Empires Fall

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 13:03


The Judgment of History--Bush and the Neocons Try To Avoid It, But Israel and America Cannot

For the current issue of Random Lengths News I recommended two possibilities to use as national op-eds, both dealing with Gaza and Isreali propaganda.  One was from Counterpunch, Consider the Realities of Gaza by William Cook. The other, which we ended up using, was "Have Bush and the Neocons Ruined it for the Israelis?" by Juan Cole, from Informed Comment, which began thus:

The Israeli propaganda blitz around their attack on Gaza has been greeted with uncharacteristic skepticism by the American public and even by some of the mainstream US press. Even the Jewish American community is uneasy about this one, in a way perhaps unparalelled since the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon and siege of Beirut. Jews for Peace in Los Angeles are actively protesting the Gaza atrocities, and newspaper articles from around the US on local protests held this weekend often mention mixed Arab-American and Jewish-American rallies.

If it is true that Americans are greeting Israeli talking points with more criticism this time, is it because we have been intensively exposed for the past 8 years to precisely this sort of mental manipulation by Bush-Cheney and their stable of Neoconservatives?

Let's take some of the basic techniques of propaganda practiced by Bush and compare them to those deployed by the Israeli leadership in the past 8 days.

Well, of course, Jaun had no difficulty at all drawing parallels between the neocon propaganda and what's going on now in Israel vis-a-vis Gaza.  But the important point is rather the flip side:  not that an expert critic can see all these connections, but that even a wannabee dittohead can't avoid them.  They can just feel their unspoken 5-0, 40-love advantage slipping away.  The fate awaiting them all is that of Martin Indyk in the Democracy Now! interchange with Norman Finklestein that I wrote about earlier this week.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg.  Because, you see, I've got a little secret to share with you all: Empires Fall.

Paul Rosenberg :: Empires Fall
And once empires fall, no one really cares anymore about the wonderful, obsequious biographies or praise-songs written about the fearless leaders.  Heck, folks are lucky if anyone even speaks the old language anymore.  (Psst, have you heard about Chinglish?).  Better luck with the flattering portraits.  Except, maybe they aren't that flattering, after all:

OZYMANDIAS
by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Yeah, Western Civilization's a bitch.  And that's one of its masterpieces.

What was that Tom Friedman said?  Oh, yeah, "Suck. On. This."

Except.

The problem is that Ozymandias wasn't the only one to suffer for his endless hubris.  That's where you and I come in.  And, of course, Barack Obama, and all the other feckless Democrats in Washington, DC.

They're still shadowboxing with the fear of Bush's ghost, afraid to even think of taking on the real thing.  Meanwhile, the entire edifice is falling all around them.

There is a widespread misperception that folks like me represent a politically radical perspective.  That's quite mistaken. Oh, sure I am a political radical.  But I know full well that America's radical political tradition is far too weak in standard political terms to carry any weight.  It takes us a good two generations to get anything done--such abolishing slavery--and then whatever we accomplish is quickly turned inside out, and takes another 100 years to get set right.

And so when I speak like this, it may be because I'm a radical that I'm even looking in this direction.  But what I see has nothing to do with accomplishing any radical goals.  It's simply a matter of civilizational survival.  Which means:

  • A stimulus package large enough and targetted enough (investments and social service spending, not more trickle-down tax cuts) to get us out of this recession-on-the-verge-of-depression.

  • A global warming action program drastic enough to actually avoid the worst of global warming.

  • A reorientation of our foreign policy so that we stop making enemies at ten times the birth rate of the Muslim world.

These are not radical, or even progressive ideas anymore.  They are simply matters of survival.  They are pragmatism incarnate.

They are--dare I say it?--conservative proposals, designed to preserve order and provide stability and continuity.

Alas, the people calling themselves "conservatives" these days are crazed reactionaries, and the entire political spectrum is still fundmantally in its thrall.

That's what happens when empires fall.

