anyway, surviving and then reacting to regressive policies is about as clear a lose-lose scenario as one could possibly manufacture. Better that we simply stand our ground, match decibel to decibel, stratagem to stratagem, and hope that the integrity and validity of our arguments are sufficient to win the policy debates of the day. (And if they're not, well, then Marx was right: people get the government they deserve.)
There was a reason that Bush the Monster dressed up for Halloween as a so-called compassionate conservative in 2000. It's the same reason that Bush Who Spawned the Monster tried to pitch himself as a kinder, gentler conservative in 1988. In both cases it had to be sold, because who would believe it otherwise? Between Reagan, Gingrich and the rest, Americans had seen the face of conservatism all too clearly. Those who live in fear happily lined-up right behind those who trafficked in it. Those who knew better rightly identified this regressive conservatism for the political carcinogen that it is. It was those in-between who could perhaps be persuaded by such an adeptly crafted marketing slogan.
At least Poppy Bush didn't lie (about that). He was actually kinder and gentler. Than Reagan! That wasn't exactly difficult to do. But his mutant progeny pulled the ultimate bait-and-switch. By 2001, the compassionate conservative of just one year earlier had become the catastrophic conservative with which we're all now so well acquainted.
I will be haunted forever by Cindy Sheehan's description of her family's meeting with him to acknowledge the loss of her son, Casey. This was before Cindy Sheehan became Cindy Sheehan. Bush comes bounding into to the room, all frat-boy jovial and wise-cracking, asking "Okay, who's the mom here?", and glibly continuing to refer to Cindy throughout as "Mom". The family is shocked and astonished by his callousness. He, on the other hand, is completely unable to make even the remotest connection to their grief, and this is even before they would come to lay that grief at his doorstep. They try to show him pictures of Casey and he refuses to look, quickly withdrawing from the room, and then more famously later refusing to meet with her at all.
This is the true face of the regressive conservatism that has invaded our polity today, and we should call it for what it is. Does this sound familiar?: "a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others". How about this?: "having little regard for the feeling and welfare of others". These are defining terms for antisocial personality disorder, better know by its predecessor label for those so diseased: sociopath.
Note that "People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior", and symptoms may include "not learning from experience, no sense of responsibility, inability to form meaningful relationships, inability to control impulses, lack of moral sense, emotional immaturity, lack of guilt and self‑centeredness". No kidding. Really?
If the person in question is Cho Seung-Hui (or Saddam Hussein) we recognize them for the sociopaths they were, though we still happily arm them to the teeth and miraculously express genuine surprise at the fireworks that ensue.
But if the sociopath in question is George W. Bush - and who can deny that he precisely fits this definition, for no amount of Rove's marketing magic has prevented evidence of these symptoms from ultimately bleeding through to our consciousness - if it is George W. Bush, then we dress him up with all the accouterments of presidential power and prestige and allow him to launch wars of massive destruction, willy-nilly.
Bush has no more compassion than does Nancy Reagan or Matthew Dowd. They, and their ilk, know only self-interest, and if they're ever able to miraculously find their way to favoring stem-cell research or ending the Iraq war it is only because they are personally affected and can therefore begin to start imagining other people's suffering. But still, only on that one issue. Otherwise they remain as oblivious - as sociopathic - as ever.
How did these people - the very worst amongst us - come to speak for America?
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (mailto:dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net. "Dark of Heartness, Part I: A Journey Into the (Reputed) Soul of Conservatism" can be found here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
37 Comments so far
Show AllThese two essays are aptly titled, and are wonderfully written and incisive. Hurrah!
Unanswerable. Amen...
The have been allowed to speak for America because the military-industrial-media complex is flourishing. Soon we will be known as the United States of Everything.
Hoa Binh
The very worst came to speak for everyone because folks who arenot the very worst are too busy shopping, watching t.v. and masturbating to pornography.
I always enjoy Professor Green's contributions, but I think there is a simpler explanation than the one he offered. People whose behavior we find objectionable most often act in that way because they are emotionally and intellectually connected only to a group or groups that do not include us and have goals or directions that are not consistent with our interests.
