Archives for the month of: November, 2006

I love this!

The cultural style of the Bush warriors is the latest wrinkle in one of the most enduring modes of antimodern aesthetic expression. “Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas,” wrote art critic Clement Greenberg in his seminal essay, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” in 1939. “Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times.”

Kitsch is imitative, cheap, sentimental, mawkish and incoherent, and derives its appeal by demeaning and degrading genuine standards and values, especially those of modernity. While the proponents of the faux retro style claim to uphold tradition, they are inherently reactive and parasitic, their words and products a tawdry patchwork, hastily assembled as declarations against authentic complexity and ambiguity, which they stigmatize as threats to the sanctity of an imaginary harmonious order of the past that they insist they and their works represent. Kitsch presumes to be based on old rules, but constantly traduces them.

The Bush kitsch warriors have created a cultural iconography that attempts to inspire deference to the radical making of an authoritarian presidency. These warriors pose as populists, fighting a condescending liberal elite. Wealthy, celebrated and influential, their faux populism demands that they be seen however as victims.

From Salon.

I’m watching MSNBC’s election coverage and Chris Matthews just went on a little rant, accusing the Democrats of not knowing what to do about the war. “I can’t figure out where these people stand,” he said. (Quoting from memory here. I didn’t write it down.) “Take Hillary Clinton. What is her position on Iraq? She never says the same thing twice. You’d have to give her sodium pentothal to ever get her sincere opinion on this.”

I wonder whether Matthews is aware that in saying this he is repeating a sleazy meme crafted by Republican strategists. It is misleading, to say the least, to insist that in general Democrats have a poorer understanding or cruder plans about Iraq than Republicans do.

First, that some Democrats want the war to end some day is already a hell of a lot more sensible that any Republican’s position. Second, what kind of real plan do the Republicans have? I have not seen one. I don’t think the Republicans have the slightest fucking idea what to do next in Iraq.

So what do they do? They accuse the Democrats of not having any ideas!

Second, anyone who, unlike the Republicans, is actually thinking about what we should do in Iraq, is in a very difficult position. Of course they’re not sure how to handle it. Bush and company have dug us into a hideous fucking hole. We’re going to have a hard time climbing out of it, not because we don’t have the will, not because we don’t have the brains, but because the destruction has been so extreme.

Whatever the Democrats work out, if they are allowed to work anything out, it’s going to be an uphill battle — first, because the Republicans don’t want them to succeed, and second, because the problem is just so very, very tough.

On the other hand it has to be mentioned that the only really sensible solution to the war is to end it immediately. And I do not mean “some day.” I mean that our soldiers should lay down their weapons right now, this very minute, and leave Iraq as soon as the planes can take off.

Sure, this idea can’t be pursued politically. No one will vote for it. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. Sometimes the only good idea is the one that everyone is avoiding, because to acknowledge that one good idea would be to reveal the absurdity of the whole complex of other ideas that have been discussed as if anyone ever thought they made any sense.

If you still think we should be in Iraq for any length of time I have to ask you whether you’re really OK with with murder and torture — if you’re OK with being, if only by proxy, a murderer and a torturer. Think it over. Think about telling your children that you’ve decided what should happen, for example, to children in Iraq. Are you in favor of the maiming and death and amputation and watching your parents die in flames that’s been happening to hundreds of thousands of children over there? Are you ready to explain to your children why that’s OK with you? Are you ready to explain why you figure that things like that will keep happening in Iraq but they won’t start happening where your family lives?

We were living in Oakland in 1991 when the firestorm happened. I walked to the the end of the block the top of the hill, with Noah, who was about 3. I could not believe what I was seeing. There were sheets of fire climbing the hill on the other side of the hollow, perhaps a quarter-mile away. We could see it plowing through the woods toward a cluster of houses. I thought, If the wind turns, will it come this way? After a moment Noah turned to me and asked softly, “Is the fire going to burn our house?”

We should not be burning anyone’s house. We should not be waging war. I’m sorry, it’s just that simple. But getting out, now that we’re in there, is not so simple (unless you’re an absolutist like me). So Chris Matthews should not be criticizing anyone for not having a detailed plan for getting out. He should be criticizing the people who are not planning to get out at all. They started this nightmare, and now they accuse everyone else of not knowing how to end it. Mr. Matthews should be explaining that, rather than parroting Republican talking points as if they were news.

Dear D.C.,

As you said, our differences are fundamental. Personally, I’m disillusioned about the talks we’ve been having. Even though, as you know, I’ve really enjoyed them — seriously! — it sure looks like neither of us is likely to change the other’s attitude toward the smallest issue.

