Godless in Union Square
I got access to a lot of really brilliant thinkers – liberals and conservatives – in the writing of Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing. And all of them contributed in their own way to my understanding of how, more than any other force, the transformation of American liberalism has imperiled the country. Yet one of the most interesting analogies came from the daughter of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Alexandra.
We met at a busy café in downtown Manhattan to discuss her experiences growing up in the “cult” of the Democratic party. Alexandra had a lot of really fascinating revelations that day. Among them, that in the run-up to the ’04 presidential election (which she covered in Diary of a Political Tourist, her follow up to Journeys with George) she couldn’t discern any major difference between John Kerry and George Bush. Pretty standard stuff for the politically disaffected, but for the child of one of the Dems most powerful leaders, who was taught to believe that Republicans were “evil,” this was a major admission.
But what really got me was her candidness at the end of our talk. One of the recurring themes in Wolves is the old saying that “if you are a conservative before the age of thirty, there’s something wrong with your heart and if you’re a liberal after 30, there’s something wrong with your head.” I was first reminded of this cliché by Peter Hitchens (ultra-conservative brother of Christopher) early in the writing of the book and it became a kind of lens through which I could look at the A-list Boomer generation humanist liberals who had undergone a major sea change, ultimately abandoning the revolutionary ideals that were so critical to the Vietnam protest culture.
Here’s an excerpt from our conversation. We had started talking about the potential of a third party in US politics. I’ll pick it up from there:
Can you imagine this country with a robust third party?
No. I can’t even imagine this country with a really good qualified leader. I can’t even imagine that because what it takes to get through the process… Any third party candidate is going to have some history. It’s impossible to survive the rigors of the campaign trail. The campaign crucible eliminates 99% of the qualified candidates.
And because there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who will pay a lot of money to make sure the “radicals” get weeded out.
But I think it’s our own fault. Because being in New York, you’d think there’s a market for a cool candidate who tells you what you want to hear. But I think that we’re a really small proportion of the population and out there they just want a candidate who smiles and looks good and makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over. I don’t think anyone likes Nader or Dean or those types of people because they don’t like the truth. People don’t like the truth. Because – this is why Nightline [got] cancelled. Because people don’t want to go to bed sad.
In the 60’s people did want this stuff. What is it about this time that makes people feel ambivalent or even oblivious to the state of things?
People want to live in the me-first, me-only, total instant gratification society.
Is that a Republican society?
I don’t know if it’s a Republican or Democratic society. They don’t want to have to talk about social security and whether it’s going to be there or not. How many people really care?
Well, even the idea that they’re going to be dependent on social security means they failed. They blew the American dream.
It’s also true – and I know these are clichés – but I know I’m not going to do as well as my parents did. I’m not going to have the house I grew up in. One day you have to face it: I’m on the downward trajectory. You talk to your friends and you realize we’re all admitting to ourselves we’re not going to do as well as our parents did. And that is the sign of a world power on the decline. It’s pretty scary.
Isn’t that also what creates a new generation of, frankly, ultra-conservatives? I mean, some will accept the downward spiral, but the majority will not. They’ll fight to keep what they have, or at least what they were promised. And then there are those who never had it and who will fight even harder to taste it for themselves or their kids. Isn’t this the environment that creates a society that is willing to go to war to get the things it needs?
Oh, we’re going to be so war happy, so bitter once we start to see the rest of the world doing better than we are. It’s going to be ugly. I mean think about it. We’re going to go to war with Holland.
Or Canada.
Right.
I don’t think the average American understands the machinations of those charged with handling US foreign policy and extracting outcomes that are critical to the country’s future well being.
And to add an extra layer of grimness… you know we used to think that when we grew up that’s when we’d start going to Church, and get spirituality. So what is the American dream? We were sold capitalism: ‘work really hard and you can have a house with a picket fence and live happily ever after in your desperate housewives fantasy.’ And then on Sundays you go to Church to get some spirituality. Because your daily life is just so spiritually void, cause you’re working for the man.