As we merge together to form one human community, we will increasingly develop values consistent with the welfare of the entire human group, that is if we survive at all. But Mr. Bush's values and Mr. Cheney's values are only consistent with the welfare of a very small elite, an elite they hope they can separate from the great mass of humanity through sufficient increases in power and wealth to insulate them from the problems, suffering, and inevitable anger of the great majority.
People like Cho, on the other hand, do not belong to any groups at all (ignoring any loose connections he still maintained with his family), and so they do not have any positive feedback loops to provide them with emotional sustenance and encouragement, and eventually they just fall apart.
Professor David Michael Green does it again with nothing short of a.....
BRILLIANT ESSAY......
Bush like everything he's done in his past.... caused a catastrophe the likes of which the US has never seen before, which like a dissociative sociopath has absolutely no conscience in regards to it.....except of course war profiteering of his benefactors military-industrial-media complex....
Like War Criminals before him; eg Pinochet, the nazis etc will escape to Uruguay when he's completed his destructive and lethal handiwork.....
How did the neocons come to represent us? The discussion thus far has correctly identified all the deceptive methods of Rove, and the machinations of selfish capitalists who corrupt politicians and run biased media. To this let's add "evil men took action and good men didn't or couldn't stop them" and I'm thinking specifically of what has occurred in the name of "national security". In 1947 we created covert intelligence agencies that have operated with massive financial backing, secrecy, and the power to use violent means with the full authority of the US government but with little or no effective oversight. We have institutionalized the ability to overthrow foreign governments with impugnity and to perform who knows what atrocities in our name, abroad and at home. Google John Stockwell, the highest-ranking official ever to leave the CIA, and read his presentations from 1987, a long time ago and it hasn't gotten better. Read Daniele Ganser's "NATO's Secret Armies" (about how NATO with CIA involvement performed car bombings and other terrorist acts on Italian citizens in the 70s that were blamed on the socialists and moved the political climate in Italy to the right) and David Ray Griffin's works (about the events of 9/11) and learn that our clandestine military and intelligence agencies, this cancer on our society, appear to be responsible for engineering massive state-sponsored terrorist events that mobilize public opinion to support right-wing wars that they would otherwise not support. The question of "how they got there and how they keep power" will not be fully understood until we dismantle this capabilty and the terms "state-sponsored terrorism" and "false flag terrorism" are fully understood by the public. Let's not allow ourselves to be deceived any longer.
C'mon David Michael, tell us how you really feel.
Great but you missed one, maybe the biggest one. The most important demand for our disengagement from Iraq is that Iraqis hand over their oil - to the same bunch that Cheney promised it to in the strategy meetings early in the first term. We'll be left holding (our "nation" via taxpayers) the bag for reparatins, Iraq gets left in rubble, and Cheney's oil cartel steals the oil and sells it at great profit to us - and laughs all the way to the bank.
Gotta love these guys, they're the best money can beget. Think I heard Tom Friedman giggle. Casey died for Exxon.
They speak for America because we've given our voices and ears over to fear.
Good words, Mr. Green.
As for those of whom you write, I think I can hear the diminishing echoes of arrogance and mean-spiritedness gathering deeper inside closets looking for a false panel to hasten escape into a lamentable but forgettable legacy.
The Bush-Cheney administration(including those like Wolfowitz who have jumped ship and/or been eased out in recent years) is now being revealed to Americans and the international community as a corrupt and dishonorable group.
Americans are now demanding appropriate consequences for Bush-Cheney administration members and associates who have engaged in misconduct and/or possible criminal activities.
Americans might want to connect with the roots of our nation and our basic values and beliefs, as well as our history in dealing with our difficult situation at this time.
For more on apparent changes affecting Americans, see:
"Winds of change again blowing across America"
PopulistAmerica.com
April 20, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/winds_of_change_again_blowing_across_america
I would very much like Prof. Green to tell us where to find the teachings attributed to Leo Strauss (he can't, because Strauss never published anything of the kind).
Second - "the hoi polloi" means "the the many." You don't need the second article.
