EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupy the War Machine
The differences are slight: one decade, one president, one letter out of four. “Change the q to an n, don’t use the phrase ‘WMD’ or ‘pre-emptive strike’”; each incoming Press Secretary should just pass out a style guide. It’s so absurd that the first reaction is a feeling of nauseau, surreality, perhaps madness. Nuclear weapons? State sponsored terrorism? Did we fall into a time warp? Do they really think we’ll buy any of this? It hasn’t even been long enough for the talking heads to turn over: it’s the same crooks delivering the same empty lines on CNN, in the New York Times, on the floor of the House. It’s 2003 all over again.
But Washington DC can be occupied, the plutocrats are served by employees who can strike, and the pundits screaming for Iranian blood are just people in a studio that can be taken over. Recognizing this is part of overcoming that politically impotent mode of expression that defined the left under President Bush: outrage. Outrage, as distinct from anger and rage, has always been a weak political position. Outrage is a reaction, the recognition and/or expression of offense or hurt and generally adresses itself to the people committing outrageous acts. Outrage reflects surprise and shock, which is why outrage can be so easily faked and manufactured to cover malicious intent. “I had no idea the corruption in my office had gotten this far! I’m outraged!” Outrage laughs angrily at Jon Stewart’s mugging, outrage signs a Moveon.org petition, outrage threatens to move to Canada. Outrage is individuated and alienated, it is an expression of the powerless.
The politics of outrage did have one tremendously hopeful moment. In February of 2003, as official, patriotic hatred for Iraq built to an orgiastic frenzy, millions of the outraged appeared on the streets of cities all around the globe, culminating in the largest single day of protest, at least in numbers, that the world has ever seen. But once war began, the movement, such as it was, collapsed. That such a tremendous explosion of popular angst failed to even register with the contemptuous and misanthropic executive would have come as no surprise to a movement with a better analysis of power, nor would it have been a death blow to a movement with a stronger creative impetus than outrage. Rather than manifesting our power, it turned out we were merely registering our offense, ‘voting with our feet’. We were asking the imperial machine not to go to war, and it didn’t even blink. Defeating outrage is as simple as ignoring it.
We are angry, certainly, but we are not shocked, not offended, not surprised. We’ve seen this show before, and while the 1% gathered in Washington may insist on repeating the past’s mistakes, we are not nearly so foolish.
We can’t relive 2003, and no one outside of the DC bubble wants to. How do we respond to the hawks screaming for war? First, we could emphasize that the media teams, politicians, and commentators act in bad faith, that they lie without remorse or fear of consequence. We’ve seen this all before, the same lies from the same mouths, and, as W. said: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me, can’t get fooled again.” As the Obama administration pushes for yet more Middle East adventurism, it should be clear to all but the most stalwart denial artists that, at least in the realm of executive powers and warmaking, there is only an aesthetic difference between Democrat and Republican, between Obama and Bush. Neither voting nor voicing our outrage to our representatives will keep us out of war.
Nor should we debate the Hawks on their terrain. Arguing the possibilities of nuclear weapons or the relative merits of an Israeli bombing campaign is to lose the fight before it begins. Karl Rove’s genius lay in recognizing that by setting the terms of the debate, you could lose every battle and still win the war. The claims made by “security experts” can be outrageous only if we expect them to tell the truth, or consider their arguments objective and non-political. We will not argue about nuclear capacities, threat levels, or the perpetual fear machine's other hysterical catchphrases.
Instead, perhaps we could say that the Iranian people are our brothers and sisters, that we detest every instance of violence and repression done to them by any regime, theirs or ours. We could point out that the struggles that flared up in 2009 under the banner of the ‘green revolution’, and then again during Arab Spring, mirror and inspire our own, and state that we stand in solidarity with all who battle against tyranny and oppression. We could recognize that the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street also opens on Arlington, VA and the war industry.
The reason that the Occupy movement is as threatening as it is to the powers that be is that it implicitly offers this structural critique. The politics of outrage respond to a particular slight, offense or injury, often to a fait accompli. Occupy moves beyond outrage to a politics of solidarity and creativity. The movement has generally responded to a totality of offenses and injuries not by begging for change from the 1% but by taking the initiative with systemic creativity, demanding nothing except the new world we are working to create.
If the Obama administration decides it needs war with Iran to line its pockets and stuff its ballot boxes this election year, it may well have it. But as the warmongers gather again into their huddle, we would do well to reject, once and for all, the politics of outrage. We are angry, certainly, but we are not shocked, not offended, not surprised. We’ve seen this show before, and while the 1% gathered in Washington may insist on repeating the past’s mistakes, we are not nearly so foolish.
- Posted in
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...
6 Comments so far
Show AllRequired reading for all supporters, of "Oilybomber the Lesser" and those blinded by the duopoly. Sorry dudes we are going to keep rubbing your faces in your denial until you wake up and help us disassemble the 0.1%, for you are deadweight hampering the realisation of a better earth.