But now we’ve lost the dream and Church has become all about radical Republicanism. So what’s left, what are we going to become?
You know what the answer is? Go to Union Square Park any Saturday, any weekend you see a park full of godless, politically active freaks, with megaphones, screaming at the top of their lungs. And, remember during the Convention when they had those cops around the perimeter of Union Square? It’s like the haves will be surrounding the park with their police force – or they’ll just send the police to do it for them, ‘get those pesky reformers out of my life.’
Last weekend I was in Union Square park with my friend walking his dog. He bought an apartment on Union Square and Whole Foods moved in. It was the greatest thing that ever happened to him. So now he’s like, ‘real estate values are going up.’ And so now he’s starting to get angry about the political protesters in the park because he feels like, ‘you are hurting the value of my apartment. If I want to show my apartment at an open house on a Sunday, buyers will see the people in the park.’ And it just makes you realize…
He’s a Democrat?
He’s a Democrat.
[...]
In less than 3 minutes, Pelosi cycled through three of the most important forces that have made America such threat to global security. First, that the decline of American fortunes has created a nation of battle-ready liberators, whether they think it’s for national security or the advancement of democracy. Second, that the political system (or crucible as Pelosi so aptly put it) is designed to eliminate any authentic reformist candidate; so that to outsiders there is no existing, internal system of checks and balances to pull the country back from its grabby crusade. Third, that even the young liberals, who have always been crucial to providing the nation with a real political balance, have been bought off by the economic system to the extent that they can only see the last gasp of protest culture as a nuisance.
People wonder why we have such a weak anti-war movement just 40 years after that hallowed (and troubled) era. I have come to believe that most Americans have a very deep, subconscious understanding that the nation’s economic hegemony (read: imperial power) is on the decline. And that this has contributed to a kind of political paralysis.
[Yes… there is a strong Democratic surge to bring back the troops. And Speaker Pelosi is one of its chief boosters. But even the plan now being put forward by top Dems like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seeks to leave Iraqis with a US-trained, US-funded army that will do its bidding in the country. And this is key to recouping on the $300 billion investment Americans have made into the venture.]
So what is the answer? First, I believe that we need to very clearly identify the reality that America is losing its grip on the world and openly discuss the impact this is having on the political system and, more importantly, the American people. Because right now we are just living in denial. Like a dysfunctional family that can’t discuss father’s third lost job and ever longer nights drinking at the pub, it’s the 300 pound elephant in the room. This isn’t just a case of what’s the matter with Kansas, this shit is happening in New York.
Those who are concerned with the direction of American foreign policy and the state of its domestic politics like to point at the conservatives. But I actually don’t think they’re the problem. In many ways, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing… “conserving,” protecting the national interests from the elitist, patriarchal platform they occupy. That is just what they are programmed to do… and it has its value. But only in an authentically balanced political spectrum. And the fact is that in the wake of 9/11, the American spectrum has been severely shrunken and driven rightward. In this way, it is the liberals who have become the greatest menace to the world. As a Pakistani ISI agent with longstanding ties to America told me in Islamabad:
“I believe that great nations have a resonance. They emit power and integrity and everyone else can see that about them. This is how America used to be. But now – there is this Latin term, argumentum ad baculum, which basically means violence as a form of argument; that everyone should do as you say or they will be punished with force. Well, that is a fallacious argument. And we know that as soon as a country has to use force in order to get others to comply with its will, it has already lost. And this is what has happened to America. But what is worse is that the liberal side has allowed it. They have bought into the argument as well.”
Of course, not all of the liberal Boomers have abandoned their principles. But among those that have turned the corner and backed the U.S. bombing of Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War, and post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are some of the most eloquent and influential liberals in the country. Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing is a journey into the heart of the ideological retreat of that generation. It is a quest to discover what drives people to abandon their youthful anti-militarism and sanction the kind of warfare that ultimately destroys and destabilizes entire communities. I hope you enjoy it.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
This is very interesting. At first I thought you were another “culture warrior”… but this actually has some depth to it. I am disgusted at my party a bit right now because so many have abandoned their ideologies… but we have to remember that so many haven’t as well. The liberals who let these wars happen are just as disgusting as the conservatives who pushed for them to happen, I must agree with that statement 110%.