Third - I don't know when compassion became the prime moral virtue, the alpha & the omega, but I will say that it seems to me that when compassion (feeling) is substituted for justice (reasoned law), what you usually get is tyranny. Compassion for hoi polloi is no good if you don't know what to do for the best, and you don't know what to do for the best without understanding the nature of hoi polloi (among other things).
From:
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/hoipolloi.html
'Some urge that since "hoi" is the article "the hoi polloi" is redundant; but the general rule is that articles such as "the" and "a" in foreign language phrases cease to function as such in place names, brands, and catch phrases except for some of the most familiar ones in French and Spanish, where everyone recognizes "la"—for instance—as meaning "the." "The El Nino" is redundant, but "the hoi polloi" is standard English.'
Second, when compassion is sold in a campaign, it becomes an issue.
Moonraven: there are many writers who are marginalized, because the media prefers voices that are pro-war, pro-insatiable consumerism (rather than sane ecology), and for the most part owned by corporations that want to retain the status quo. Many corporations profit by war. Look at the Dow Jones Industrial average since this atrocity began? Just as millions gathered in peace marches and news of this was largely placed on back pages of newspapers (if at all), there is a part of this nation that will not TOLERATE dissent towards its push for war and an authoritarian state.
Gotta love Green's passion for the subject, and his acerbic wit. Reading the essay is cathartic as so many of us feel our senses of justice violated by all that's going down... the bullies breaking every law, holding up their middle finger (symbolically) to the public, and arrogantly saying "stop us if you can." TRUTH is doing its best to bring light to this dark cabal... but this cabal plays power like skilled chessplayers and they want to OWN the board. And as the essay shows, it can very well mean hell to the rest of us, compassion be damned.
dwatkins9,
I am not sure what is meant by "reasoned law." Laws are rules passed by those in control of the state. They vary according to the interests they serve and according to how well-reasoned they are in serving those interests.
The term "compassion" is intended to imply that particular policies or laws serve the interests of the weak and the unfortunate who cannot protect themselves and who offer little in quid pro quo. Those who would propose compassionate policies and laws may do so because they are interested in increasing the solidarity of, and level of trust within, the society or merely because they empathize with others as they can imagine themselves in their shoes (emotional connections the basis for which most likely developed through evolution because of correlation with group survival, through increasing group solidarity). Or maybe they just want the votes of people who feel that way, but in the end it comes out the same.
Great piece, similar to the first in what I hope is a series. My belief is that for the regressives, compassion is a sign of weakness. It is for the "losers of history" as Condi calls them, those pathetic people and countries who must negotiate instead of just conduct shock and awe campaigns to get what they want. Compassion undermines one's ability to lie, cheat, steal, disinform, destroy the environement, kill. Then what would Republicans do?
Kivals, are you still waiting for evolution to propel us forward to global kumbaya? As long as we live under a capitalist system, the compassion gene will remain a "regressive" trait, since the rewards of capitalism go to the most selfish, exploitative, and heartless. It's a system that rewards the worst in human behavior and calls that success. I give you the Bushies.
jp,
I know. If we do not get out of this corporate capitalist prison we are in, we will eventually weed out the "good" genes, the propensities towards compassion, to the extent the human race has no chance. I suspect that nations with a long history of capitalism have already made a good start on creating a more base, impulsive, aggressive, and ruthless human genotype.
It is encouraging to find tucked within a well written, insightful, dark and iconoclastic analysis such as these two essays, some reference to hopeful signs upon the horizon. These are indeed times of both great peril and great promise.
I was particularly taken by Prof. Green's suggestion that perhaps the time is becoming ripe for the notorious self indulgence of the Baby Boomers to transform itself into an engine for social change. It makes sense.
In many respects, my generation passed through the general phases described - from communal hedonism of the 60's and early 70's, into a couple of decades of fiercely independent wealth accumulation - only to suddenly discover that despite all that clever planning, diligent effort and occasional good luck, those golden retirement years are suddenly starkly vulnerable: imperial overstretch abroad paid for by sky rocketing deficit spending owed to Asian lenders, promises of perpetual war and still bigger Pentagon boondoggles, and a federal government utterly incapable of delivering any sort of reliable domestic "safety net" for basic medical and economic needs, much less regain some semblance of public control over the multinational corporations running amok in the new global economy.
