Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama-as-Sojourner v. McCain-as-Mythic-Hero
The economy is sinking, an incumbent Republican president has abysmally low ratings, and the Democrats outpoll the GOP on virtually every issue. A Republican should have no chance at all to win the presidency. Yet the two-week political convention season has come and gone, and the polls still show John McCain well within striking distance of victory. How can it be?
To understand it, says McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis, you have to start with one basic fact: "This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
As a historian of religions I'd put it a just bit differently: This election is not a choice between two competing policy positions. It's a choice between two clusters of symbols. Each candidate tries to create a believable mythic drama, with himself as the hero. So the election as a whole becomes a mythic contest between two sets of symbolic images. Elections have probably always been like that. But today the question is what each candidate symbolizes, and which symbolic message will win the most votes in 2008.
What does McCain symbolize? Since the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, the most popular answer among the pundits is "anti- elitism." "Ordinary people," they say, hate the Democrats for looking down on them. They "may be struggling economically, detest President Bush and oppose the Iraq war," as an LA Times post-convention analysis put it, "but still may vote based on a visceral sense of which candidate respects their way of life."
But these "ordinary people" who feel alienated from the "elitist" Obama are largely creatures of imagination. When pollsters ask "Which candidate has values most like yours?" or "Which candidate best understands and cares about your needs?", Obama consistently comes out ahead. The McCain campaign's strenuous effort to make the biracial son of a single mom from Kansas a symbol of "elitism" isn't working very well.
What is working is McCain's focus on "experience" and on the realm of war, the military, and national security. That's the one area where McCain consistently bests his opponent in the polls. It's only his claim to experience on these issues that are keeping him competitive.
That does not mean the voters prefer McCain's war policies. Since last February, when it became clear that the Arizona senator would be the GOP's nominee, the pattern has not changed: Even when a comfortable majority of those polled support Obama's policy - withdrawing troops on a fixed timetable - more say they trust McCain than Obama to "do the right thing" in Iraq. Why? In June, a Pew Center for the People and the Press poll found that nearly 40% of the public didn't know McCain's position on troop withdrawal. Perhaps many voters don't care to know his stand on that issue, or any other. They care about the symbolic meaning of his experience in the realm of war.
Of course everyone - even if they know nothing else of McCain's experience - knows what his experience in war was: years of captivity and torture. In case they might have forgotten, McCain offered a detailed retelling of his horrific experience as the emotional centerpiece of his acceptance speech. From that spellbinding tale he launched into a rousing conclusion, whipping the audience into a frenzy as he shouted: "Fight with me. Fight with me. ... Stand up and fight."
What McCain symbolizes, above all, is patriotic toughness. He is the mythic hero who always puts "country first" and will "never surrender" to the nation's enemies and their evildoing. To millions of Americans - a minority, to be sure, but perhaps enough to tip the election - that image outweighs every other consideration as they decide how to cast their vote for president. Why should it be so? It's a huge puzzle, too complicated to settle for any simple answers. Let's try to put together some of the pieces.
One valuable piece comes from a recent column by the New York Times' (neo?)conservative pundit David Brooks. The root of Obama's problem with the voters, he suggests, is that Obama "has been a sojourner." His life journey has taken him to many places and many political positions. But he has never settled down in one place. And "voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place."
Brooks goes on to contrast the two candidates by their differing autobiographies: "McCain's 'Faith of My Fathers' is a story of a prodigal son. It is about an immature boy who suffers and discovers his place in the long line of warriors that produced him." He becomes a man by returning home. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have no home: "'Dreams From My Father' is a journey forward, about a man who took the disparate parts of his past and constructed an identity of his own. If you grew up in the 1950s," Brooks adds, "you were inclined to regard your identity as something you were born with. If you grew up in the 1970s, you were more likely to regard your identity as something you created." Hence the age gap, with older voters inclining to the Republican while the youngest voters eagerly rush to the Democrat.
OK. McCain is experienced as a tough, patriotic, self-sacrificing warrior hero and as a man of the '50s, with a fixed identity, defined by a home that he knows and eventually embraces. Obama is seen as a man of the '70s on an endless journey, always seeking new ways to construct his ever-changing identity. But why should this symbolism of life as journey lead many voters to accept the Republicans' pejorative image of Obama as a self-seeking young dandy, too weak to stand up against the evil enemy, too selfish to sacrifice all for country?
The missing link comes from another consistent finding in the polls. The best indicator of how someone is likely to vote is church attendance: The more often non-Hispanic whites go to church, the more likely they are to vote for the Republican. And the percentages, which have held steady all summer, are almost exactly what they were in the 2004 election.
Of course going to church means different things to different people, as the eminent sociologist of religion Robert Wuthnow discovered when he set out to trace the history of recent American spirituality. In his book After Heaven he lays out the pattern he found, and it's strikingly similar to Brooks' take on this year's election.
The 1950s was an era dominated by "the spirituality of dwelling," Wuthnow contends. Churchgoers were likely to feel very much at home in their houses of worship. A church was an emotionally comforting dwelling place, Wuthnow wrote, because it offered "a sheltering canopy that protects people from chaos. ... The Soul was deemed to reside in a sacred space that required geographic fortification. ... Spiritual sanctuaries were fortresses whose walls needed to be protected."
By the 1970s, a new mode of spirituality had grown up alongside the old - a "spirituality of seeking" that offered endless new possibilities for spiritual growth, as long as the seeker never settled down in one church, which meant never feeling (or wanting to feel) at home in any one. The seedbed of the spirituality of seeking was, of course, the era we call "the sixties," the time when so many young people asked passionately: "How does it feel to be without a home, like a rolling stone?" Many commentators have noted that forty years later our presidential elections are still ways to refight the continuing culture battles that began in that tumultuous time. The Republicans keep it that way because they reap such huge political benefit from attacking cultural symbols of "the sixties."
Every new round brings new symbolic issues, however. In 2004, much media attention was focused on social issues like abortion and gay rights. In fact, though, more careful post-election studies found that the key to Bush's success was the voters' fear of terrorism. Yet for the many churchgoers who voted Republican because they were still seeking the spirituality of dwelling, the difference between the social issues and the national security issues may not have been very important. Those were merely two different ways to symbolize the ongoing battle waged by those inside the sanctuary walls to fend off those outside.
In 2008, many American still flock to their sanctuaries as fortresses protecting them against uncertainty, especially moral uncertainty. They want what Wuthnow calls "sharp symbolic boundaries" demarcating good and evil. And their fundamental goal remains the same: "erecting boundaries around the perimeters of one's life ... so that life inside could be kept under control." For the ultimate threat to spiritual "dwellers" comes from their own unruly human desires and the uncontrollability of life.
In the '50s, as today, the spirituality of dwelling was directly linked to the discourse of national identity. The entire nation was treated as a dwelling place, its protective walls coterminous with its geographical borders. If churches "were sacred fortresses," as Wuthnow says, "the nation in which they lived was even more in need of being inviolable.... Being a good American was a way of exhibiting faith, and both depended on keeping intruders out. Communism, of course, was the most feared intruder of all."