This looks like some good stuff, I believe I’m going to check out your book.
>3RainaBee.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Raina, thank you for your comment. To be sure, there are so many Dems who still believe in a humanistic liberalism… but increasingly I have to wonder how the electoral system is endangering them. Like pouring fresh water through a rusted pipe, the nature of candidates who come to office will depend entirely on the mechanism that brings them to power. Hope you enjoy the read…
May 7th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Interesting premise, followed you up from disinfo.
The only qualm I have is that it seems you’re not really saying liberals are the “biggest menace”: you’re saying “liberal acquiescence to the conservative agenda” is the biggest menace, i.e. their non-liberalness no longer provides a counterbalance. Am I misreading?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Canadian…
The title suggests that there is a “new” menace coming from American liberalism, not that all liberals are posing a danger. And what I am arguing is that its less the “acquiescence to the conservative agenda” than the shift in liberal thought (specifically the 60’s era liberals who heralded a humanist liberalism to counter the corporate liberalism of Milton Friedman etc) who have embraced war as a jusitfiable end for bringing democracy and freedom to the world. I focus on people like Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff and Paul Berman, who both began the shft with their advocacy of the “liberal interventionist” ideal that drove their support of the NATO bombing of Serbia, because I believe they are thought leaders who are kind of early adapters… who are setting a wider trend for American liberalism itself.
With the decline in American hegemony, the nation will only become more grabby for resources and territory. And a plan to democratize the world is forming around that aggressive foreign policy. When I asked liberals about the economic incentives behind the war in Iraq, they universally denied they existed. Why is that? Conservatives were much more open about it. I think there is a kind of psychological denial on their part… and this is dangerous. Because if the US does not have an authentic system of checks and balances (ie. a true political spectrum) then there is s assurance for other nations that it can be trusted to act responsibly. More… there is still a widely held idea that America democracy and capitalism represent the ultimate in social and economic systems. And this also justifies the policy of bombing other countries into accepting them. But the reality is that both systems are incredibly weak. The American dream - insomuch that it conjures the idea of unlimited potential for individual financial success - is over. So what are Americans bringing to the world?
These are some of the themes I present in the book. Thanks for your comment.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Liberals are socialists and communist and are the biggest menace.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Unfortunately, the notion of socialism and communism have come to be associated with the political systems in the former Soviet Union and China as well as the idea of big government. For those who paid any attention to Marx’s ideas can easily see the hypocrisy within these political systems. I would be the first criticize Marx on his mediocre analysis of human nature, society in general, and how changes would take place within it. However, his brilliant economic analysis of capitalism has warned us for a long time about its destructiveness and ever changing face.
Alexandra’s comments about how “she couldn’t discern any major difference between John Kerry and George Bush” should not be a surprise anyone. Yet it is. To think that our so-called our representatives in the Capital Hill are somehow immune to the corporate payouts is more than naive. However, the ignorance (and the denial) of the current situation by the American people is intentionally maintained, since it serves to protect the corporate and financial interests domestically and abroad. This is no conspiracy theory. It is a fact of our political system. People have to get out of their way to weed through the spin in the media to get the real story and facts. The information control exerted by the consolidated media industry in the US would be a good discussion topic.