This is what happens when you shrink government down to a size so small that you can take it out and drown it in the bathtub, as the GOP tax cut lobby so loves to say.
How did the worst among us come to speak for America? By lies, electoral fraud, and writing revisionist history while they laughed all the way to the bank.
Correction: In my last post, in my first reference to Rawls' system I used the term "minimax" when I meant "maximin," the term I used elsewhere in the post.
dwatkins9 and others have made the claim that laws should reflect some concept of "justice." I have found there is a very tenuous relationship between laws passed and common concepts of justice (meaning the actual laws and not the images of the laws disseminated by the corporate media) with regard to the well-being or interests of the great majority of the population, though the connection can be quite strong with the welfare and the concepts of justice of the group of economic and governing elites.
As for "justice," John Rawls wrote a fascinating and highly influential book in 1971 titled "A Theory of Justice" which promoted the idea that what is "just" is what people would choose if they did not know their own positions in society, if they were behind a "veil of ignorance." And he argued from this that what they would choose is to minimax -- maximize the position of the minimum, those with the worst position.
Many liked Rawls' ideas of a "veil of ignorance" from which to objectively judge what is just, but I think it is quite unclear that such objectivity leads to maximin. However, this maximin perspective did help to drive some of the social movements promoting compassion for the afflicted and victims in society. But as at least one poster remarked, these often lead to compassion for the most politically powerful group that can portray itself as a victim, and mostly to the most elite and generally attractive members of that group (e.g. to healthy, wealthy, well-educated white American women rather than to poor black men with AIDS).
Others have argued, and I agree with this approach, that justice is the set of reasonable expectations people have with regard to how they will be treated by others. A very narrow meaning of this is with respect to criminal justice -- a person expecting not to be punished when the person causes no discernible or perceptible harm. A slightly broader interpretation is that all will be treated the same by others if they have behaved in the same manner.
And it has been argued that Bentham's approach in his utilitarianism is really just an attempt to broaden this expectations perspective as far as possible -- what people reasonably expect is that the society will do what it can to maximize the happiness and welfare of its members (not maximin, but sum total). But then many recognize that utilitarianism is subject to many interpretations, one problem being with regard to welfare of what group -- a nation, a group of nations, the whole human race, people alive today or future people too, or some sort of balance of these different interests?
I personally do not think in terms of justice, or rights, but instead of positive feedback loops and relationships consistent with human welfare, as I feel connected to the entire human family, its present and its future.
Great article, and if something is positive about the bush admin it is that is has done nothing to promote the image of the corporate neo-con fat cats killers who rule America. The problem? There is no recourse to oust the established elite. Elections do nothing at all of course. Maybe the public burning of a few of thee people would set an example? Who knows - they love money and corruption so much perhaps they would be willing to run the risk.
So how about some direct action: Can I suggest people go to the World Bank website and send emails to their anti-corruption hotline? Their email address is investigations_hotline@worldbank.org
I noticed on their website this new story had been removed:
World Bank Continues Leadership In Fight Against Corruption, Report Shows
(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentM
DK:21205078~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html) From february this year.
I emailed them to report the removal of this report as an act of corruption in itself, as they were trying to not embarrass and indeed cover up their reported stance on corruption while Wolfowitz ignores calls from his top aides to resign. If we all do it then maybe it will get noticed by someone close to the board.
While I didn't agree with him about much, Barry Goldwater was a principled conservative who, at the end of his life, renounced most of what comprises the neocon ideology these days.
Goldwater conservatives believe in small government, non-intervention in foreign wars, low taxes, adherence to the Constitution, separation of church and state, balanced budgets, honesty in government and, while they may not advocate the government providing social services, some of the conservatives I've known were compassionate and generous privately. (Most of these conservatives have moved to the Libertarian Party these days.)