Today and tomorrow I’m taking “sick/personal days” to get out the vote for Democrats in Maryland. In this election there is, for me, a bare glimmer of hope that some day, somehow, this long nightmare will be over. Oh, it’s still possible that Bush and Cheney will decide that the 2008 elections are unnecessary and declare martial law instead. And even if they don’t heed that temptation, there is almost no limit to the terror and grief they can cause in the next two years, even as lame ducks. Still, even so, I feel a glimmer of hope… and even a glimmer is more hope than I’ve felt in these six terrifying bloody years.

Might we actually climb out of this hell-hole someday? There is still possibly some small chance. Even after the turnaround, if there is one, it will take us decades to recover, such is the unimaginable damage that has been deliberately caused by these people. Still, it is at least conceivable that our children will grow up in an America not controlled by an entrenched kleptocracy and their secret police; it is just possible that our children need never worry that if they say something the President or the President’s watchful minions don’t like, they might be captured and disappear forever and be tortured until they die. How should I warn my children about this, D.C.? It’s impossible — and yet they need to know!

This is not the world I wanted for them. Check the legislation again, D.C. Don’t second-guess it, just read the words. The people running this country have legislated for themselves the “right” to imprison indefinitely, and to torture, anyone they don’t like. It’s that simple! — and how can anyone in the world think it’s a good deal? To cause hideous suffering, just because they want to! — this is the prerogative Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice are claiming for themselves. Why on Earth should they have that, and what kind of people are they, that they would even want it? What is wrong with them?

And then have the chutzpah to say this is a way of protecting the American people!

They are worse than criminals, they are blind, random, pointless, pitiless, destructive forces, like a tornado or a hurricane or a flow of lava. They are the worst thing to happen to this country in a long, long time, and still millions if people respect them and root for them. And if you ask me, all of their supporters are accessories to their crimes. All of them agreed that spending a trillion dollars to invade Iraq and kill half a million people was a good idea.

Thought experiment. If we had really had a trillion dollars to spend — we didn’t, but that’s a whole different subject — had we had a trillion dollars to spend on this “crucial” project, instead of casually blowing away those five hundred thousand people (the vast majority of them perfectly innocent!) we could have given each of them two million dollars. I bet they wouldn’t “hate our freedoms” then!

Torture is never good, and war is never good. Yes, it’s just as you said: we have fundamental differences.

I think that people who carry out torture and war are criminals, and that those who help them do their work are accessories. I think that such people deserve our protest, our resistance, and even our hate. But though we hate their violence, we will not answer it with violence. That is not our way, because we believe that there is almost always a better solution — and I mean better for everyone.

You see, the liberal philosophy is that it would be nice if everyone were happy. Whereas, the conservative philosophy is that it would be nice if all the conservatives were happy; everyone else can go to hell. (Libertarians? Let’s not even go there.) This was Reagan’s astonishing discovery: you can win votes by reassuring your “base” that there is no reason at all for them to care for anyone else. They’ll be so relieved!

Of course you can’t tell them that you don’t believe in caring about them, either. But chances are, they’ll never figure it out. What an innovation! What a boon to the Republican party! As an “elected representative,” you can say absolutely anything, and then do whatever you want. You just plain don’t have to care about anyone, except for your closest, richest friends. This is the Reagan legacy: the promise and the temptation of absolute domination. Of government by the criminal element. Of government where he rises to the top who hesitates the least to hurt others, and who is the happiest liar.

Torture is evil. Torture is practically the definition of evil. And our administration stands up in public and demands the liberty to use it ad libitum! Don’t they know how sick that makes them look? Do they really not care, perhaps because they are insulated from all harm? But what about when they’re no longer in power? Won’t they be vulnerable to prosecution then? — and don’t you think that exactly this consideration is tempting them very much to stay in power, no matter what it takes? Isn’t that what they’ve been doing all along? What could ever give us the confidence that they would moderate their power in any way?

Right now we are “this close” to losing everything that ever made the United States a good idea. And everyone who voted for Bush — especially those who did it twice — should be begging forgiveness from the rest of us for buying into Bush’s lies and helping him try to destroy our country.

But I’m a generous person — more generous than any Republican can even imagine — and for each and every one of y’all I have a friendly proposal. Vote only for Democrats for the next six years, and we’ll forgive you. Why? — because we believe in being good to people. To all people. In other words: we’re Democrats.

From the New Yorker, 6 November 2006, page 45:

There’s a lively debate among historians over the question of whether the record of the forty-third President, compiled with the indispensable help of a complaisant Congress, is the worst in American history or merely the worst of the sixteen who managed to make it into (if not out of) a second turn.

I don’t think water boarding is torture. My definition of torture is you physically harm someone by cutting them, by cutting their fingers, sticking things in their eyes, sticking their fingers in electric sockets. Water boarding is a frightening experience. But the person does not have physical damage.

As quoted in Newsday under the astonishing headline Delay promotes his vision. My friend D.C. comments: “This description is dishonest, because it leaves out the psychological component.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.