In mid-December, I wrote a diary, "Elite Education And America's Failed Civilization", in which I quoted copiously from an article by Chris Hedges, "The Best and the Brightest Led America Off a Cliff".  In it, he wrote about privileged students in elite universities:

They may have known the plot and salient details of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," but they were unable to tell you why the story was important. Their professors, fearful of being branded political and not wanting to upset the legions of wealthy donors and administrative overlords who rule such institutions, did not draw the obvious parallels with Iraq and American empire. They did not use Conrad's story, as it was meant to be used, to examine our own imperial darkness. And so, even in the anemic world of liberal arts, what is taught exists in a moral void.

But it's not just "The Heart of Darkness".  That's just about one man, one small encounter in the imperial enterprise.

It's not about the end of it all.  It's nowhere near as sweeping and final as "Ozymandias".  And it wasn't just Shelley who warned us, you know.  He wasn't alone.

You, Andrew Marvell

And here face down beneath the sun
Here upon Earth's noonward height
To feel the always coming on
The always rising of the night:

To feel creep up the curving East
The earthy chill of dusk and slow
upon those underlands the vast
And ever climbing shadow grow

And strange at Ecbatan the trees
Take leaf by leaf the evening strange
The flooding dark about their knees
The mountains over Persia change

And now at Kermanshah the gate
Dark empty and the withered grass
And through the twilight now the late
Few travellers in the Westward pass

And Baghdad darken and the bridge
Across the silent river gone
And through Arabia the edge
of evening widen and steal on

And deepen in Palmyra's street
The wheel-rut in the ruined stone
And Lebanon fade out and Crete
High through the clouds and overblown

And over Sicily the air
Still flashing with the landward gulls
And loom and slowly disappear
The sails above the shadowy hulls

And Spain go under and the shore
Of Africa the gilded sand
And evening vanish and no more
The low pale light across that land

Nor now the long light on the sea:

And here face downward in the sun
To feel how swift how secretly
The shadow of the night comes on...

  -- Archibald MacLeish


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Empires Fall | 29 comments
The vast majority (0.00 / 0)
of Americans and Israelis who, though saddened and angered by the loss of civilian live nonetheless support the Israeli action against Hamas, are liberal non-neocons like me who fiercely opposed the Iraq war. Don't try and put all who oppose your opinions into the same box.

And by the way, the vast majority of Americans and Israelis of all political stripes agree with me. If that were not the case, there would have been more than 2 members of the House voting against last week's resolution.

So rail on. Your point of view is very important as it tends to pull back to reality the worst elements of the Israeli right wing tendency toward deadly violence. But don't put me -- and the millions of other liberals and especially liberal Jews -- who support military action against Hamas into the same pile as George W. Bush.

BTW, when was the last time you railed like this against civilian deaths in, say, Darfur? Or Georgia last year? Or Tibet? Just asking.


What is a "liberal non-neocon," then, (4.00 / 4)
if it means support for what is going on in Gaza? What do those words even mean to you, beyond "I'm cool, really, don't lump me in with those blood-thirsty Bushies?"

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
That vast majority again (4.00 / 6)
First, the vast majority you claim doesn't exist; if you continue to claim it, you'll be fooling no one but yourself. Second, counting members of Congress tells you only about the past; it tells you nothing about the future. If you have the ear of Israelis, please tell them that their options are narrowing with every bomb that falls on Gaza. No one who counsels them to continue on their present course is their friend.

[ Parent ]
A majority but not a vast majority (4.00 / 1)
One poll says 44% of Americans believe that Israel should take military action in Gaza vs 41% who say no and 55% say Palestinians are to blame.

But polls consistently show that more people approve of George W. Bush than say that their sympathies lie more with the Palestinians than with the Israelis.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
In this climate, with this news media regime, with therse prejudices (4.00 / 4)
Adding to that the conflation of all things Muslim with the lunatic anti-democratic fundies who throw acid in the face of girls who dare to go to school, and its actually a little encouraging that numbers are that low.

That some are beginning to see the craziesness of shooting children as a lesson, such that The New Republic's Marty Peretz thinks is being taught: "do not fuck with the Jews."