The Bush neocons, on the other hand, are products of the 'profit uber alles' strain of greedy immoral capitalism merged with the Nixonian hang-overs who believe in an imperial presidency and Christian throwbacks from the age of Torquemada. The late Kurt Vonnegut described them as "PP's" -- pathological personalities -- and they haunt the executive suites of the corporate world, the halls of the White House, and the television studios of the far right.
"How did these people -- the very worst amongst us -- come to speak for America?"
Look at Texas: When Bush took office as governor, he sold out the state to private interests which supported his campaigns and enriched his family and friends greatly, including the infamous Ken Lay. He's done the same as president; George W. Bush is simply a front man for amoral global corporatism, and they are his true constituency. Using every tool of the behavioral psychologist and based on the type of cheesy public relations work pioneered by Edward Bernays, Karl Rove expertly marketed empty-suit Bush to Texas and then the nation, stitching together a 'media creation' Frankenstein from poll results and focus group opinions. Karl also practiced the nasty habit of intimidating the media, when he wasn't playing them for suckers. Add in Goebbels-style misinformation, scurrilous attacks on opponents, and the occasional flat-out Big Lie, and you get what we have now.
Fortunately, the public seems to be waking up and neoconservativism appears to be headed into the oblivion it deserves, at least for a generation anyway.
As an American industrialist once said, "10 percent run the world, 10 percent watch them run it, and 80 percent don't know what the hell's going on."
I guess we're in the second 10 percent here.
Unfortunately, that 80 percent, like the neocons, don't notice what's going on until it affects them personally. After six years of Bush Misadministration, millions have lost their jobs, pensions, homes, etc. As in the 1930s, this has grabbed the public's attention; now, like their parents and grandparents, they have a taste what it's like to live in a nation where the 'business of the country is business' as Coolidge once said, and they want some changes made.
Americans are now rejecting the basal ganglia fear that the Bush neocon regressives have exploited; but who do we have to appeal to the frontal lobe?
I just hope it isn't too late to reverse course.
Let's also hope that Ben Franklin is wrong:
"This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"Let's also hope that Ben Franklin is wrong"
I think he has been right for quite a while now. He is right in the sense that the people are so corrupted - by consumerism - that they need the current despotism, as the price they pay for that SUV which gets them to the huge strip mall, where they buy products that children have produced for 5 cents while polluting the earth.
Without this depsotism - with sensible, fiscally responsible, environmentally proactive government instead - people wouldn't be able to drive huge trucks around town for no reason, feed their kids the chemically putrid cow brains they love so much, pay relatively low taxes, and generally consume as if they were gods not mortals. So I think 80% of people are just plain complicit.
andrew
I don't have time to deal with your separation of
"old" and "new" conservatism (and I don't have to considering the profile of the forum), so I just state it's totally artificial.
New conservatism became possible because the old one of small
government (just covering the needs of the rich and powerful) was successful.
Nice piece, professor.
Theres no denying that Republicans believe their above the law and that they know whats best for the rest of us.
But, frankly, I couldn't care less (not anymore, anyway) about how scary they are.
The important thing, as you rightly point out, is answering the question "how did these people come to speak for us?"
As part of that answer, I'd like to suggest to the professor that he continue his brillant work by speaking to teenagers in Junior High School whenever possible.
Help design a robust "civics class" that obeys historys lesson and uses the current administration as an example of what can happen when we vote with anything less than our brains.
Thank you.
Andrew
Why do you call "corporate fat cats killers" neo-cons?
Aren't they just corporate fat cats killers?
Eurobelle, sorry to hear you "don't have time to deal with your separation of "old" and "new" conservatism" I am sure it would have been fascinating and lucid.
I agree that old conservatives are and were very destructive murderous individuals. Neo-cons are in power now - and yes they are just more conservatives. As a Marxist I don't make much distinction viewed over the span of an historical epoch. It is funny that you chastise me publically for making the distinction and then you seem to like to perpetuate the myth that old conservatives propel small government - they did nothihg of the kind because they controlled the superstructure of the state and therefore the state. Even on the superficial level of government they were never about 'small government' - they controlled economic policy with protectioism, social policy with sexist and racist laws and political policy with laws to favor the rich, landowning male class.