"The cold war symbolized [rather than caused] American's concern to have a safe nation in which to live," according to Wuthnow. Since the true threat came from within American life itself, it is hardly surprising that the communist threat was seen as much inside as outside the nation: "Americans feared that their fortress could be invaded at any time. They spent increasing amounts on national defense [and] built bomb shelters," while at the same time they "searched for subversives in their midst."
It could hardly have been otherwise. Whenever people shelter behind walls for protection, they reinforce the fears that sent them behind those walls in the first place. Their sense of their own virtue comes to depend on keeping up the fight against the evil enemy, which means that they must have an enemy to fight. Its name hardly matters, as long as it effectively symbolizes a threat of moral disorder. But since what they are fighting is ultimately the fear born of their own uncertainty, the enemy must always be within as well as without.
In the late '60s, the internal chaos of rapid social change - forever after known as "Liberalism" - joined communism as the prevailing symbol of evil in conservative circles. The Republican party presented itself as the guardian of a familiar, dependable, eternally true moral order on both the domestic and foreign fronts. Indeed, the cold war became primarily a way to symbolize and whip up fervor for the culture war. The enemy became an enormously complex, protean, malleable, and thus easily manipulated compound of many symbolic elements.
The prime threat was ultimately spiritual seeking itself, since it undermined the possibility of any permanent certainty in the realm of values. With the spirituality of dwelling the central bulwark against the uncertainty of change, every kind of spiritual seeking could look like a threat to the nation, as dangerous as the communists and their nuclear arsenal. Every seeker would be, by definition, an enemy to "the American way" and thus guilty of lacking patriotism. Since seeking was so often the product of education, higher education (especially at elite institutions) fit neatly into the pattern.
When "seeking" became the enemy, the connection of "dwelling" with fighting for national security became more complex. Seekers proudly boasted that they were on a journey of self-realization, looking for their own unique identity and ever new ways of self-actualization. Dwellers, always intent on restraining the evil inside themselves as well as outside their walls, feared that the growing focus on self would soon break down all restraints and trigger the social chaos their walls had been built to stave off. So they reaffirmed self- restraint as the axis of their value system.
Conversely, they condemned all the newly-linked evils - spiritual seeking, liberalism, communism, and elitism, along with sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and all the rest - as just so many manifestations of self- indulgence, a loosening of all internal restraints against selfish desire. With the inner bulwark against evil gone so slack, every external bulwark was weakened too, they feared, so that the whole nation stood in danger of being overrun by its enemies. The whole diabolical stew was ultimately a spiritual failure - a straying from, or perhaps even a rebellion against, the ways of God. In the conservative worldview it all made perfect sense. It still does. That's why a smart conservative like David Brooks can pounce on Obama's rootless life of sojourning as the root of his political (and presumably spiritual) problem. It's why the seeming rootlessness can be so threatening to many voters. It's why some voters who agree with Obama's view on the Iraq war still trust McCain more to do the right thing in that tragic conflict. It's why many more trust him most to be commander-in-chief and wage the war against terrorism, our modern-day substitute for the communists of the cold war era.
McCain gains all that trust because of his experience, not in government, but in prison, where he seems to have sacrificed the most basic human desire - the desire to escape physical pain - in order to serve his military comrades, his sense of honor, and his beloved country. For the "dwellers" who fear the breakdown of restraints all around them, he is a precious symbol of self-restraint and thus a symbol of hope that the threats which seem to impinge from every side can ultimately be held off forever. Even among "dwellers" who recognize the folly of the Republican war policy in Iraq, some will find that symbolism overriding their policy concerns and pushing them to vote for McCain.
It won't always be this way. History is on the side of the "seekers." Eventually they will dominate public life, including the political process. The "dwellers" sense that they are fighting a rear-guard action, which is why their counterattack is so ferocious. For now, though, the Obama campaign feels forced to play "me too," trying mightily to convince the "dwellers" that their candidate is just as deeply commited as any Republican to a permanent structure of American values.
But they are fighting an uphill battle. The spirituality of dwelling requires a threatening enemy to fight against. Democrats can hardly cast Republicans as agents of cultural change who would undermine the stability of "the American way." Too few voters would buy that. Nor can the Dems cast the many "seekers" under their big tent as a threat, lest they fracture their growing but still fragile coalition.
That leaves them with two options. They can continue to muddle through as they are doing, hoping that economic distress is indeed, as Obama suggests, deep and wide enough to outweigh all the cultural factors working against them. That's a big risk; it may not be true.
Or Obama could use his extraordinary skills as a communicator to explain the difference between pragmatic national security and the emotional security provided by symbols of "dwelling." He could warn the nation about the perils of conflating the two and provide a program for meeting the cultural needs of "dwellers" that does not venture onto the dangerous terrain of national security.
That's a big risk too - perhaps, in an election this close, too much of a risk to ask any candidate to take.
90 Comments so far
Show AllThen explain why what the difference is between McCain following orders to kill civilians and a guard at Auschwitz doing the same? You are arguing that they both must fulfill their order and that a soldier can't determine the validity of the war(crime).
If you can't answer the question, then just call me names, that's real effective.
Apparently, Dog Leg and Thomas More are willing to defend any soldier "just following orders".
Apparently, they feel that the guards at Auschwitz were heroically just following orders.
Sickos.
What an asinine thing to say. And it only indicates an unbelieveable level of immaturity.
z,
Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I have given no support of any such thing. In fact, your ridiculous assumption merely indicates your stupidity.
There is no statement of mine that defends any such claim you have made. In fact, you have slandered and defamed me. You hide behind this technology like the reptilian, ditto head, Rovian, shitbag you are.
You would not dare to stand in front of me and repeat your slanderous, defaming remarks with witnesses.
You have no moral high ground, you have only your pathetic excuse that you are even human.
Go back under your rock with the rest of the reptiles.
Get over yourself Dog[poop]!
@Thomas More:
I can't believe you hide behind the red herring that you, and all the other Vietnam vets were under orders and therefore had no choices. You always had a choice at every step of the way. Even if it's between following the orders and a firing squad. That's a choice. Please stop pretending that it is somehow courageous to choose to bomb or shoot people in a land your military invaded rather than stand up for what you believe in and face the consequences. THAT is the ONLY honorable thing to do. And if every person had made that choice during the 60s and 70s, how long do you think Washington could have sustained that war? Of course, the reality is most people, like you, chose self-preservation, no matter who they destroyed in the process. And I can understand and forgive that. But you are unrepentant and delusional in thinking that your conduct wasn't wrong. In fact, you think it was honorable. Please. Even if you never fired a shot, your presence helped make the war possible. Take some responsibility. And pointing this back at me and asking if I would choose the firing squad/prison/torture/etc is beside the point. Let's say I wouldn't. So. What does that have to do with you? That just means I'm a coward choosing self preservation. So. Does that somehow negate the fact that you and I have choices? Or that you are covering your ass? The truth is the truth regardless of the character of the person speaking it.
You must be very, very young.
By the way, where did you ever get the idea that anyone needed your approval, let alone your "forgiveness"
Ole Dog Leg's got you pegged I think.
How can you say that about my age? You and Dog Leg are making assumption after assumption.
As for my forgiveness, you're right. No one needs it. Forget me entirely.