History is filed with hubris and arrogance, and I don't mean to belittle the anger, it is also filled with sadness and fear and love for their children. And then to be driven out of their minds. History is filled with sociopathic responses to crisis.

It took how long? How long did it take the American and Russian command structures to realize that total themonuclear war was a step beyond sociopathic, a step beyond batshit crazy, a step beyond. "All life destruction" so as to preserve whatever it was going to preserve on either side. I still lay awake some nights wondering how badly it could have gone, even how badly it still could go wrong.

Really really crazy, a psychopathology that sees broken children's bodies and cheers. It is not weakness that quails before this, it is being human, and in the Mythos, the map whats important that Paul Rosenberg describes as the basis of the worlds religions, it is a soul that quails and rejects and is repulsed.

Not one more life taken in madness.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Not So Much (4.00 / 6)
ColoDem:

The vast majority

of Americans and Israelis who, though saddened and angered by the loss of civilian live nonetheless support the Israeli action against Hamas, are liberal non-neocons like me who fiercely opposed the Iraq war.

Reality (Rasmussen, December 31):

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel's decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

So 31% of Democrats is "the vast majority."

Good to know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Why the need to destroy? Why the need to punish. Why the need to kill? (4.00 / 5)
It has to be more than fear. There is a sickness deep in the culture of the right.

Here is an example from another area. Abortion. A woman I know who was running for office asked a priest off the record, "can we find middle ground? We can reduce unwanted and teen pregnancies 70% to 90% with education and the distribution of condoms, we can can further reduce the pressure on women by making wages equal and further again by making daycare affordable and available. Can't we work together for these goals?" And the response was anger, real almost violent anger that the transgressors would be let off, even encouraged and never punished. Apparently at this point he stormed away after some convoluted logic explaining that children are also a punishment for evil behaviour.

This I don't understand.

Someone said of a terribly uptight friend half jokingly, "he was toilet  trained at rifle point" and I began to understand how terrified some people must be to get every 'little' thing right.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I find it easy to understand (0.00 / 0)
Ask someone on the left about having any restrictions on abortion, and the response is potentially the same sort of anger, even though it's fairly clear that a vast majority of Americans support at least some restrictions on abortion while also opposing outright bans on abortion.  Would anyone on the left offer to trade support for vastly popular parental consent laws (generally polling at +70%) in exchange for support for better sex education?  What if you thought consent laws were a net negative and sex ed was a net positive and the positive clearly outweighed the negative through a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis?  Would you still draw a firm line in the sand?

On a larger level, it doesn't always matter what the majority of Americans, vast or not, believe.  Progressives and conservatives and even bloody centrists sometimes seem to believe in supporting what the majority of Americans believe only when it coincides with their view and otherwise it falls under some category like civil rights where compromise is deemed inherently unacceptable.

The only time American public opinion has an effect on US support of Israel is when it makes it impractical to support Israel when the US shouldn't (or to not support Israel when the US should).  (That is intended as a statement of how things work and not as a normative judgment.)

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Given that you want (4.00 / 4)
to decide for me, an absolute stranger, when and under what conditions I will become a mother, it seems anger is a perfectly reasonable reaction. It is not your decision to make.

How about I make the decision you should never get to become a father, if you know what I mean? Does that help you understand  maybe?

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I was referring to this point cited by Paul. (4.00 / 1)
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Republicans back Israel's decision to take military action against the Palestinians, but only half as many Democrats (31%) agree. A majority of Democrats (55%) say Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first, a view shared by just 27% of Republicans.

I was referring to the split between "lets find a way out" and the need for the good side to defeat. And there are, as in all history, in all conflicts much like this, from the Irish troubles recently to all the unknown wars of interminable length, horrors whose end someone celebrates somewhere. It is like the need in a bar fight to not just know in your heart that your argument is more moral and convincing, but it would be better to know those things if someones nose was broken.