If someone wants to make their arguments a little more forceful then maybe they DO "have to" address my statement about neo-cons and my non reference to old cons, "considering the profile of the forum" rather than "just state it's totally artificial." This "profile of the forum" is surely and simply that it is a forum - a place of interaction and interchange. There are plenty of statements I disagree with and I hope I try to address them with argument, not saying I don't have time to address them.
great analysis. again. i think the question still remains. where does this kind of attitude come from? george lakoff's strict father model that he lays out in 'thinking points, www.rockridgeinstitute.org/ gives the source. ignore the politics of lakoff and read 'thinking points', all change starts at the source.
I, too, have been pondering what ails this country and agree that it's something deep-rooted. Why, just yesterday I was talking to a friend on the phone and he asked me what I thought about that Virginia Tech massacre. He postulated that video games are to blame for such outbursts of violence and hostility in our society. I disagreed, saying that it was more fundamental, that it was due to a steady decrease in the standard of living since the 1970s and a breakdown of the family, which is itself the result of the decline in the standard of living.
I would say that Reagan marked a real turning point in our history: the end of prosperity and the beginning of cutthroat competition.
There is no question that in a competitive, harried environment, people will look for scapegoats, and the government, which seeks to exploit the peoples' angst, happily recycles a steady stream of scapegoats: terrorists, unpatriotic Americans, liberals, gays, Christmas-haters, abortion-lovers, illegal aliens, the French, pedophiles.
I believe the federal government has played a huge and growing role in the destruction of society. The government has done the most harm by steadily usurping more and more powers that do not belong to it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the federal government has dominion over education, health care, drug control, retirement, environmental protection, energy, or transportation. The Constitution clearly reserves these powers for the states. While I am in favor of education, health care, environmental protection, and so forth, I believe these should be performed at the most local level possible. For one thing, it's far more efficient, economically, to manage such things locally. And each locale has different needs; the same approach is not appropriate everywhere. And local governance of things like these fosters community. The federal government's myriad rules and regulations have stifled innovation and any sense of self-efficacy among the people. The American people are approaching the level of apathy exhibited by the Soviet people shortly before the demise of the Soviet Union.
The federal government's involvement in education has systematically ruined the educational system in this country, which is why educational metrics now place the U.S. something like 20th or worse among the most developed nations of the world. The No Child Left Behind act is merely the latest example of the kind of failed and detrimental initiatives the federal government has imposed on the educational system. Our abysmally poor educational system is one of the reasons for the resurgence of faith-based dogma. You can't have an enlightened society without educated people. What's more, without proper education, the people do not even know where to affix the blame for our present problems, which makes the people receptive to the government's steady diet of scapegoats. More importantly, though, if people do not understand the cause of our problems they cannot even begin to fix them.
I think another major contributor to the breakdown of our society is technology. And that from someone who is a computer programmer and who has always adopted the latest technological gadgets. Many of the most popular technological inventions have helped isolate us from one another, which for social creatures such as humans, cannot be healthy.
The telephone, for instance, eliminated the need for face-to-face interaction, or even the need to write a letter to communicate from a distance. The computer has now done the telephone one better. With e-mail we can send electronic messages to one another, utterly devoid of any human qualities, save for emoticons.
The automobile eliminated the need for us to get along with one another on the bus or subway. We can each ride to work in a private cocoon, with little regard to our fellow commuters, unless they should make the unforgivable mistake of getting in our way. Look at how aggressive people are in their cars. They would never be that way on a public bus or subway. And look at the type of vehicles people drive: ever larger and more intimidating to others.
It seems like 50% of the vehicles on the highway today are large trucks, hauling all manner of things in our globalized world. No longer do we need to depend on local farms or factories for the things we need.
Recorded music, TV, VCRs, DVDs, and computers have eliminated the need for us to go to public venues for entertainment. Even video games, which were only invented in the last 30 years, have already evolved from public to private. It used to be that to play video games one had to go to a video arcade and get along with the other people there. Not today. Today everyone can buy their own video game console and video games and play in the privacy of their own home.