How about addressing my point which is that each draftee of any conflict has choices. "Following orders" was not a legitimate defense at the Nuremberg trials. Nor was it a legitimate defense for Nixon's staff during their Watergate trials. But you expect the readers of this thread to buy your specious argument that your (or some theoretical draftee's) hands were completely tied and there was no other way but for you to contribute to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
open wide, moron,
The only specious argument is yours. You cannot recognize the fact that the opposing force is equally guilty. You deny my stated confession. You deny my questioning your 'standing' in a court of law as to your right to claim harm or your moral superiority by your documented, and respected status as a C.O., stated by me.
You have, by your own words, established your psychosis and, by reason of feigned insanity, any claim to intelligence, accumulated knowledge or wisdom.
Your genetic material will be incinerated along with that of Herr Bush, Cheney, Rice, Pelosi, Goebbels, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Nixon etc. who prevent the progression of the species and advocate religious Armageddon based on faulty mental capacity.
We regret the apparent inhumanity. However, the species survival, planetary stability require the rapid ID, capture, genetic analysis and efficient termination of all regressive genetic material to prevent continued pollution of the Species gene pool.
You have our sympathies and condolences.
Your consolation is your religious belief that there is an afterlife in this wonderous, infinite, indifferent and violent universe.
Bye.
openvista,
In a court of law, you must have 'standing' to file suit for alleged transgression(s). While you espouse a tainted moral superiority you have no standing to make allegations by your own admittance. Your minimization "...just means I'm a coward choosing self preservation." is the moral equivalent of a reptile fleeing a large carnivore. How does that allow you to parrot moral superiority and make accusations of heinous proportions.
Using the legitimate position of a Conscientious Objector to validate your admitted cowardice is a disgusting state of denial for one who claims to be a human being, let alone an enlightened one.
You obviously have made a habit of living in denial.
I have faced the demons of my conscience.
You don't even recognize your own.
Pathetic.
DogLeg,
This isn't a court of law. It's a comment thread on a public website. So this is better considered a debate. Thomas More made an affirmative argument about having to follow orders (which implies choicelessness) thus dismissing the criticism of others as invalid. In a debate, those who are the first to make an argument can be expected to defend it (especially when they repeat it over and over again). However, you jumped in and responded my argument so I will respond to you.
Do trivial (and inapplicable) legal technicalities really you excuse you from having to face the very simple reality I raised in my original post that draftees make choices. Pulling rank by saying you went to Vietnam (if, in fact, you did) and I didn't also doesn't change that fact. You can keep coming up with arguments if you like to keep the focus away from my point. But it's very simple: there's nothing honorable about choosing self preservation or taking the path of least resistance when we're talking about one of the greatest collective crimes of the 20th century: the Vietnam war. Only when one has been thoroughly brainwashed does this become "service" or something in any way good.
By the way, I never said I wouldn't choose imprisonment or worse if a draft was instituted for, say, attacking Iran (although I'm a little old now). You *assumed* that when I made my hypothetical argument ("Let's say..."). I made such a statement because even if I were absolutely poised to make the same choice I'm guessing you made or others have made, it doesn't matter one whit. Truth is truth whether spoken by a criminal like Richard Nixon or a saint. To dismiss your opponent's arguments based on your incomplete and, thus, arbitrary judgement of his character is to do yourself a disservice and invalidates your argument to anyone willing to think outside of the artificial boundaries you've constructed for the discussion (which on CD is quite a lot of people).
You are fool.
Your selective fact picking ignores Stalin's slaughter of 23 million Russians, the 'Cultural Revolutions' in China that killed millions of professional people by 'Youth Brigades' in the 1960s', the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 2.5 million in Laos and Cambodia. Corporate America, your sanctuary of moral bankruptcy, has killed, maimed, starved to death, caused the poverty and enslavement of hundreds of millions for nothing but money on a global scale never seen before.
And, the Nuremberg Trials established Commissioned Officers could not hide behind 'following orders.' Draftees were never on trial. In fact, the trial consisted of the Nazi political leadership, eight or ten people. The Israelis made it their business to track and bring to justice the rest of that scum. In fact, they just located one in Argentina at the end of August.
You and 'z' are next.
DogLeg
"I have faced the demons of my conscience."
Is there something you haven't said? Am I making a mistake? I'd hate to be wrong about this. If its private...just ignore me.
I find it ironic that a serious academic like Ira Chernus takes us through this comprehensive discourse on the role of religion (dwellers versus seekers) from the 1950's to the present, and never mention how Barack Obama's choice of religious congregation nearly cost him the Democratic nomination during the primaries, and may yet cost him the White House.
Does anybody out there think there won't be another round of vicious, bigoted anti-Reverend Wright attack ads before November 4th?
Do you really think the GOP spinmeisters won't remind voters that Barack Obama declared in his wonderful Philadelphia speech on the history of race relations in America that he could no more "turn my back" on pastor Wright than he could "turn my back on my own grandmother, or on my own community", and that less than three weeks later he tossed Wright unequivocally under the bus?
How's that going to play out in terms of a test of judgment, loyalty, character or toughness?
That's what I find so odd about Ira and Wuthnow's whole paradigm: a central facet of the religious experience in many churches (especially African-American ones) is that folks often go to Sunday services to be challenged, to get fired up among fellow believers in order to go forth and change the world outside, rather than to hide behind the sanctuary walls and lap up soft reassurances that your beliefs are the true beliefs, and that the tumultuous world of sin and pain outside can be walled out. I suspect that the religious dwelling house bunker mentality attributed to supporters of McCain is found almost exclusively among white folks in the upper half or third of the income scale.
Obama wants to "move past and beyond" the divisiveness of the 1960's by not talking about those bitter conflicts. McCain, in turn, bases the core symbolism of his entire campaign squarely upon the redeeming patriotic virtues of bombing Hanoi, and then surviving torture as a POW in order to make sure America doesn't ever bug out and lose another such war. The resulting dialogue is asymetrical, to put it mildly.
Long term demographic trends may indeed favor the sojourners, but voter registration and turnout is always much higher among those who are hunkered down in their churches as sanctuary dwellings.
That makes the 2008 election close enough again to steal, and pretend that it's a miracle, literally.
Bill from Saginaw
If Senator Obama wants to '"move past and beyond" the divisiveness of the 1960's," does that mean he wants to give back the ground that the good guys won in those battles?
Does he want to rescind the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965? Does he want to abolish affirmative action?
Of course not! It's just more of the same meaningless blather, designed to appeal to the corporate media, which hates every distraction from robotic consumerism.
Can't we all just get along, and consume an unlimited spectrum of corporate products in perfect tranquility and contentment?
That's Obama's real message, and it resonates beautifully with corporations and their lobotomized clientele.
Jacob Freeze
This is further proof that your opinion has no validity. Your racist implications are at a minimum just more troll vomit traveling with the rest of the neocon non-recyclables to a high heat furnace.
Everyone who criticizes Senator Obama eventually gets a few more or less overt threats of one kind or another on the internet, but it's still a little surprising to see one of his supporters raising the spectre of shoving whatever doesn't agree with them into "high heat furnaces," under a column by the Jewish religious scholar Ira Chernus.
Is this just over-the-top rhetoric from the far fringe of Senator Obama's support? Is it some sort of Republican dirty trick designed to create a backlash against Senator Obama? I don't know.
