"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."
--"The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon"
Dylan:
And here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice
--"(Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The) Memphis Blues Again"
Buffy:
"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school."
--"After Life," Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
LBJ was a tragic figure. Barack Obama is a farcical one--and the joke's on you if you still don't realize that after his second mass escalation of the war in Afghanistan. As Robert Mann makes powerfully clear in his 2000 book, A Grand Delusion: America's Descent Into Vietnam, Johnson had been traumatized by the Democrat's sweeping losses as a result of the Korean War. The Democrats had held the Senate majority since FDR became President in 1932, and looked like they would hold it forever until Truman was caught flat-footed by the outbreak of the Korean War. Johnson did incredible work first winning back the majority, then engineering a massive landslide victory in 1958. He was petrified of the prospect of doing that again, and determined not to let it happen.. It was a deeply flawed decision--a tragic one--but at least LBJ had the excuse that it hadn't been tried before and found wanting.
Barack Obama has no such excuse. But he's not just repeating LBJ's mistake of trying to have guns and butter at the same time. He's repeatedly made clear that the butter has to go, no matter what. The only question is when. Unlike the GOP, when Obama talks about cutting budget deficits, we have every reason to believe that he's dead serious. Both Social Security and Medicare are in serious peril under Obama, no matter what happens in Afghanistan.
It's my belief that it's no longer in doubt: Barack Obama is not a progressive, even a moderate or cautious one. On virtually every issue imaginable, we've seen nearly a year of bending over backwards to mollify conservative and reactionary forces-with a singular lack of success-while repeatedly rebuffing or attacking progressives, even when all they are doing is trying to support his agenda,
Behind all the various different examples one could point to, I believe that there's a common thread of underlying continuity and accommodation with the Reagan/Bush/Gingrich/Bush era ideology, rather than fundamental change. Put simply, as revealed during the campaign, at a fundamental level Barack Obama believes that Reagan's criticism of the New Deal is true. Which is why he is aligned with conservadems who want to gut Social Security and Medicare. He also believes that Reagan's style of blind, unquestioning, authoritarian patriotism is not just legitimate, but superior to the progressive, democratic-republican alternative that is actually founded on living out the political philosophy on which our nation was founded.
All that is quite a mouthful, but what it comes down to is that Obama does not believe in the critical/prophetic patriotism professed by Martin Luther King, and carried on, however imperfectly, by his own long-time minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The incidents used to drive a wedge between the two were actually superficial to their underlying differences. Obama is, above all, a symbol of black assimilation. After centuries of always being on the bottom, trampled underfoot by any recent arrival, with Obama's ascension to the Oval Office, black America could finally say it had arrived , it had been integrated into America's polity at the highest level.
On The Flip: Martin Luther King had never been an apostle of mere integration...
This is republished from the April 2 edition of Random Lengths News.
Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam?
Less New Thinking and More Old Mistakes
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor
On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama, then an Illinois State Senator, gave a speech opposing going to war in Iraq. That speech, at that time, would prove crucial to his election, first as a US Senator two years later, and then as President, four years after that. Democrats who equivocated were a dime a dozen. Obama stood out, because he stood up when others did not, and said, "This is wrong."
He did not oppose all wars. He cited the Civil War and World War II as specific examples of necessary ones. But, he said, "I'm opposed to dumb wars." Yet, on January 23, his third full day as President, Obama ordered two separate air strikes in Pakistan, killing 14 civilians, along with four suspected terrorists. One strike killed six civilians along with four suspected terrorists staying in their home, the other simply hit the wrong target, the home of a pro-government tribal elder, Malik Deen Faraz in the Gangikhel area of South Waziristan, killing him, his three sons and a grandson, along with three others.
Now President Obama has made it official. In addition to another 17,000 troops promised early, he made an additional pledge of 4,000 more on Friday, March 27. It was reportedly a 'carefully calibrated' decision, these would be trainers not combat troops, we were told. But Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran, whose career included long stretches preparing security briefs for Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., was not impressed with such fine distinctions.
In parts 1-4 two weeks ago, I wrote a series of articles quite critical of Barack Obama's echoing rightwing narrative frames demonizing forms of dissent.
those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.