Fast food restaurants have debased the eating experience and eliminated the need for civility when dining in public. I never eat in fast food restaurants, however, on the rare occasion when I see the inside of one, I am appalled at the filthiness: there is literally litter on the floors, the seats, and the tables, and the trash cans are often spilling over. The people dining in the place are ill-mannered. The people working in the place are apathetic (not that I blame them) and sometimes rude themselves. Microwave ovens and frozen foods have eliminated the need for families to cook and dine together.
Easy credit has made it possible for every one of us to have our own "stuff." We no longer need to share things or borrow things from one another.
All of these technologies and developments have chipped away at the civil foundations of our society, resulting in the noticeably uncivil society that we have today.
And look at all the mean-spirited TV shows on the air today. It's astounding to me how many of them seem to take delight in humiliating and emotionally harming people. There are all these dating shows in which someone gets their feelings hurt; there are all these survivor shows which pit individuals and groups, and even races, against one another; there are all these cop shows that glorify the authority figures and demonize and persecute the "perps"; and, of course, the big kahuna, the most popular show on TV is American Idol, on which the majority of the "contestants" are humiliated before an audience of 30 million viewers. The popularity of these TV shows is important because it reveals the innermost, private desires of the American public. People wouldn't go to a public venue, such as a movie theater, to watch some of these shows; they'd be too embarrassed. But they will watch and relish such shows anonymously, in the privacy of their own homes.
Of course, the disgusting antics of our "leaders" are not lost on the populace either. When they see the Dear Leader lying, or a former president being unfaithful to his wife, or the attorney general firing prosecutors for politics, or the vice president profiting by handing no-bid government contracts to a company in which he holds shares, or the attorney general jumping through linguistic hoops to justify torturing people, or the head of the world bank engaging in nepotism, they get the message that in today's world anything is acceptable as long as you can get away with it. It doesn't matter anymore whether something is right or wrong, or even whether it's legal or illegal. The only thing that matters is whether you can get away with it without being punished. Trickle-down economics may have been discredited, but trickle-down morality appears to be pretty effective.
Dave
Dave and RSJ, gentlemen, please hear my applause. This is what commondreams is designed for. EXCELLENT "essays," and I thank you for bringing new insight to many, myself included. I would like to add something minor. I live in the Bible belt because I can afford to be a freelance writer in this zone, although I avoid most people since they are "church goers" and usually Republican. One "sentiment" very common among this group is their anger at welfare recipients. When the economic pie is cut into smaller and smaller bits (and rightwing radio no doubt promotes this easy misconception and "wrong target") they resent the ones they think are getting a free ride. Last night I was talking to a man I admire for his uncanny knowledge of nature and survival skills, but he was ruminating about Mexicans getting health care that he can't get. It is precisely THIS mentality, this "divide and conquer" that for centuries has kept the masses aimed at one another, rather than looking up to those institutions and the interests behind them that cause such unnatural competition. Of course when writers then take on the stance of "social Darwinism" and explain how competition and violence are PART of human nature, the cause factor is done away with and we live with the agonizing effects. Again, great work, gentlemen! Glad you said what you did... it lifts the conversation on this site!
Kivals writes (with my responses interpolated):
"I am not sure what is meant by "reasoned law." Laws are rules passed by those in control of the state. They vary according to the interests they serve and according to how well-reasoned they are in serving those interests."
One hopes that they are serving the interest of justice. To anticipate a question, I take "justice" to mean "to each his own," i.e., that each gets what is good for him. The little boy gets the little coat, and the big boy gets the big coat, to the degree possible. In the "real world," perfect justice is not only usually impossible, but efforts to achieve it antithetical to decency (this is one of the points of Plato's myth of the "best regime"). Insist on perfection, get Pol Pot. Hence the demanders of perfect justice are likely to end up tyrants. One may have to be satisfied if each boy has a coat, ill-fitting or not, or even if each boy has some chance to get a coat of some kind.
"The term "compassion" is intended to imply that particular policies or laws serve the interests of the weak and the unfortunate who cannot protect themselves and who offer little in quid pro quo."