Jacob Freeze
Freeze,
High Heat furnaces are used to destroy toxic material without air pollution. Moron. And I said your 'right wing vomit' as in rhetoric of dubious value. Obviously, you are illiterate and a duplicitous, smug, slandering fool.
And I am a registered independent. I was leaning towards Obama until the telecom/illegal surveillance immunity vote. He had no choice if he wanted the Presidency. Stuck between his corporate funding, the Clintons and verbal promises to the electorate, he gave up what this two party, cough, system always gives up.
Suck a bag of dicks.
So, it’s all a set up. They play the people against their emotions. The article, however, did not talk about the race factor. Perhaps Ira in his mind had put the racial factor on the same level as communism or terrorism, but just preferred not to say that. The following proverb from the East may be more enlightening:
Lucky is the one born as a baby donkey, and passed away as a grown up donkey.
Obama is a gypsy, says Ira Chernus, and soon we'll all be gypsies, so forget about John McCain, that old barnacle from a bygone era.
And as for all you honkies who still want a "home"...
Why are you even still alive, in the wonderful multi-culture of our gypsy future? Why hasn't somebody already flushed you down the toilet of history, along with all the other old barnacles from a bygone era, like John McCain?
Harharharhar!!!
David Brooks threw down a ghastly metaphor, and the Democrats ate it up like candy! Who wants a home when you can enlist your future with a rootless hustler like Barack Obama?
And none of these guys can figure out why Obama is sinking like a stone in the polls!
Jacob Freeze
'Freeze'
The only thing sinking at the polls is your opinion.
KDelphi,
"Do you want to throw "vets against the war" (of both wars) under the bus too?"
Nope. I think they are one of the best organizations out there. I think Ehren Watada is a hero. I just don't believe in war heroes from dirty wars.
"You will lose. There are so many things to criticize McCain on. Dont make it his Vietnam service or POW status. Its a loser issue for Dems, and I didnt hear the left saying it about Kerry"
I did say it about Kerry, he certainly wasn't a war hero to me. But I do agree that it's not a popular issue and it would be a bad election ploy. I just don't care about electing Obama.
I say it only because I find the level of pro-military indoctrination among anti-war people, even on the Left, to be amazing. This isn't just Bush's war. He had conspirators n the media, he had conspirators in the Congress, and he had 1.5 million volunteer conspirators in the US military. How was McCain heroic? He bombed people in the Vietnam War. I understand why he's a hero to supporters of that war, but why is he a hero to people who saw that war as a genocide? Were there also Nazi (or non-Nazi Wehrmacht) heroes in the ruins of Stalingrad? If you are against a war, then you must be against the people who are making the war possible. In this case, the people doing the actual killing, not just the ones giving the orders, but the ones pulling the trigger, dropping the bombs.
I'm against the war(s). But my voice doesn't matter. If you are in the military, and you are against the war, then your voice is hundreds of times more powerful than mine. Don't fight a war unless you believe it is worth fighting. How can you be against that? What good is freedom, if you can't make a choice like that?
Go ahead and support the troops. But treat them like a loved one who got brainwashed and joined a violent gang. To help them, first get them out of their gang, then, don't glorify their previous membership.
.
"Was being a Nazi "honorable"?
Thomas More wrote,
No, but most German soldiers weren't Nazi's.
"If the war is illegal or immoral isn't it the imperative of an "honorable" soldier NOT to fight?
Let me be clear, in any army there can exist some decent, good, and "honorable" people. But when they assist or fight in an unjust war, their service is never "honorable"."
Thomas More wrote,
As a soldier that is not a judgement you are allowed to make, so the answer is no. Thats what you can't seem to comprehend I guess. Except for legal orders, its not your call. Nor can it be or you would not have a fighting force."
If the only duty of a soldier is to follow orders, why do you feel the Nazis were not "honorable"? Were the non-Nazi Wehrmacht "honorable" when fighting for Hitler?
You're right. I can't comprehend your logic. Are you actually arguing that a soldier should obey any order, even if it is illegal? Doesn't that go against the "military code of conduct"? Is there no situation where a soldier should refuse an order? What if your commander displays insane behavior? What if you are ordered to kill a civilian? Or commit other atrocities? I can't imagine even you would support a soldier doing ANYTHING their commander says.
So why can't a soldier decide that the Iraq war, for example, is illegal and that their service in that war would violate the law?
Their justification would be that the war violated the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." They could also cite the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." They could argue, especially if in a command position, that they would be personally responsible and liable for legal challenges for violating international law. Further, they could assert that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the occupation itself did not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country.
I've heard the argument made that the army could not function if individual members were to decide for themselves if a war was worth fighting or not. Frankly, if that came to pass, I can think of no better example of what it means to lose the moral imperative to fight a war in the first place. If our country was under actual attack, I doubt you would find a lack of people willing to fight in self defense.
BTW
This isn't from a radical source, it's from the History Channel. I'd feel a least a little ashamed if I were you. Diminishing Holocaust figures can get you arrested in Europe.
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html
"The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war. These figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid demoralizing the population.
Note: Given a Vietnamese population of approximately 38 million during the period 1954-1975, Vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the entire population. To put this in perspective, consider that the population of the US was 220 million during the Vietnam War. Had The US sustained casualties of 13% of its population, there would have been 28 million US dead. "
I Would suggest to you that those Germans had a fairly simple choice. Don't want to fight...they stood them up against a wall and shot them. They really weren't concerned with the niceties that constrain our military.
Its not an argument. Its a fact. The moment you start taking a vote to decide to fight or not you are finished as a fighting force.
I would also suggest to you that when a order is given, the reason that everyone must obey together and not think about it (per se) is that you can get a lot of other peoople killed if you hesitate. They depend on you to be where they expect you to be.
As of now, we have a volunteer army, don't want to fight, don't join. But if you join or are drafted the niceties of the type of choices you are talking about are lost to you. I can't explain it other than that way.
"You're right. I can't comprehend your logic. Are you actually arguing that a soldier should obey any order, even if it is illegal? Doesn't that go against the "military code of conduct"? Is there no situation where a soldier should refuse an order? What if your commander displays insane behavior? What if you are ordered to kill a civilian? Or commit other atrocities? I can't imagine even you would support a soldier doing ANYTHING their commander says."
Absolutely not. Not under any circumstances. There are illegal orders and you are under no obligation to follow them. Ordered to kill a civilian...We'd shoot the officer that ordered it maybe. Arocities, certainly not. But they do happen, on both sides. I never saw any thing like My Lai, but heard about it and a few others. I saw some done by Charles and a few others by the NVA. What can you say. Nothing.
The reason that a soldier can't decide its an illegal war is he simply doesn't have the legal right. If Congress and the President say its legal, thats the end of it. Your choice is to refuse to fight and take the consequences or to desert. I can honor the first and wouldn't spit on a deserter. ( Now thats a deserter before combat) I'd never judge another man if he bugged out when we got back, heck...I think we all thought of it one time or another. I know I did.