In part 3, "Patriotism Smackdown: Barack Obama Vs. Jane Fonda?", I expanded the critique of Obama's echoing rightwing Vietnam-era myths by taking on the image of Jane Fonda. I drew on Jerry Lembcke's paper, "Gender, Betrayal, and Public Memory: America's Lost War in Vietnam" to illuminate how Jane Fonda was reinvented as an icon of cultural betrayal years after the fact, in stark contrast to the historical realities of the time, and how this reinvention fit into some of the oldest myths of American identity.
Then in part 4, "Patriotism Smackdown: "Hanoi Jane" vs. Tricky Dick", I looked at how it was actually Richard Nixon who was responsible for the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of Americans in South Vietnam, as he schemed along with Henry Kissinger to prevent the signing of a peace treaty in 1968, before the November elections.
Collectively, these aticles go to show that Barack Obama tacitly--at the very least--embraces a view of political history since the 1960s that is deeply shaped by rightwing fantasies of liberal treachery, and that deliberately ignores and excuses the actual reality of rightwing treachery. The charge is not that Obama makes such a fantasy the cornerstone of his politics. He clearly does not. But he does allow this fantasy to define the limits and outline the shape of his politics. It is defines the box in which he lives--and in which he would have all of us live with him.
This fifth installment--unfortunately delayed by illness--completes the series by taking a longer historical view of the underlying dynamic in terms of one of its classic metaphors--the "stab in the back" that played such a crucial role in the emergence of Naziism after Germany's defeat in WWI.
In doing so, I'm going to hitch a ride through the 20th Century with Kevin Baker, who wrote a fantastic piece for Harpers a couple of yearrs ago, "Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth". In it, Baker makes specific reference to Lembcke and The Spitting Image, which we'll get to shortly. But he begins with a very tight thesis paragrph that cuts to the chase
Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.
This is what we're up against--to this very day. But it's not just fighting off this profound evasion of responsibility and the wildly proliferating demonology it produces. There's also the little detail about getting past all this delusion to actually come up with something that makes sense as foreign policy--something we can't even get close to doing so long as we're spending all our time fighting off--or even worse, being seduced by--rightwing demons. If you don't believe me, just ask Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. She tried to have a normal life, but, well. You know.
It was post-WWI Germany, and a fellah named Adolph something-or-other who really got the ball rolling on this whole stabbed-in-back fantasy, in a way that the American right later picked up on, "big time," as America's #2 war criminal would say. Gory details on the flip.
The last diary in this series, Patriotism Smackdown: Barack Obama Vs. Jane Fonda?, looked at how a mythology was created after the fact to use Jane Fonda ("Hanoi Jane") as a symbol for blaming the loss of the Vietnam War on the anti-war movement. In particular, Fonda was presented as a betrayer of the troops. But, as is almost always the case with rightwing narratives, whatever accusations they may make about others are almost invariably true about themselves. "Projection" is the name of the game, and this episode is no exception. Indeed, there is now compelling evidence that Richard Nixon himself is fully deserving of all the calumny that has been heaped on Jane Fonda, and much, much more besides.
You see, in 1968, records now show, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger interfered with the Paris Peace Talks, to prevent the war from being ended before the 1968 elections. As a private citizen at the time, Nixon had no right whatever to be doing such a thing. In fact, what he did could arguably be construed as treason. Whatever the legal situation, however, one thing is clear: 20,763 American troops died on Nixon's watch, while another 111,230 were wounded. That's over 130,000 American troops who would have lived, or not been wounded had Nixon not interfered, and Johnson secured the peace treaty he so desperately sought to rescue his reputation as best he could. Over 130,000 American casualties that Richard Nixon is directly responsible for, simply in order for him to become President.
And the right wants to paint Jane Fonda as a betrayer of American troops?
In Part II of this series, I referred to Jerry Lembcke's book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam, and his examination of the myth that anti-war protesters commonly spat on returning veterans. I quoted from an interview in which he touched on an important aspect of his book, the attempt to make sense of the myth in terms of blame-shifting, similar to that which took place in Germany after WWI, blame-shifting that would, eventually lead to the rise of the Third Reich. In this installment, I want to quote extensively from some more recent work that Lembcke has done focusing on another aspect of that same phenomena--the demonization of Jane Fonda.
