A lot of folks got angry over my diary, "Obama's Somnambulant Embrace of Jingoistic Militarism". In doing so, they inadvertently helped illustrated the point I was trying to make: that Obama's uncritical parroting of standard military-praising rhetoric is politically quite dangerous. Most of those commenting seemed to be utterly oblivious to the fact that I was trying to talk about language, how it shapes our perceptions, how it hides or reveals aspects of the truth. Instead, they were fixated on the object of the language-the military-or better still, on me for daring either to criticize Obama and/or to criticize the troops.
All of this behavior exemplifies aspects of how hegemony works, how it makes it impossible for us to communicate clearly with one another, instead contending endlessly with distorted and misleading assumptions built into what we take to be our "common sense" understanding.
What is hegemony? It's ideology in drag as common sense. To reinforce hegemony, one does not have to explicitly say "I agree with the hegemonic position that XYZ." It's enough to simply repeat a piece of conventional wisdom, particularly in a situation where a more thoughtful, critical observation had the potential to spark critical reflection, even dialogue. And this is exactly what Obama did at his "100 days" press conference, responding to the question:
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?
By saying, in part:
Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?
Obama went out of his way to say:
Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I -- when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They're really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.
And, you know, the more I interact with our servicemen and women, from the top brass down to the lowliest private, I'm just -- I'm grateful to them.
This sort of cringe-inducing pandering (see, we Democrats don't hate the troops! Honest!) not only lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats' patriotism, and tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they've employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic, it also actively participates in the brainwashing on which the exploitation of young recruits depends. In striking contrast to Obama's blithe platitudes, author Susan Galleymore talks about the reality, and her recently-released book, Long Time Passing: Mothers Speak about War and Terror:
The values are all there: teamwork; fairplay; a transparent and honest judiciary. By many counts, sports embody liberal values.
So why does it seem like pro sports -- and its apotheosis, last night's Super Bowl -- are the domain of conservative thinking? Is it the martial posturing (although, despite the on-field pre-game presence of David Petraeus, the NFL does claim it's moving away from military metaphors)? Is it the culture of excessive consumerism embodied in the ads? Is it the machismo that sometimes resembles an anti-woman ethos (and has led to Superbowl Sunday having a horrid reputation for spousal abuse)?
Last night saw one of the most amazing programs in the history of Bill Moyers Journal. Really, one of most amazing programs Moyers has done, period, in all his years on television. His guest for the hour was Andrew J. Bacevich, a West Point graduate, retired colonel with 23 years in the Army, and author of several books, including The Limits Of Power: The End Of American Exceptionalism, just released this week. Here's a distillation of their conversation:
As I suggested in my diary earlier today, "We're So Lame" , the Democrats would be much better off scrapping their "national security" lineup full of disgraced Iraq War hawks, and replacing the whole lot with Bacevich. More reasons why on the flip--and a suggestion about how we might change the direction of our country.