For some reason people seem to keep makong the mistake that I somehow supported the war in Viet Nam or that I appriove of and support the war in Iraq because I won't stand for bad mouthing those that served. Neither could be further from the truth. If there is one person here that is anti-war that posts here, its me. In fact I'd say there isn't anyone here that could match my aversion to war without the greatest provocation. But I'm no fool for the same reason. We need a functioning military and a good one and franly anyone that doesn't understand that simple fact, lives in Lollipop Land as far as I'm concerned. (that was certainly not meant for you personally)
As to your figures, they could very well be true. Though the Viet Namese govt. says whats in their best interest. I really don't know. I said earlier the only real information I heard was a few years ago when we went back and a lot of NVA officers gave us lunch (great lunch) and visited. One told me they had lost about 1 million soldiers, but he thought it could very well have been 200,000 more or so because of drafts in the field. I see no reason for him to lie, but he was just a serving officer like us. I met two guys that faced us in the mountains when I was there. It was something to hear how it looked from their side.
I hope I am clearer? Its hard to explain this stuff.
"Were there also Nazi (or non-Nazi Wehrmacht) heroes in the ruins of Stalingrad?"
Were there Communist 'defenders' of Stalingrad heroes? They engaged in a war, they had a choice, too. The same with the 'tools' of the NVA and VC. Every war requires two parties at a minimum, just like sex. There is no moral superiority, even by self described moral guardians such as yourself. Your vapid stance is an assumed posture, easily articulated.
Even by schoolboys.
What you fail to see, is failure to fault your blindness. Not moral superiority, there is no human innocent enough, with some sane exceptions.
Which makes you a presumptuous asshole.
"Fight with me. Fight with me. ... Stand up and fight."
Anyone who is learning English and speaks very well but only precisely, must be very confused with all the references to fighting: "They want us to beat people up?"
To get a better idea of how nonsensical all political speech is and therefore how little respect politicians have for their audiences, whenever you read/hear "fight" replace it in your own mind with "beat somebody up."
A typical speech would be: "I stand here before you tonight to advocate mass mayhem. I implore each of you to go out tonight and beat somebody up. Find someone who you think could be your enemy and punch him/her in the face. Together we can commit aggravated assault."
The word "fight" is also commonly used for "kill" (in war references) and "struggle aimlessly" (often used in references to protests.) None of it has value, but somehow, by using the empty word "fight" it becomes an honorable passtime.
McCain makes me feel less safe. He's a zombie bent towards marching into Hell, which only plays into the Devil's hands.
Obama's too safe. He wants to have a cigar with the Devil instead of spitting holy water in his face.
"McCain gains all that trust because of his experience, not in government, but in prison, where he seems to have sacrificed the most basic human desire - the desire to escape physical pain - in order to serve his military comrades, his sense of honor, and his beloved country."
That's a gag-fest if ever there was one. McCain did anti-american videos for his captors to escape physical pain. How did that "serve his military comrades, his sense of honor, and his beloved country"?
McCain bounces like a pinball on his positions and he's the stable one? The 'dweller'? Only if you dwell in the 'Twilight Zone'.
I posted this above, but please allow me to use it in reply here also.
All I can say is, think of being a prisoner of the NVA for all those years. Think of the physical abuse and torture. I simply cannot judge the man for being broken. He said they broke him.
I might have broken the first week, those guys were tough. Are you so sure you could have withstood that amount of abuse? I can't be.
The men he was imprisoned with honor him and thats good enough for me. Your buddies won't defend a coward.
From the piece: "What McCain symbolizes, above all, is patriotic toughness. He is the mythic hero who always puts "country first" and will "never surrender" to the nation's enemies and their evildoing."
I agree with you about torture. I don't think any of us can really say how we would respond to it. I am just sick of seeing McCain elevated to the status of a comic book hero, a cigar chewing Sgt. Fury who spit in the faces of his captors while he was being tortured. It didn't happen. What happened is he appeared in enemy propaganda films. He broke.
You wrote: "The men he was imprisoned with honor him and thats good enough for me. Your buddies won't defend a coward."
I'm not sure this is the case. I was watching a video yesterday where a fellow prisoner said McCain had a reputation for being hot tempered and is unsuited to be President.
As the admirals son, the first day, McCain was in the hospital. A treat not afforded many of his flyboy comrades, or any prisoner of war in Vietnam.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
"That leaves them with two options. They can continue to muddle through as they are doing, hoping that economic distress is indeed, as Obama suggests, deep and wide enough to outweigh all the cultural factors working against them. That's a big risk; it may not be true."
It is true. Read today's financial news and opinions - we're in for a very rough ride. And, put simply - that which cannot be sustained, won't be.
"Or Obama could use his extraordinary skills as a communicator to explain the difference between pragmatic national security and the emotional security provided by symbols of "dwelling." He could warn the nation about the perils of conflating the two and provide a program for meeting the cultural needs of "dwellers" that does not venture onto the dangerous terrain of national security."
One president laid it out to the American people. That president was a good man and told the truth. That president, Jimmy Carter, was thrown out of office by an electorate that wanted to believe a bunch of "Shining city on a hill" BS.
Obama is a better communicator than Carter. Maybe, if he has the chance, he can warn and motivate us. However, as it has always been and will always be, the real work of change is up to us.
Thomas More,
"Those that can't seperate a war from those that are in it continue to make the same mistake over and over"
Shouldn't it matter what you are fighting for?
Doesn't it matter why we killed millions of Vietnamese?
Whether the cause was just?
Is being a soldier an excuse to "just follow orders"?
Was it "honorable" to fight for slavery in the Civil war?
Was being a Nazi "honorable"?
If the war is illegal or immoral isn't it the imperative of an "honorable" soldier NOT to fight?
Let me be clear, in any army there can exist some decent, good, and "honorable" people. But when they assist or fight in an unjust war, their service is never "honorable".
McCain's lesser war crime is when he bombed Vietnam, the greater crime is that he hasn't ever realized that his actions were wrong, or apologized for his acts to the Vietnamese people.
And a soldier in bound by Geneva Conventions, which allows for the non compliance with a verbal military order if the soldier's actions will result in a violation of the Geneva Act.
Oh, but he did apologize, numerous times, on Radio Hanoi when he was collaborating with the VC.
Shouldn't it matter what you are fighting for?
Absolutely. But it was not the soldiers and Marines fault we were in Viet Nam....believe me, we'd all rather have been somewhere else.
"Doesn't it matter why we killed millions of Vietnamese?"
We didn't.
"Was it "honorable" to fight for slavery in the Civil war?"
I don't think there were that many fighting for slavery during the Civil war.
Was being a Nazi "honorable"?
No, but most German soldiers weren't Nazi's.
"If the war is illegal or immoral isn't it the imperative of an "honorable" soldier NOT to fight?
Let me be clear, in any army there can exist some decent, good, and "honorable" people. But when they assist or fight in an unjust war, their service is never "honorable"."
As a soldier that is not a judgement you are allowed to make, so the answer is no. Thats what you can't seem to comprehend I guess. Except for legal orders, its not your call. Nor can it be or you would not have a fighting force.
And as to illegal or immoral, who makes that decision? You?
Its a confusion between war and the people that are involved in it. Thats the mistake you are making.
"Doesn't it matter why we killed millions of Vietnamese?"
We didn't.
Citation please.
There were approximately two million casaulties (Vietnamese) from the war. We killed about 1 million soldiers at best estimate. Another just about 400,000 to 450,000 were killed by the NVA and CV. The rest were bombing casualties, combat casualties, etc.
