SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
It would probably be redundant by now to point to Eisenhower's departing warning about the military-industrial complex, except for the fact that it continues to be prophetic and grows increasingly manifest every day. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
Dread and Circuses: Powerful Forces Diverting Attention From Imperative Measures Through Crass Distractions
It may be tempting to obsess over the ways that the two main parties diverge, but it might be more important to note when they agree.
Dec 19, 2019
As our ongoing political reality show unfolds in real time, a sickening feeling sinks in that all is not well in America. This has been the case for a while now, but the spectacle of parochial politics, impeachment machinations, and unvarnished authoritarianism at the top levels raises the ante to a critical point. And while the drama of partisanship coopts the public gaze, the tragicomedy of bipartisan assent to deeply troubling policies of militarization and privatization slips beneath the radar. And that was just this week.
With all the handwringing over the partisan divide on full display in the impeachment process, even more impactful news items only faintly registered in the cycle. Passing by near acclaim at the apex of impeachment, the country minted a new branch of the military and doubled down on imprudent trade policies that depress economic and environmental prospects alike. It may be tempting to obsess over the ways that the two main parties diverge, but it might be more important to note when they agree.
We spend trillions on "national defense," by far the largest outlay of any nation, while arguing over relative crumbs for public goods like housing, healthcare, and education.
To wit, we will now have a "Space Force" as the sixth branch of the armed forces, tucked into a massive new military budget overwhelmingly passed by Congress. We spend trillions on "national defense," by far the largest outlay of any nation, while arguing over relative crumbs for public goods like housing, healthcare, and education. With the realization of a space-based military force, the arc draws further away from lived experiences on the ground to an assertion of unassailable power in the stratosphere.
On the heels of this alarming turn, the House even more overwhelmingly approved the "New NAFTA." Like its precursor, this agreement privileges the movement of goods and dollars while impinging on the capacity of people to do the same. It reifies the ascendency of footloose capital at the expense of sustainability, promising gains for working people that are as fleeting as national climate commitments. While the world burns, policymakers are fiddling with economic practices that exacerbate the problem.
It would probably be redundant by now to point to Eisenhower's departing warning about the military-industrial complex, except for the fact that it continues to be prophetic and grows increasingly manifest every day. Yes, the House can impeach a President, which makes for great theater. But the real show is playing out in the wings, in full view of those who can break away from the action on the main stage for a moment. The docility fostered by the spectacle turns into dismay when the implications come to light.
This doesn't mean that castigating a President who's gone off the rails (or never was really on them) is unwarranted on its own terms. It is certainly substantive as an historical rebuke and a marker of at least some principled lines in the exercise of top-tier political power. But let's face it: we've been living inside the President's extended-play reality show for years now, and little has been done by any of the other branches (including the ostensible "fourth") to stem the tide. Nor have the people really demanded it.
The phrase "bread and circuses" is often taken as a critique of powerful forces diverting attention from imperative measures through crass distractions. But as its original usage implies, it is equally about the willingness of the public to accept pacification, to "contain itself" by limiting its desires to basic needs and the buzz of exhibition. While the capacity of power-holders to distract and conquer invokes a sense of dread, perhaps even more so does the realization that few among us are demanding anything else.
If "bread and circuses" thus represents an abdication of public responsibility and discernment of what actually matters, then it is incumbent upon us not to confuse style for substance. Personal attributes and political squabbles often define legislative skirmishes, debate performances, and campaign rhetoric. But undergirding this are critical policy initiatives with long term implications for the causes of peace, justice, and sustainability. Achieving these aims isn't a game, and we won't get there on bread alone.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Randall Amster
Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., is co-director and teaching professor of environmental studies at Georgetown University. His books include "Peace Ecology" (2015), "Anarchism Today" ( 2012), and "Lost in Space: The Criminalization, Globalization, and Urban Ecology of Homelessness" (2008).
As our ongoing political reality show unfolds in real time, a sickening feeling sinks in that all is not well in America. This has been the case for a while now, but the spectacle of parochial politics, impeachment machinations, and unvarnished authoritarianism at the top levels raises the ante to a critical point. And while the drama of partisanship coopts the public gaze, the tragicomedy of bipartisan assent to deeply troubling policies of militarization and privatization slips beneath the radar. And that was just this week.
With all the handwringing over the partisan divide on full display in the impeachment process, even more impactful news items only faintly registered in the cycle. Passing by near acclaim at the apex of impeachment, the country minted a new branch of the military and doubled down on imprudent trade policies that depress economic and environmental prospects alike. It may be tempting to obsess over the ways that the two main parties diverge, but it might be more important to note when they agree.
We spend trillions on "national defense," by far the largest outlay of any nation, while arguing over relative crumbs for public goods like housing, healthcare, and education.
To wit, we will now have a "Space Force" as the sixth branch of the armed forces, tucked into a massive new military budget overwhelmingly passed by Congress. We spend trillions on "national defense," by far the largest outlay of any nation, while arguing over relative crumbs for public goods like housing, healthcare, and education. With the realization of a space-based military force, the arc draws further away from lived experiences on the ground to an assertion of unassailable power in the stratosphere.