It really doesn’t matter whether we have a third-party running in the elections or not until we make radical changes to our electoral and political system to ensure the checks and balances are working properly. The appearance of choice is hardly a choice at all. If we dig a little deep in this area, we run into James Buchanan’s idea about how everyone needs to be incentivized so that they can be controlled. His basic premise is that the elected representatives who believe they are supposed to serve the public are inherently bad, because they can’t be manipulated by incentives. He calls them “zealots” (people who have internalized the idea of common good and as well as individuality - contrary to popular belief, these are not diametrically opposite notions). He argued that so-called public servants should be greedy and self-serving and only then we can create incentives to motivate them. His ideas were based on the “game theory” developed by John Nash whom recently acknowledged that the human interactions are far more complex than he had described in his pivotal work which he had developed while he was battling with schizophrenia. The Buchanan doctrine became the mantra of Thatcher’s government along with privatization of almost all national assets to liberate the British economy. The Buchanan doctrine spread like wild-fire. However, the results were disastrous and far from delivering the vastly advertised promises of the “market economy”.
As much as we deny and ignore the class separation in this country, it has become more and more apparently in the last 10-20 years. There is clearly a ruling class that makes and executes public policy domestic and foreign as the American people are only expected to come out and vote for candidates among the ruling class every four years to feel that they are part of the political system. It is a sad situation where we no longer recognize how enslaved we are. There is no need for a prison when the manipulation system is running like a well-oiled-machine to keep us docile. However, for those who to continue to make noise, there is the proverbial prison that will keep them out of the public eye.
Your blog is interesting and I will check it out frequently.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:22 am
This conversation with Ms. Pelosi… Wow, what a nail head hitting, galvanizing conversation. Thank-you both for making this conversation available.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Finnster… not sure if there is anything for me to add to that post. Thank you. The game theory stuff is really interesting… wish In had known that when I wrote the book.
Joe, happy you got something out of it. There is a lot more of it in the book, focused in the section that discusses ‘centrism.’
May 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hey Steve,
Caught the last 30 seconds of you with George Stromb….olous. Good to see you! Your passion as intense as ever and you still talk faster than anyone I know. Keep at it!
Your buddy,
T
(You know who!)
May 10th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Ahh, Finnster, it looks like you too have been studying Adam Curtis’ fabulous documentaries!
Stephen, FYI all the stuff about game theory and its influence in politics and governance from the Cold War onwards was expounded in a quite brilliant documentary series recently aired on the BBC in the UK. It was made by the superb Adam Curtis, who you will know if you ever saw his excellent but hugely controversial “Power of Nightmares” documentary a couple of years ago.
His latest work is entitled “The Trap: What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom” and covers in depth much of what Finnster explained, plus plenty of other fascinating stuff too. There is a nice little trailer for the doc up on youtube here - http://youtube.com/watch?v=uAluyt5_kic
If you like the look of it then you can catch the rest of the episodes over on Google Video…
Part 1 - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321&q=sitruc
Part 2 - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4191382246884244677&q=sitruc
Part 3 keeps disappearing and reappearing in bits, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out!
I’d say it’s a bit more about British politics than American, and there’s not much reference to the whole US bi-partisan political system you seem to be interested in, so it may not be your cup of tea. But regardless of the content it’s hard not to be mesmorised and drawn in by his stunning, Eisenstien-esque montage style.
Anywho, just thought I’d just bring that to everyone’s attention as it gives a truly unique and original take on the philosophical development of the modern notions of “Liberty”, “Freedom” and “Democracy” which dictate Western foreign policy in the 21st century.
Hope you enjoy, and good luck with the book, it sounds interesting!
J
May 11th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Indeed, J
Adam Curtis’ documentaries are among one of my favorites. Along the same lines, I would also recommend a BBC documentary “The Century of the Self” which talks about how and why public relations industry was created to shape public opinion by Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud) whom actually made Freud mainstream in the US. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml)
May 11th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I have to say, I really dig what you write. In my years I have been a Republican (more of the Federalist type), and as of the last few years I have registered as a Dem only to be amused if only ironically so at the left, the just left of center folks who dash towards the middle every 24, 48, and 72 month types. And the far far left. Those who can only see the world through rose colored lenses of what should be. Dont’ get me wrong, those on the right, just right of center who dash towards the middle in teh aforementioned 24,48,72 month spurts are just as out of touch as thieir far right peers. For their plight is that they refuse to see the world the way it really is.