These are the best estimates we have from the Viet Namese and our records. An NVA officer that I had lubnch with believes that they lost more than the million soldiers, possibly 200,000 more, but thats all their records accounted for. He believed that many that were drafted were never counted.
That would be 'VC,' 'More.'
And 'combat casualties' are usually 'soldiers.'
The total of two million is a total for North and South Vietnam and it is a disputed figure. 57000 dead Americans. Some were my friends. The one million soldiers you claim were the result primarily of carpet bombing from B-52s. Our ground forces were successful in two major assaults by the VC, primarily, and the
NVA. But I highly doubt our ground forces were responsible for that number. Meanwhile your confusion of categories and numbers is not coherent. Furthermore, your numbers of Vietnamese deaths by the NVA and the VC in combination with your contradictory remark, "The rest were bombing casualties, combat casualties, etc." shows the turpitude of your intellect. You cannot discern differences between civilian and military participants. Nor the significance of their manner of death.
This is why Americans are hated.
The long haul favored the home team given the corruption of the S. Vietnamese government, the advantage of being able to fight a jungle war on their terms and the conviction of those people of their belief of doing 'right.' (Reunification) While we merely supported the colonial actions of France. I.E. The re-establishment of colonial possession after WWII. That was one of the agreements made among the 'victors.'
Additionally, a moral decision is always made by individuals, not Corporate stooges. The fact that it is rare belies the importance, and the power of the 'State' to intimidate and manipulate through 'legal' methods.
Just because I received an 'Honorable Discharge' does not mean I am honorable, except in a narrow definition..
Many were my friends.
You could not possibly have been in Viet Nam from what you say. Where were you? Which years? How many months of combat?
And that would be Charles Victor old buddy. You didn't serve in Viet Nam, did you?
This is late and I have read other new comments. Drafted May 1966, volunteered to get my younger brother off the DMZ(Marine Corp.)In country, March 68-March 69, Tuy Hoa, Nha Trang, Saigon, and Bhan Mhi Thout.
I'm not your 'old buddy.' And Charles Victor was used during radio conversation. Something a 12 yr.old would pick up watching a movie.
Fuck you. And you asked for it.
Going against veterans is a common mistake that Dems make. Although I was very young, I was all "anti-war" (I still am--I dont even believe in gun ownership!), and could not see how Vietnam vets couldve done some of what some of them did. If you have never been in such a situation, it is foolish to judge. I found that out working at a Vet Center.
Alot of peope were draftees. This is hard for alot of yung peoe to comprehend, as is not voting until 21 . We shouldve never been in Vietnam. This hatred of Viet vets extends right and left. The neo-cons "hate them because they lost us our first war"--but none of them had the balls to go! The Left hate (hated?) them because they thought they were "baby killers". (Whether an l8 yr old draftee is a "baby" is a matter of opinion) Those who support staying in Iraq and Afghanistan "until we can stabalize it" can act like they are against war--but its just politicking , if one contineus to fund it,
Do you want to throw "vets against the war" (of both wars) under the bus too? You will lose. There are so many things to criticize McCain on. Dont make it his Vietnam service or POW status. Its a loser issue for Dems, and I didnt hear the left saying it about Kerry. You know Gore carried a gun in 'Nam, dont yu? If you wil only support people who were able to evade going to war in the most warlike country ever to exist, it will certainly make the neo-cons calling you elitests happy.
I now McCain volunteered. I know you think you are anti-war. Support a candidate that is against ALL wars, and wants to get out now, then. Or sound like a hypocrite.
Thanks for your work with the guys. Its appreciated.
The contrast set in the article also applies to the movement for alternative energy, decline of US globalization influence - though globalization continues. The fear is to some degree shaped by the long standing assertion that life can only be described for living by an elite. The elite model has been acquisitive in an inversion of Plato's "Unum est Totem" the One is the All - an allusion to religious (mythological) perspective. We are all the One - it is simply becomming impossible to function according to a model that denies that it's vision is a myth. As the economy tanks toward January the journey model needed to be undertaken by all of humanity might gain some room.
As people increasingly realize that the rule of law does not include rights of the earth, which functions beyond the restrictions of the western rule of law and that its mode of function undergirds the law itself, we're looking at our dwelling place in a different light.
Life IS a journey the goal is to be able to travel together. The earth is calling ever louder with a 'yooohooo' as we ignore the laws of nature - which also include creatural dignity (integrity of interconnected reality) - thinking in terms of engaging actions can be dignified in full scope (say seven generations hence) - rather than 'pride' of accomplishment - something short lived and not necessarily 'dignified' in terms of being reasonably connected to the whole long haul. Time to shake hands with our neighbors - especially those we haven't yet met.
Republicans use this. Look at McCain's ads claiming that Obama wants to raise everybody's taxes. In fact, Obama will lower "middle class" taxes more than McCain will.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html
10 to 12 million unregistered Black voters in the South can change the elections. Who will register them is a million dollar question.
IRA,
"Even when a comfortable majority of those polled support Obama's policy - withdrawing troops on a fixed timetable"
It's not a "fixed" timetable, it's a flexible one.
It's not withdrawal, it's redeployment. It allows funding for three exceptions: "targeted operations" against al-Qaeda and other terrorists; security of U.S. facilities and personnel; training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.
Obama's plan also retains 60-80,000 troops in Iraq, according to Obama adviser Colin Kahl.
And it's also the same plan that Bush and McCain support.
http://wizbangpolitics.com/2008/04/04/obama-adviser-calls-for-troops-in-iraq-thru-2010.php
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/obama_might_refine_iraq_timeli.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.main/?iref=mpstoryview
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/25/mccain-timeline/
Thomas Moore wrote,
"McCain served honorably"
When? Bombing a light bulb factory? Volunteering to bomb Hanoi? Was Vietnam a honorable war?
He showed up. That was a lot more than some did, including our fearless leaders. Bush and the boy's took deferments.
I wouldn't call Viet Nam or any war for that matter, "honorable", but there were men and women from both sides that fought honorably there.
The only people that dishonor themselves by calling McCain a coward, or criminal, etc are those with no dog in the hunt. The hero's back at the dorm. The REMF's.
Those that can't seperate a war from those that are in it continue to make the same mistake over and over. And they are usually the ones that consider Tom Hayden andf Jane Fonda hero's for their service in Viet Nam.
More,
No more Mr. Nice Guy, huh, 'More of the same old shit.'
While I have my issues with my involvement in S.E Asia and the 'Chickin Hawkshit' of my generation, you seem incapable of discerning thought. I have greater respect for the' Tom Haydens and 'Jane Fondas' exponentially more than any 'Chickin Hawkshit' with the moral fortitude of a worm, including an incompetent pilot and liar about his POW suffering.
I guess it is easy to forget people like Max Cleland, and hundreds of thousands more, whose voice is equal, dollar for dollar, for your holy corporate shitbags. You know, the ones that 'own' you.
No more nice guy?
Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda came to Viet Nam and encouraged the NVA to kill me and my friends. I didn't take kindly to it so I'm sure even you can understand why I don't admire traitors to my country.
I can't believe from the way you talk that you were ever in combat in Viet Nam. I frankly cannot believe you were there at all.