On the heels of this alarming turn, the House even more overwhelmingly approved the "New NAFTA." Like its precursor, this agreement privileges the movement of goods and dollars while impinging on the capacity of people to do the same. It reifies the ascendency of footloose capital at the expense of sustainability, promising gains for working people that are as fleeting as national climate commitments. While the world burns, policymakers are fiddling with economic practices that exacerbate the problem.
It would probably be redundant by now to point to Eisenhower's departing warning about the military-industrial complex, except for the fact that it continues to be prophetic and grows increasingly manifest every day. Yes, the House can impeach a President, which makes for great theater. But the real show is playing out in the wings, in full view of those who can break away from the action on the main stage for a moment. The docility fostered by the spectacle turns into dismay when the implications come to light.
This doesn't mean that castigating a President who's gone off the rails (or never was really on them) is unwarranted on its own terms. It is certainly substantive as an historical rebuke and a marker of at least some principled lines in the exercise of top-tier political power. But let's face it: we've been living inside the President's extended-play reality show for years now, and little has been done by any of the other branches (including the ostensible "fourth") to stem the tide. Nor have the people really demanded it.
The phrase "bread and circuses" is often taken as a critique of powerful forces diverting attention from imperative measures through crass distractions. But as its original usage implies, it is equally about the willingness of the public to accept pacification, to "contain itself" by limiting its desires to basic needs and the buzz of exhibition. While the capacity of power-holders to distract and conquer invokes a sense of dread, perhaps even more so does the realization that few among us are demanding anything else.
If "bread and circuses" thus represents an abdication of public responsibility and discernment of what actually matters, then it is incumbent upon us not to confuse style for substance. Personal attributes and political squabbles often define legislative skirmishes, debate performances, and campaign rhetoric. But undergirding this are critical policy initiatives with long term implications for the causes of peace, justice, and sustainability. Achieving these aims isn't a game, and we won't get there on bread alone.
Randall Amster
Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., is co-director and teaching professor of environmental studies at Georgetown University. His books include "Peace Ecology" (2015), "Anarchism Today" ( 2012), and "Lost in Space: The Criminalization, Globalization, and Urban Ecology of Homelessness" (2008).
As our ongoing political reality show unfolds in real time, a sickening feeling sinks in that all is not well in America. This has been the case for a while now, but the spectacle of parochial politics, impeachment machinations, and unvarnished authoritarianism at the top levels raises the ante to a critical point. And while the drama of partisanship coopts the public gaze, the tragicomedy of bipartisan assent to deeply troubling policies of militarization and privatization slips beneath the radar. And that was just this week.
With all the handwringing over the partisan divide on full display in the impeachment process, even more impactful news items only faintly registered in the cycle. Passing by near acclaim at the apex of impeachment, the country minted a new branch of the military and doubled down on imprudent trade policies that depress economic and environmental prospects alike. It may be tempting to obsess over the ways that the two main parties diverge, but it might be more important to note when they agree.
We spend trillions on "national defense," by far the largest outlay of any nation, while arguing over relative crumbs for public goods like housing, healthcare, and education.
To wit, we will now have a "Space Force" as the sixth branch of the armed forces, tucked into a massive new military budget overwhelmingly passed by Congress. We spend trillions on "national defense," by far the largest outlay of any nation, while arguing over relative crumbs for public goods like housing, healthcare, and education. With the realization of a space-based military force, the arc draws further away from lived experiences on the ground to an assertion of unassailable power in the stratosphere.
On the heels of this alarming turn, the House even more overwhelmingly approved the "New NAFTA." Like its precursor, this agreement privileges the movement of goods and dollars while impinging on the capacity of people to do the same. It reifies the ascendency of footloose capital at the expense of sustainability, promising gains for working people that are as fleeting as national climate commitments. While the world burns, policymakers are fiddling with economic practices that exacerbate the problem.
It would probably be redundant by now to point to Eisenhower's departing warning about the military-industrial complex, except for the fact that it continues to be prophetic and grows increasingly manifest every day. Yes, the House can impeach a President, which makes for great theater. But the real show is playing out in the wings, in full view of those who can break away from the action on the main stage for a moment. The docility fostered by the spectacle turns into dismay when the implications come to light.
This doesn't mean that castigating a President who's gone off the rails (or never was really on them) is unwarranted on its own terms. It is certainly substantive as an historical rebuke and a marker of at least some principled lines in the exercise of top-tier political power. But let's face it: we've been living inside the President's extended-play reality show for years now, and little has been done by any of the other branches (including the ostensible "fourth") to stem the tide. Nor have the people really demanded it.
The phrase "bread and circuses" is often taken as a critique of powerful forces diverting attention from imperative measures through crass distractions. But as its original usage implies, it is equally about the willingness of the public to accept pacification, to "contain itself" by limiting its desires to basic needs and the buzz of exhibition. While the capacity of power-holders to distract and conquer invokes a sense of dread, perhaps even more so does the realization that few among us are demanding anything else.
If "bread and circuses" thus represents an abdication of public responsibility and discernment of what actually matters, then it is incumbent upon us not to confuse style for substance. Personal attributes and political squabbles often define legislative skirmishes, debate performances, and campaign rhetoric. But undergirding this are critical policy initiatives with long term implications for the causes of peace, justice, and sustainability. Achieving these aims isn't a game, and we won't get there on bread alone.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.