Could you imagine a true bonafide no BS third party. Think Bull Moose, or the idea that once was the Reform Party. A party that truly was comprised of “the people”, not the elite plutocrats who seem to if not control everything at least manipulate the outcome. If the far left’s greatest champions are Dean, Pelosi and Feinstein then the so called Neo Cons only need to hold their base and poach a little to hold the hot seat. So many chances has been missed in the last 6 years.
I am looking forward to reading your book. Good hunting Steve!
May 11th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hey Sthepen, what are you? Teh wolf or the sheep? It’s not very clear!
May 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Snark… i’m the shepherd.
Rusten… the phenomena you write about are both key aspects to my research and the interviews I did. Please let me know what you thought of it.
James… thanks for the linx, i have been trying to remember to watch that doc, but have been procrastinating. now i have no excuse. thanks for the links.
Finnster… i have heard of the Century of the Self and will check that out too.
thanks for your interest guys, new post tomorrow…
May 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The political parties in the US are a corporate joke just like the election process has proved itself to be in the last two elections. But are the conservatives really just doing their job, with liberals to blame for shifting the spectrum? Imho, the post 9-11 empire/police state is surely a creation of neo-conservatives and I think the blame almost solely rests on the current Republican party (which is hardly conservative) for lying and scaring the American people into this situation. The democrats are simply trying to play the best hand they can in a society propagandized into supporting elite wars of empire and profit. I wonder what everyone else’s thoughts are on this?
May 18th, 2007 at 7:08 am
I’m totally into this stuff. wow. But just one issue: I had a hard time following the jump from Pete Hitchens to Pelosi. I didn’t know if those were direct quotes from Pelosi. By the end, it sounded like you had taked over.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
wow, stephen CONGRATULATIONS! really enjoyed your writing; good to see a lakefield boy take on the man!
cheers-looking forward to running into you again on the road-
May 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Hi Stephen,
You write, “I believe that we need to very clearly identify the reality that America is losing its grip on the world and openly discuss the impact this is having on the political system and, more importantly, the American people.”
I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean when you say “America is losing its grip on the world.” You use two huge generic terms - ‘America’ and ‘the world’ - without clarify what means what. Is this in terms of the political establishments ability to dictate global foreign policy? Is this their ability to intervene militarily whenever and where ever they wish? Is this the ability of corporations to access global resources, including labour?
Can you be more specific?
Thanks,
troy
May 21st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
troy, you caught me in a generalization. but you’ve basically listed three of the major “abilities” in which the US is able to maintain its hegemonic position in the world. when i say “losing it’s grip on the world, i mean that America has lost footing… it has been shaken from its perch and in its reactive state, has exposed itself as a grabby territorial power. enuf has been written about the decline of american empire… but Iraq was the first sign that the political elite in this country have become more baldly acqusitive.
the US dollar’s status as the oil currency, China’s large stake in US T bills, the great erosion of the manufacturing sector, Katrina, Wolfowitz’s appointment to the WB, and the missteps in Iraq all point to a power that is in its third act. and what i argue in the book is that 60’s era liberals who literally fought in the streets to prevent the country from these kinds of wars - justified by ideologues - have a deep sense of this peril and adopt the cause of empire to protect all that they know and understand. even if they have spent their lives fighting it, when the old man is sick, the whole family stands up to protect him.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I’m wondering what your thoughts are on the internationalization of capital. With the increasing ease of transnational ownership it is getting ever more difficult to label any large scale corporation ‘American.’ This means that although the political and macroeconomic elements of the American elite are losing some footing, in terms of business, those nominally American firms are going strong. When the British Empire met its rapid decline the business arm was not able to stand alone. It rose and fell with the political-military element. American business, however, seems ready, willing and able to jump ship, if need be. It is working to put in place favourable international agreements that protect its intellectual property rights. It makes use of foreign labour forces and foreign resource sources. It sells to international consumers. And, in fact, the judgment of the market is certainly not indicting many members of dominant capital in the failings of the American political establishment. The most recent Fortune 500 noted how profits are at record levels. Capitalization values are back to the levels seen during the dot-com boom. If America is in trouble, business seems unconcerned.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 am
“With the increasing ease of transnational ownership it is getting ever more difficult to label any large scale corporation ‘American.’”