YES! Thank you Willie- this is needed, this is valuable. Please give us all you can, I-Thank-You.
We are seriously considering war and having these discussions on the 9th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Seriously? If we allow another invasion, as has been said many times before, we're no better than obama, bush, cheney, rumsfeld, et al.
The definition of insanity--- doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Stop voting for the duopoly. No more "D's" and "R's".
Time to pick a different letter, maybe an "I" or "L" or a "G" . just stop it!
While OK as far as it goes, this article talks mostly about how to "frame" the opposition to the possible war with Iran, by "emphasizing" one thing, and "say", "point out" and "state" other things.
The real question is, how to stop the war machine. That machine is made up of armed service personnel. Many of those people have already had their fill of war in Iraq and Afghanistan; others are not remotely interested in attacking Iran.
To "occupy" the war machine means, in part, to reach out to the people who make it up. It means encouraging them to disobey orders, to desert, go AWOL, submit CO applications where appropriate, and to join in demonstrating their opposition to war by attending demonstrations, and speaking out against war, through the social media and elsewhere.
This kind of thing became very widespread in the military during the Viet Nam War; it has also been very noticeable in the two Iraq Wars and in Afghanistan.
Organizations like Courage To Resist; Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada, church groups, pacifists, and others have both supported dissenting military personnel and helped them to speak out publicly. They have been doing some "Occupying" for quite a while.
People who want to "Occupy" can build on the work of those organizations , and can devise new ways to connect with the people caught in the war machine. I hope that very necessary work will begin soon, and that the resistance of ordinary soldiers, seamen, Marines, and airmen will become a major part of the movement to Occupy -- and dismantle -- the war machine.
I like Willie's characterization of our problem from two key perspectives:
1. His spot-on poke at "Outrage" as a useless exercise.
2. His title suggestion of "Occupy the War Machine".
Then Willie claims, "The reason that the Occupy movement is as threatening as it is to the powers that be is that it implicitly offers this structural critique. The politics of outrage respond to a particular slight, offense or injury, often to a fait accompli. Occupy moves beyond outrage to a politics of solidarity and creativity. The movement has generally responded to a totality of offenses and injuries not by begging for change from the 1% but by taking the initiative with systemic creativity, demanding nothing except the new world we are working to create."
Whoa, Willie!
The current Occupy movement is only showing 'Outrage', and not actually attacking the singular underlying (and 'lying') cancer --- the current Occupy is only attacking the symptoms, not the 'cause' of the disease.
In fact, Willie's titled proposal for another of the never-ending names for this movement, "Occupy the War Machine" --- to be added to the already confusing array of names; Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Washington, Occupy the Media, Occupy etc., etc. --- clearly demonstrates that the 'framing' game is still being won by the opposition; by the financial powers, by the political powers, by the militarist powers, by the media powers, by the corporatist powers.
Willie raises the essential point, that the Occupy movement has to progress beyond "outrage" --- but also also beyond the ineffective, distractive, and counter-productive 'naming' and 'framing' game.
Such broad-brush Outrage against the mere names and symbols of the 'symptom problems' that the real opposition causes is definitely not the most effective way to actually attack the underlying cancer that causes all these 'symptom problems' of; Wall Street looting, vast economic inequality, Washington's two-party deceit, the Pentagon's foreign imperialist wars, the media's lies, nor the wholesale destruction of our only fragile environment.
If the Occupy movement continues on this reactive course of claiming to be 'Occupying' everything that is a 'symptom problem' the resulting 'division' of efforts and targets will not only help the real opposition to 'frame' the issue, but will also insure that the active public engagement will remain below 1% and will never get to the 33% that is required to actually start a corrective revolution.
The only 'framing' for the Occupy movement that will go beyond the mere "Outrage" that Willie bemoans, and which can actually ignite a broad-based attack on the cancerous tumor of the real opposition, is to 'name' and 'frame' that real opposition by exposing it to all the American people, by educating all the American people to the real danger, by gaining the trust of all the American people to actively confront this opposition ---- which they have only seen the shadows and 'symptoms problems' of so far on Wall Street, Washington, the media, and even the "War Machine".
The actual heart of darkness, that is the singular CAUSE of all these terrible symptoms, is the underlying cancer of EMPIRE that has captured and fully occupies our former country. And the Occupy movement can only gain the active support of all Americans to go beyond "Outrage" and actually confront (and excise) this cancerous tumor of Empire by naming and 'framing' this corrective action and medicine to recover our country by "Occupying the Empire" that has captured and occupied us in the US.
Best luck and love to Occupy Empire.
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality
Over
Violent/Vichy
Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Signage and chant:
“What do we aspire?
Occupy the Empire!”