Justice is not about "quid pro quo"; this is a modern notion.
It is gentlemanly to protect the non-boastful weak out of an overflow of the gentleman's own strength and virtue. One practices liberality because it is a virtue and hence a joy, not out of "compassion," which is a fancy word for pity that denotes pain ("suffer with"). Hoi polloi are almost always among the "weak and unfortunate," I presume.
"Those who would propose compassionate policies and laws may do so because they are interested in increasing the solidarity of, and level of trust within,"
Sound more like prudence to me.
"the society or merely because they empathize with others as they can imagine themselves in their shoes"
So pain *and* fear - surely the enemies of rationality and a questionable basis for decision making?
"(emotional connections the basis for which most likely developed through evolution because of correlation with group survival, through increasing group solidarity)."
Assuming that we can safely conclude that the high is indeed derived from the low.
A problem with the theory of evolution, whether it is accurate or not, is that it teaches that life is a tale told by an idiot; hence it is against the "law of life." If we did indeed evolve from the Urschleim, as all sophisticates now insist we all believe, and if life is then indeed a tale told by an idiot, why bother? Why should I then care about "compassion," or for that matter justice, if I am "really" just a nugatory derivative of the Urschleim?
"Or maybe they just want the votes of people who feel that way, but in the end it comes out the same."
Back to prudence of a sort, but this time of a low sort.
regards,
dwatkins9
That is interesting, DWatkins. My problem with the idea of compassion is, like it or not, we exhibit compassion with prejudice. My problem with organised charity is that it is skewed in favor of particular groups - children, for example. The image that many charities use is of a woman or child suffering. Most of the world's suffering is inflicted by men on women and children, but does that mean we should prejudice our compassion? Why are there so many children's cancer charities compared to black men with AIDS charities?
Laws on the other hand are supposed to be (here's the rub) impartial and so treat everyone the same. Fat chance, but compared to conservative paternalistic compassion the prejudice in the law, over a longer period of time, is probably easier to remove.
andrewr: I agree with your critique of measured compassion for those we consider "victims." I think of that as sentimentality that is less compassion than it is a way of perpetuating certain power relationships that, however charitable they may seem, play into people's notions of who "deserves" moral consideration and who doesn't.
I think of compassion as much broader. It is based on a common or shared sense of suffering and mortality.
Yes JP I agree with you about power relationships vis a vis charity - think of how the church exploits charity as an additional agency of social control. And when compassion is much broader, as you say it must be, it becomes fundamental respect, with the notion that everyone deserves to have whatever they need. That means they have what they require and they are necessarily not viewed in terms of being a victim or a producer of economic value.
As Andrewr suggests,Professor Greens'essay needs to be read by more than the converted and the deletion of the piece by the gatekeepers at the World Bank exemplify the need to get this essay read more broadly.The targets of the essay would not read beyond the first sentence,which means they, and their underlings, must be sent it by email and slow mail.Yes, it will be trashed but the message will, by osmosis, begin to sink-in.No,they will not be recovering sociopaths,but self preservation will have them changing their modus operandi.
Join the dots....
Project Blue Beam
HAARP
Chemtrails
FEMA Prison Camps
Poisons and toxins in food and drink
So-called Vaccinations
Brain Drugs/Bad Medication
VeraChip RFID
Mind Control
Subliminal Messages
Division
Endless Wars
Corporate Greed
Raping of the planet
= The end of the world.
The mind boggles at this...
Don't believe anything but what your own minds tells you. Look at all the pieces and join them together, and this is what we faced with a small number of greed filled psychopaths leading us all to our demise.
Let's join together as one and resonate our love as one to help heal the world right now, love is the only force which is capable of nurturing and growth and we owe it not just to ourselves but to our beautiful home our mother Earth and everything we co-exist here with. Love conquers all.
The very worst came to speak for everyone because folks who arenot the very worst are too busy shopping, watching t.v. and masturbating to pornography.
moonraven answered best the question :How did these people - the very worst amongst us - come to speak for America?
Michael Moore added " the collective fear in American society " from his movie " Bowling for Columbine ".