true… yet for many companies (like Disney or Coke) brand America is directly associated with theirs. and so while profits continue to rise, there is also a very strong protectionist vibe in international business right now. and nowhere is this more true than in DC. while lobbyists push for policy to create deals with countries like Colombia and South Korea - to ensure access to labor while sidelining union activism - giants like Russia and China are increasingly crying foul about the way the US acts in the world market. there is going to be a backlash. so i do think that US business will be affected by the trending anti-Americanism. it’s just a matter of when, and how deeply.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
They emit power and integrity and everyone else can see that about them. This is how America used to be.
When?
Sounds like false nostalgia.
There have been US adventures (for better or worse) for over 100 years - From Spanish America (Cuba) in the first decade of the last century to Iraq1 in the nineties.
There was alittle isolationism prior to their entry into WW2. Other than that (and back to the times of Madison) America has agressively protected what it has perceived as its interests. (Like France, Germany, China, Japan, et al).
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Certainly some corporations will be hurt by growing anti-Americanism. However, others are more than prepared for this and likely would welcome it as they will gain differentially. It would also bring about a wave of M&As as former giants see their market cap drop and remaining giants sweep in to gobble them up.
One of my particular interests is the intra-capitalist struggle. In fact, I see it as the fundamental struggle of the contemporary form of social organization. As Veblen said at the beginning of the 20th century, the large-scale businessman controls the exigencies of the community. Their concern is with each other, more so than with us. In this way, they are little different than the lords of the feudal era who only worried about the peasants when an uprising erupted. Then, all the lords would come together to ensure the continuity of the status quo. Within the status quo it is a constant tumult of oneupmanship and differential battles for power.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
They emit power and integrity and everyone else can see that about them. This is how America used to be.
When?
brian, for most of us this sounds like false nostalgia but when i went out into the world, talking to regular people in Karachi, Beirut, Munich, or even Jakarta, there was this sense of wonder and excitement about America and its patented “dream.” we have to remember not everyone has the Zinn/Chomsky analysis. they take the good with the bad. but these people are the ones now turning - you may say, “it’s about time!” - but my point is that if they are turning it’s huge. and it mirrors the shift of the formerly anti-imperialist war Left.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I’m curious about the situation of those who bought into the American “Dream”. It is overwhelmingly and obviously individualistic. It would seem to have required buying into Liberalism in the first place. Did South Korean farmers of the likes of Kyung Hae Lee ever accept the American concept of ’success’ and ‘progress’? Did the promise of working hard and getting the (individual) material rewards appeal to those whose values were communal and bound with the well-being of their neighbours?
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 am
i think the American Dream just appealed to those who had what Peter Whybrow calls the “migrant mentality;” those who were willing to risk it all to get out of countries that had such rigid societal structures… it wasn’t always so thought out. they heard there was opportunity for hard working people to get a new start and they came.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
How much is the backlash against the horrific reality, how much is against the lie and how much is a realization of a mistake made?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:22 am
PLUTOCRACY has only one agenda: that of concentrating wealth for those who already have it. Why else would so many coups/death squads/economic manipulations be initiated by a “democracy” against the average citizens of the world? Generations of children have now grown up under dictators propped-up by US administrations, such that the ‘American Dream’ is now a sick joke to the rest of the planet, who have seen only the squandering of the hopes of the poor, if not their outright murder. How can anyone be surprised there was and will be a backlash?!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Hi there. A few years ago, I was an extra in ‘This Revolution.’ Never got to see whether or not my 2 seconds wound up on the cutting room floor, as they say, but I came here last night after receiving an email about your book. At first, I wasn’t sure whether or not you were just another one of those intellectual guys that is always angry about something… but your words have gotten my attention. Not only do you write very well, but you seem to have investigated, poked, and prodded the workings of this country and how we affect other nations.