I would never, ever forget Max Cleland and all the rest of my brothers that came home without pieces or broken minds. Nor the many that did not get back.
The only shitbags here are those that spit on the people that served and hail cowards like Ayers, Hayden and Fonda as "Hero's"
No body owns me, but its quite obvious what your problem is.
More:
There was one all black regiment of a 1000 men.
Led By a white man.
500,000 fled during the war. Most were behind the lines support. By law. They were considered 'contraband.' Only small numbers in field units, used as messengers and support.
They are credited with aiding in their own release. But "hundreds of thousands fought and died?" They weren't allowed to, legally, except for that one regiment.
By WWII, that hadn't changed much. When it did there was so much rampant racism the 'War College' worried about insurrection.
As for your previous nin-com-poop comment as to the 'wordy' nature of this article you fail to grasp it's meaning. You seem to think that to boil a pot of water down to nothing the pot still holds the water. No, all you have is a burnt pot. And your reductionism of thinking is precisely the problem.
Sorry Dog Leg. Fortunately I do think.
Heres a bit of real history for you.
"By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers."
Those officers and their decendents are going to be disappointed that they were white and didn't know it.
A bit more for the uneducated....
"Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers."
Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.
So I'd say my friend perhaps the "nin-com-poop" comment should have been kept to your self. If you aren't sure about something, its truly better not to insult someone else.
Black regiments fought with distinction in WW1 but you won't find much in the history books about it. Their officers are going to be sorry to find out they were really white though. I'd suggest you look up the awards they won.
Though your whole statement was false there was one part that you pegged where I was remiss. "But "hundreds of thousands fought and died" That could very well be construed the way you say, my fault for not being clearer. I just chastized USAn for that very thing not long ago...my bad.
My military history is usually right, but keep after me, obviously I sometines screw up.
Excuse me?
I believe that my estimations are correct. My only fault was not being more specific. As for my education, I have no reason to be embarrassed. But by your own words, you illustrate my point.
And by the way, I took issue with your statement only for the readily apparent over inflation or 'conflation.' This continues my representation of your 'poopedness.'
Otherwise continue your trolling.
:)
Excuse me?
I believe that my estimations are correct. My only fault was not being more specific. As for my education, I have no reason to be embarrassed. But by your own words, you illustrate my point.
And by the way, I took issue with your statement only for the readily apparent over inflation or 'conflation.' This continues my representation of your 'poopedness.'
Otherwise continue your trolling.
:)
Mine weren't estimates, those are statistical facts. There were a few more battles than "Glory" one you were obviously thinking of.
Its evident you can't admit when you are wrong and I guess that explains the personal attack above. You are old enough to know better.
Or, option No. 3 would be for Obama to convice USAns to adopt the view that their personal security, in or out of a church, is wrapped up in their economic interests - specifically the economic intersets of the vast wage-earning class majority.
Then he needs to vigorously promote policies that help the wage earners.
This is how it works in the rest of the democratic world - candidates offer real concrete policies.
For example, today, Canada's Conservative PM Harper, in orger to get his parties polling numbers up ahead of Canada's election, proposed an expansion of paid maternity and family leave benefits to include self-employed women. Such a proposal would be considered way to far to the left to ever appear on the US Democrat platform - but in Canada, even a "conservative" can propose such things.
Prof. Chernus's analysis is nonsense. USAns base their voting decisions on such nonsense because neither the media nor the candidates themselves give them any concrete policy issues for them to base their votes on. Sitting there in the cneter of the continent, his analysis is terribly US-centric as well.
There is also a myth circling around that there are only two parties that should be considered as voting choices, but that is simply not true.
The dominant culture will not change until we can change what we do because we need to; as opposed to staying with the status quo out of fear.
There are many third choices, including Nader and McKinney.
The reason that racism is so pervasive in the United States today
Simply a false statement.
"It took the bloodiest war in US history and hundreds of thousands of white workers willing to fight to the death to end chattel slavery.'
You should give credit to the hundreds of thousands of Black soldiers that fought and died in that war.
"modern-day plantation, Wal-Mart."
This is just a silly comparison and an insult to thiose that suffered under real slavery.
TM,
With regard to the prevalence of racism, you are in denial. Blacks and whites in the USA are treated in very different ways in the job interview, on the job, in the housing market, in stores, in schools, when driving a car - or just walking down the sidewalk. Racism is institutionalized - woven in the fabric of society.
Even a recent investigative piece on ABC (US) news by the hardly left-wing John Stossel revealed the prevalence of racism in job interviews, even in the way resumes were treated when only of the applicants has a "black-sounding" name.
This article points some of the racism regarding the upcoming election: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3618.
I recommend a lot of other stuff by Tim Wise as well.
I simply disagree. I don't see that it's endemic anywhere. I'm going to take the medias word on this? And John Stossel? Hardly.
It is absolutely required for segments that need an oppressed class to survive. The racism industry.
Believe me, I live in the real world and don't think all of those things domn't happen wevery day, to all colors. There may be as much of it happening to Whites as anyone. Especially in school. Its just not the problem it was, by any measure.
More,
Once again you prove your pathetic stupidity.
Do us all a favor, either produce more cogent argument or go flush yourself down any toilet.
The only one here thats pathetic would be someone that gets personal because they have nothing to say. Personal attacks seems to be about all you can indulge in.
If the Obama campaign does threaten the plan for McCain to occupy the White House, there will be no election. But Barack Obama will almost certainly be denied the White House by racism without resort to martial law. Obama knows this and has frantically run away from every principle and position on the issues that even slightly disquiets the ruling class. But he cannot shed his race or culture.
This goes beyond Obama the Democrat and candidate for president and it certainly has nothing to do with whether Obama is a "sojourner" or not. Something the ruling class can never permit must happen before Obama can be elected. In the general election Obama will win 95-plus% of a record turnout of Black working people. And he could be elected president with a substantial number of white working class votes. This would constitute a level of working class unity like we have never witnessed in US electoral history.
Such unity would shake this county’s ever constricting capitalist bourgeois democracy to its foundation. One of the main engines of that capitalist economy is racism. For the sake of profits racial divisions and the super exploitation of workers of color must be kept intact—at all costs.
The reason that chattel slavery came into existence in the semi-feudal agrarian US economy of the time was that it was very profitable for the masters of that economy.
The reason that racism is so pervasive in the United States today with its developed industrial capitalist economy is that it is very profitable for the masters of that economy. Take the five members of the Walton family that occupy slots among the ten wealthiest Americans through the operation of their modern-day plantation, Wal-Mart.
It took the bloodiest war in US history and hundreds of thousands of white workers willing to fight to the death to end chattel slavery. No election and no candidate for office will end racism in this country. As long as capitalism exists elections will only produce racist results.
Barak Obama is not being neutralized right now for fear of his empty rhetoric about change. The ruling class chuckles over such nonsense. What they are stricken over is the possibility that working-class whites might make their first halting steps toward an effective political relationship with their brothers and sisters of color. They know their history. They know that was the dynamic that brought down the slave economy. They know that would be the beginning of the end for them.
A very wordy article, filled with needless complications inherent in an Academic of course. All he really said was that McCain represents the old guard and Obama the new.
McCain served honorably and survived things I'm not sure I could have, Obama represents a different generation that weren't required to serve and thankfully didn't have a Viet Nam of their very own.