I wasn't talking about passion in a discussion. It was the need to put people in jail rather then find a non-punitive way to accomplish the similar goals. It was the need to find a way for the peoples of the middle east to all accept the a solution. A Marshall Plan sized effort to build a civilization sized demonstration of mutual prosperity and eventual respect. Or we can pound and pound and burn and devastate the evil doers until they aren't evil anymore, or something. That is the difference I meant. I was commenting on the fact it seems to permeate the right.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Americans and Democrats are not synonomous (0.00 / 0)
Just to be a math nerd, it is theoretically possible for the vast majority of Americans to support something that only a minority of Democrats support, given sufficiently high levels of support from Republicans independents.  Which I am sure you know, but I just can't help pointing it out.

I wish I had access to the crosstabs from that Rasmussen poll so I could explore the hints that race is a better predictor of views on Israel than party.  I'm also wondering how to interpret the fact that there is more support for military action among people who say they follow the news of the region "very closely".

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Didn't Say They Were Synonymous (4.00 / 2)
The original claim was that the majority of support for attacking Gaza (Hamas) came from "liberal non-neocons like me who fiercely opposed the Iraq war."

Which is why I focused attention on the small fraction of Dems who support it, in contrast to the majority of Reps who do.

Now, of course, someday (soon maybe) there could be so few Reps that 31% of Dems would be more than 55% of Reps.

But not yet.

And anyway, there'd still be independents to consider.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
What would the independent numbers imply? (0.00 / 0)
The article doesn't say, so what does it imply if a huge majority of independents support or oppose what Israel is doing?  The question is meant as a hypothetical for what you would think if there was an issue where a huge percentage of Democrats believe one thing and a huge percentage of both independents and Republicans are on the other side.

I guess I was a bit bothered because it sort of felt like you were making a Palin-esque implication that only Democrats are real Americans.  I don't care too much for actual Republican politicians, but I do have some respect for the actual citizens who happen to vote Republican.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
You Really Put Yourself Through Some Serious Contortions (4.00 / 1)
to accuse me of possibly being a bigot.

If only you had a more worthwhile purpose to match with your mental dexterity!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
For what it is worth (4.00 / 1)
I thought of Methwold Estates in relation to this post. Even if empires fall, those who live under the empire have to live with the consequences of the decisions of the imperial rulers, such as Partition and the hatred which made that possible, and how much they have bought into the imperial myths and customs. Similarly, if Zionism is found to have failed, or Israel is destroyed by its enemies, the myth of its tragic failure will not be exonerated from the lives of Jews cleanly or simply.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

Empires create myths (4.00 / 1)
Not every imperial ruler is as fruitless as Ozymandias. The myths of the Roman Republic and Empire are still a cornerstone of Western history and civilization and were very active in the minds of the American founders as well.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
Myths? (0.00 / 0)
Would you call the writings of Cicero or Tacitus, or the assassination of Julius Caesar myths? What interested our founders about the classical world, it seems to me, was far more than mythology.

[ Parent ]
Talking past each other (0.00 / 0)
I am not saying that myths can't be true. But a lot of what Cicero at least is doing is building a foundation for the idealization of the Roman Republic that he loved so much. Once you have that idealization you have the foundation of a myth. Myths grow out of actual history by idealizing both ideas and people.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
But you also have the foundation of a political philosophy, which is as much to the point, I think, as the so-called realities of politics as we often experience them. If I may make the usual hackneyed appeal to the dialectical processes involved, what we think is more often than not as important as what we do, despite centuries of conservative denial. In that context, myth is a pure pejorative, and using it obscures how history is actually made.

Even so, you may be right that we're talking past each other. Perhaps you can suggest another approach which might be more fruitful?


[ Parent ]
I think what I was trying to say in the above (0.00 / 0)
is that the Founders were conscious of living in the world the Romans made. And certainly the Roman Republic was a central story of a republic which did great things, but failed. So they had to think about how not to go wrong as the Romans did. I think I am using "myth" in the sense of "framing story".  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
Ozymandias was Ramesses the Great, Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty (4.00 / 3)
This is no mere Myth. One of certainly greatest Dynastic Pharaoh.

What we learn from our myths is the most important part of all these lessons. Rome collapsed because of hubris and a falling away of all their princoples. Or drinking wine in lead goblets. Rome was a democracy, but only for a few, the republic was destroyed to save the save the republic empire.