I am both intrigued, enough to want to learn more, and also a little confused. Sometime last year I took some survey on the ‘net which tells you if you are left- or right-leaning. I came out a Centrist. To tell you the truth, I don’t know if that’s good or bad. I’m so tired of labels! I have often wished for not only a viable third party in this country, but also a fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on. Why must we align ourselves with a party in teh first place — can’t we judge a political candidate on their own merits? Aaah, I digress…
I’m afraid that everything you wrote about on this page and in your book will be discussed and argued in college campuses, coffee shops, and maybe in newspapers or on television, but only by the most educated in our society. I am 47 years old, a life-long Democrat from a blue-collar family, and I have never heard of Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff and Paul Berman. I have absolutely no idea who they are. There is too much to learn! I’m what they call pink-collar now, and I feel clueless.
I am attending a community college now and was really surprised to discover that, even in a pretty liberal and diverse urban setting, there is little (if any) political activism on campus. The only thing the students seem to be upset about is receiving book vouchers as part of their financial aid, instead of money that they can spend any way they like. Isn’t it usually the case that blue-collar, low- and middle-income folk who can’t afford to buy the NY Times every day just don’t involve themselves in these sorts of analyses or enlightenment? That they’re really only worrying about their next paycheck and not getting sick because they have no insurance? Strangely, many have also become conservatives. Attitudes have changed since the credit card companies started giving plastic to poor people, and now even the poorest must wear designer labels or, at the very least, knock-offs. Must have something to show for all of your debt. Uh-oh, I digress again.
I am glad you wrote this book and are attempting to make people more aware of what’s going on in the world. However, it saddens me that only a small group of very smart people will read it even less will make an effort themselves to shed light on the subjects in your book and on this page. Unfortunately, I feel these discussions will likely fall on deaf ears.
The topics of a backlash and downward spiral were mentioned above. It upsets me deeply that racism has not gone away in this country. I see prejudice every day in NYC, from all sides. The other day I was reading a message board for people looking to relocate. You can ask questions about various cities throughout the U.S. I am amazed. On one thread, someone wrote, “America is definitely a white country. The USA was built up by white people for white people. Are you trying to tell me this isn’t the case?” to which the writer received this response: “I hear you. But its [sic] changing rapidly. Pretty soon we will be the minority, and then its revenge time!!”
It seems pretty plausible that the US’s attempts to make all other countries in the conform to our ideas/ideals of what is better has caused this kind of racist resurgence, and backlash not only from other countries but also from the religious right. I also feel that England has a lot of answering to do, as their hopes to dominate the world set many wheels in motion, the effectsof which still reverberate. I recently read a very informative article entitled “Lines in the Sand” by F. S. Naiden, in the Winter 2007 issue of the Wilson Quarterly. It explains how the Brits planned and orchestrated the etablishment of Iraq and selected whom they wished to rule as leader. An eye-opener!
I know I’ve rambled on a bit. It’s just that the posts here have got me thinking of so many things. I do not know what to DO about all these political and economic issues, and I feel more powerless than ever before.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Sorry I did not edit my post better before submitting it. Just wanted to add that the Brits’ involvement in creating the country of Irag was around the first twenty years of the 20th century. Prior to that Iraq was the name for a topographical region, and part of other countries.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
excellent to see there is still hope for the existence of the rational human mind!
July 10th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
What I’ve read here fallaciously equates liberalism with pacifism. The current “anti-war” and anti-globalization movements are mainly conservative. It’s more of a movement that people should mind their own business in their more localized region of the world. A liberal would feel compelled to do something about the Balkans, Iraq, or Darfur. I’m not sure if anyone believes that Milosovic or Saddam would have stopped dumping bodies in mass graves if we turned a blind eye, though “liberals” like to speak as if that’s the case.
This idea that the Iraq war was for economic gain is baseless. The oil companies and Saudis, and their allies in government, were against it. It was done for security, and humanitarian reasons, and of course oil was a concern.