McCain is about even because many Americans are afraid Obama's a radical. Obama is about even with McCain because people are sick of the law breaking, a war that shouldn't have been fought and Corporations that are stealing everyone blind.
My opinion anyway.
"Songbird" McCain admitted he collaborated with the enemy. He got medical treatment for his cooperation. He was the VC's go-to traitor on Radio Hanoi, making numerous broadcasts; he once said he was ashamed of what he'd done, but he no longer exhibits any shame. If he were a Democrat the Republicans would have hung him by now. His honorable service is a lie, his campaign is nothing but lies, and his life is a lie.
All I can say, is think of being a prisoner of the NVA for all those years. Think of the physical abuse and torture. I simply cannot judge the man for being broken. He said they broke him.
I might have broken the first week, those guys were tough.
The men he was imprisoned with honor him and thats good enough for me. Your buddies won't defend a coward.
He "broke" before the first week so they'd set his broken leg. I would have the utmost sympathy for his suffering if he was not using stories about it to get himself elected. Once he puts that on the table to prove something to the voters, it is our responsibility to examine the truth of his statements. And the truth is he collaborated; if he were not a Republican they would have labeled him a traitor.
We'll just have to disagree, but no problem there. A traitor is someone like Jane Fonda and I can't compare McCain with her.
I just take all the guy's that were there with him at their word and they all say he was a good guy.
I do agree, we have heard ALL we need to about it. I know I've heard all I want to about it. That was then, I'm interested in now. I want to hear from each one of these guys what they really have in mind.
I think the cards are being stacked like this:
Obama = draft
McCain = draft
just listen to Obama's recent comments extolling the virtues of public service for america's youth. Scary stuff.
A hard rain is about to fall.
And your problem with 'public service.' if it were not of a military nature?
Everything is of a military nature in this country. What other industry do we have? Please inform me...
Even the interstate highway system was constructed to move large numbers of troops around the country in the event of a nuke attack- they were not conceived for the public's direct benefit.
Personally- I work non profit and I put in sweat equity for change everyday. But I refuse to make weapons of war under any circumstances, which I'm afraid is the heart of the content hidden behind the 'public service' rhetoric.
Additionally, are you one of those repugs that is now going to start chearing the virtues of SOCIALIZED 'public service'? Hypocrits, the whole lot of them.
fake,
Don't misunderstand me. You would find we agree more than disagree. My only thought was that in an equitable society there would actually be a need for 'public service.' Your examples of infrastructure, etc. are a misunderstanding of political machinations.
My career as a teacher in a prison setting for 17 years, on top of being drafted, speaks to my character. And I was hated by the 'peace officers' because of their inability to cow me into the lies they perpetrate to increase their voice in government. That you are now experiencing via the shitbags running the country. And I ratted out one of for 'abuse of authority,' required of my teaching credential.
And I can prove it.
So spare me your chip that resides on your shoulder. And get rid of your fear.
Besides, I'm retired, disabled and impatient of poorly thought out accusations from children.
sorry... jumped to bad conclusions.
And your problem with 'public service.' if it were not of a military nature?
Ultimately, this election is about race .. at a 'visceral' level and absolutely no one will admit it.
Bottle further writes: "The other, Obama, is quiet and reasonable."
Obama said corporate "globalization is inevitable". That's exactly what Tony Blair said. You need to find out what a lying, two-faced b*$&@#d he turned out to be.
Bottle writes: "...unless the U.S. itself has become the mental institution, which does seem a good possibility nowadays."
Bottle might be right. When I visited the U.S., I was asked if I had any mental illnesses or a history of obsessive-compulsive disorders. I said, no. The guy in the white coat said, "Are you sure you've been admitted to the right place?" I said, "I don't know now." I was then told that this wasn't the place for me, and was refused entry.
Ira, your scholarship is superb, you build arguments with the elaborate inticacy of an European Cathedral and the thoroughness of a properly differentiated or integrated calculus function, but Ira, you are dealing with two chimera who are not even what they think they seem to be...the mill of your intelligence deserves better grist to gind.
Poet
Poet,
On this one, I have to disagree, to an extent.
Having been part of a single mom family, but born in 1947, of five siblings, I can attest to being a sojourner. We moved on average every 18 months for my mother's career. She managed to stay in one place for three years to make sure I graduated from high school in a more stable manner. Before my being drafted she moved again.
My education, my life mirrors Chernus' take on the 'myth and symbol.' He definitely understands Joseph Campbell one of the great explorers of human beliefs and 'knowledge.'
"This election is not a choice between two competing policy positions."
Although a simplification, I mostly agree. They essentially represent the same set of values. Those values are dictated to them by Corporate America. Until we actually are allowed to choose a candidate who is not corporate owned, I resist.
Neither "The Party" choice allows a *real* choice. The lipstick's on both pigs. They feed at the same trough. Religious Fanatic (and her token/broken "war-hero") or Religious Fanatic-lite? They are both so far right, that they are both so wrong for America.
We have lost the right to choose.
The average life of an American male is about 75 years, which means that it is plausible that John McCain is down to the last few years of his life spent almost entirely in military culture. He was part of yet another unnecesary, humiliating and losing U.S. war in which he was captured, imprisoned and tortured. He never made admiral like his father and grandfather. In other words, like George Wanker Bush, he is a Glory Seeker and will crawl through fire and excrement to get it (the reason behind his current marriage for money and his lying, degrading campaign to be Caesar). What bloody, suicidal and losing adventure will he and Aimee Semple McPherson get us into so he can ride his golden chariot in mock triumph down Pennsylvania Avenue?
Ooops.
Oooops II
This article is much too precious and self-regarding (Look at me! See how complicated I can be!). The criticism extends to one of its subjects as well-- the columnist David Brooks.
I figure that people who always vote for a Bush, a Palin, or a McCain are so abysmally neurotic that they belong in a mental institution rather than in the United States unless the U.S. itself has become the mental institution, which does seem a good possibility nowadays.
Am I deriding these people, however? Not at all. I have great sympathy for mental patients. Is this explanation still too complicated, though?
Okay, I'll simplify further. One candidate, McCain, is loud and abrasive and of course wrong on the big issues of the day. The other, Obama, is quiet and reasonable.
The US is the insane asylum. If one travels to various advanced countries, including all the industrialized nations and the more successful developing nations such as China, and then returns to the US, the conclusion is unavoidable that Americans are by far the most deranged people in any advanced nation. But the real kicker is that the inmates in this insane asylum have control over thousands of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to any point on the globe.
So you are saying that whoever shouts the loudest lie wins? This may well be so, but it still doesn't explain why people fall for it - this article is an attempt to explain.
If you are saying that the crazies fall for McCain, and you may be correct, you don't explain why people are crazy in the first place - this article is an attempt to explain.
I could not help but think of a few of our 'libertarian' and Republican friends who post here whilst reading this. I wonder if the 'symbol worshipers' and 'dwellers' (in a troglodyte sense) can recognise themselves in this article.
Good work Ira.
McSame should be 'arrested' for trying to steal "CHANGE" from Obama. (lol)
Get religion out of politics already ! This is nothing more than a blatant misuse of religion to cover up the selling out agenda !!