What Paul's point is, it has to be reiterated, is that Empires fall.

Here is a tiny historical dream: what if George III (the turd) wasn't nuts and filled with hubris, what if in response to the anger of the colonies he had made Benjamin Franklin his Prime Minister and run elections to Parliament from Massachusetts and Virginia and New York?

Empires Fall.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
Paul is better than this (0.00 / 0)
but IMHO the Nazis were not an empire. They were not around even close to long enough to deserve that title. However the Soviets were an empire.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
I suppose our diarist was the walrus (0.00 / 0)


Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

Not working so well now, is it? (4.00 / 3)
I guess the cliche, worn out phrase "Israel has a right to defend itself" is no longer working.  Essentially, every time Israel decided to bomb, kill, and/or maim any part of the Arab world, they trot out the phrase "Israel has a right to defend itself", and that would be the end of the discussion.  Not working so well anymore, is it?  


Empires always fall. (0.00 / 0)
And it's almost always for the same reason--their leaders are attracted to the superficial qualities of destructive policies, without considering their long-term disastrous consequences.  Machiavelli recognized this 700 years ago.  And since most people are attracted to superficial qualities of policies, is it any surprise that all countries eventually disappear?

So yes, America will fall.  Probably not for a while, though--we don't have widespread internal disorder (yet).  But the world will definitely be different 10 years from now, and it will be unrecognizable 100 years from now.


Timing is always a question though (0.00 / 0)
>But that's only the tip of the iceberg.  
> Because, you see, I've got a little secret
> to share with you all: Empires Fall.

Unfortunately you also have the same problem here that financial organizations or individuals had in trying to time the housing market collapse.  As Matthew Yglesias observes, those who correctly predicted the collapse but prepared for it by selling off in 2004 lost a boatload of valuation increase.

Similarly, the American Empire looked to be in pretty sad shape in 1974 - but those who made a big bet against it then in favor of, say, the Soviet Empire or the (then) coming Age of Brazil ended up making a really bad bet.  Will the American Empire end?  Certainly.  When?  Harder to say.

sPh

I do think that our utter refusal to deal with our oil addiction in the grace period of the last 10 years will prove to be our tipping point.


Sorry (4.00 / 1)
But most folks just suffer when empires fall.

I just don't know all that many people who were in a position to "bet" any sort of vast personal fortune for one superpower or another.

Perhaps you'd be willing to lend me yours?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
There's a funny thing about history... (4.00 / 1)
... it's written by the victors.

Even declining powers can win wars. Look at Britain from 1860 till now. Lots of victories. The aristocracy is still there.


"The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield." (4.00 / 4)
great piece at the Progressive by Uri Avnery on this -- Israel Is Losing This War -- http://www.progressive.org/mag...

...  a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books - if the Germans had won the war.

Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as "hostages" and exploit the women and children as "human shields", they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.

IN THIS WAR, as in any modern war, propaganda plays a major role. The disparity between the forces, between the Israeli army - with its airplanes, gunships, drones, warships, artillery and tanks - and the few thousand lightly armed Hamas fighters, is one to a thousand, perhaps one to a million. In the political arena the gap between them is even wider. But in the propaganda war, the gap is almost infinite. ...

Therefore, the whole operation is based on erroneous assumptions. Turning life into living hell does not cause the population to rise up against Hamas, but on the contrary, it unites behind Hamas and reinforces its determination not to surrender. The population of Leningrad did not rise up against Stalin, any more than the Londoners rose up against Churchill.
 ...

The powerful all now rewrite "history" as it happens, and have planned all the propaganda and sales campaigns and "narratives" beforehand, and then the media further rewrites and spins it all even more -- and now actual governing is done the same way too.

I would say it'll all lead to empires falling, but too many seem all too ready to keep believing it all, no? And even when people don't believe, and want those in power to be acting differently, it's just ignored -- they know they'll never be called to account, or voted out of office, etc.  


[ Parent ]
Empires Fall | 29 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search