There is a striking similarity between the two subjects. Just as Vietnam vets and the anti-war movement were close allies, rather than antagonists back in the late 60s and early 70s, Jane Fonda was a very popular figure with the troops, one of the priniciple organizers of the counter-culture alternative to the Bob Hope USO shows, known either as "Free the Army," or in its more colloquial form, "Fuck the Army."
In Part One of this series, I used Langston Hughes's poem "Let America Be America Again" to sharpen some of the inconsistencies in Obama's speech about patriotism. Here, I want to dig deeper into what appears to be a fundamental aspect of what's wrong with Obama's vision-his acceptance of righwing mythology about the nature of anti-war activism from the Vietnam Era. In this diary and the next, I draw primarily on the research of sociologist-and Vietnam vet-Jerry Lemcke, to discredit and analyze two prominent rightwing mythic narratives about Vietnam, both of which seek to shift responsibility for losing the war away from those responsible for the war and onto those who opposed it. In the diary following that, I'll look at how this fits into a much longer historical pattern of rightwing mythmaking.
This diary is about the myth that anti-war protesters commonly spit on returning veterans. The next is about the myth of "Hanoi Jane"--portraying Jane Fonda, who was actually well-liked by the troops, as someone deeply hostile to them, and responsible for their defeat.
In Part 1, I took note of the reportage casting Fox News as "populist" highlighted by Kargo X, and wrote:
While the notion of Fox News as "populist" is a ludicrous rightwing perversion in one sense, it is quite accurate in another sense we dare not ignore--and that is, quite simply, that it reflects the truest test of elite power--the ability to define the essential contours of populist thought, and to cast someone else as the dreaded "elite".
In this diary, I want to dig back into history, and uncover some key turning points that brought us from the economic populist solidarity of the New Deal to the sorry state we find ourselves in today, where the Democratic Party is still virtually clueless about how to respond to such outrageous lies. A key figure in this story is the pivotal Republican President of the past 75 years--Richard Nixon.
While Barack Obama and legions of his supporters insist on seeing Reagan as his hagiographers have painted him--as a trascendental transformative figure--the simple reality is that he was nothing of the sort. He was the beneficiary of an enormous amount of high-power myth-making. But Nixon was the one who made it all possible.
I've argued elsewhere about why 1968 was a de-aligning election--ending the "New Deal" Fifth Party System, in which Democrats dominated Congress and the presidency as thoroughly as any party has ever dominated a party system, and ushering in the only party system in American history in which the dominant "party" is divided government. Now, in an excerpt from his new book, Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, Rick Perlstein provides a striking snapshot of how that deeply split 1968 election sent down much deeper splits into the bedrock of American politics. The excerpt, "Then No One Would Be a Democrat Anymore" (at American Prospect Online) describes the progression of blue-collar anti-anti-war violence, rioting, and eventual mass marching that thrilled Nixon with the prospect of a vast political realignment:
Nixon had tried to talk to the student demonstrators. He concluded he preferred the hard hats. "Thinks now the college demonstrators have overplayed their hands," Haldeman wrote in his diary, "evidence is the blue collar group rising against them, and [president] can mobilize them."
New York construction workers now took every lunch hour for boisterous patriotic demonstrations. So did hard hats in San Diego, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh. Some of the rallies were not entirely spontaneous: "Obviously more of these will be occurring throughout the nation," White House staffer Stephen Bull wrote in a memo to Chuck Colson, "perhaps partially as a result of your clandestine activity." Peter Brennan, the combative head of the Building Trades Council of Greater New York, accused of organizing the "hard hat riot," defiantly denied it -- then showed what he could do as an organizer: one hundred thousand marchers on May 20, complete with a cement mixer draped with a LINDSAY FOR MAYOR OF HANOI banner. Signs read GOD BLESS THE ESTABLISHMENT and WE SUPPORT NIXON AND AGNEW. Time called it "a kind of workers' Woodstock."
STATE BLOGS
