Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 > > > > Published on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 by CommonDreams.org : > http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-31.htm > > In the American Bunker > by David Michael Green > > I saw a movie last night that was excellent. It was also awful. > > The film was " The Downfall " , the reputedly historically accurate depiction > of the end of the Third Reich, showing Hitler and his crew holed up in > their > Berlin bunker, awaiting their appointment with the Russian Army. > > It was excellent in that it portrayed this scene so vividly, and it was > awful because of the scene it so vividly portrayed. > > In the film, we see what happened when Germany allowed an emotionally > ravenous psychopath to sate the voracious demands of his personal > insecurities upon the world's stage. Fifty million deaths later, here is > this frustrated painter, delusional and embittered, putting the final > touches on his masterpiece with a revolver and cyanide. > > The German people, including the children now sent out to defend the Reich > literally down to the last block, are worthy only of the contempt of > Hitler > and the equally sick Goebbels, at his side till the end. Since they did > not > bring him victory and thus glory, these expendable cannon fodder who > followed him into Hell, after first themselves creating it, are > transformed > into cowards and traitors in the warped visage of the physically and > mentally deteriorating Fuhrer. > > The most chilling portrayal within the film is that of a handful of > Kool-Aid > besotted true believers, exemplified by Mrs. Goebbels, who can neither > imagine nor bear the concept of life without Hitler and national > socialism. > She falls to her knees at Hitler's feet, sobs, and begs him not to take > his > own life. Not much later, of course, she murders her six children before > committing suicide with her husband, so traumatized is she at the thought > of > a world without Nazism. > > As I returned from the theater I was thinking, as I often do, about what > it > is that inspires such mindless suspension of critical faculties, of logic > and empirical analysis, and ultimately of the very self, which is entailed > in nationalist fervor. What is it that compels people, by the millions, to > doggedly follow those often shallowest and neediest of humans who don the > mantle of leadership and take them over the cliffs of hatred and > militarism, > crashing into great piles of mass carnage on the beach below? > > In my studies of this topic, the most compelling answer I've found is that > nationalism addresses a profound existential fear that many people seem to > feel in the face of the seemingly meaningless and insignificant lives they > lead within a vast and indifferent universe. Like religion, though less > challenged during the period of modernity by contradictory scientific > findings, nationalism allows its rs to feel that they are part of > a > larger and more significant story, one with a grand historical arc leading > to a rendezvous with destiny, and one which brings to their lives > otherwise > absent meaning and purpose. > > All this, of course, inevitably had me thinking of America in 2005. > Comparisons to Hitler and the Third Reich are nearly always - almost by > definition - hyperbolic. With the partial exception of some of the > exploits > of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Nixon, nothing since 1945 has even come close. > Such comparisons are - also, therefore, by definition - overused, as a > hysterical Rick Santorum most recently demonstrated by equating Democratic > attempts to retain judicial filibuster rights to Hitler's occupation of > Paris. > > For precisely these reasons, I have resisted the use of the f-word these > last years, despite believing that America has crept far more > precipitously > close to the edge of fascism under George Bush than the vast bulk of > Americans realize. We forget that Hitler was originally brought to power > by > means of democratic institutions, before he then proceeded to dismantle > them. We assume that a bid for fascism in American, should it come, would > be > delivered in one large, recognizable package, which we could all rise up > to > collectively defeat, rather than an incessant series of a thousand cuts, > most justified by the threat of internal and external enemies and a > permanent 'war on terrorism'. > > But the parallels are powerful, and they became all the more compelling > returning from " The Downfall " to find a reprint of an amazing article > (which > somehow escaped me and most of the rest of America in the original) posted > on the AfterDowningStreet.org website. As the Downing Street Memo's > evidence > of wholesale lies finally starts gaining traction in an America finally > beginning to sour on the Iraq war, another piece of the puzzle is > (re-)fitted into place with Russ Baker's jaw-dropping account of > conversations journalist Mickey Herskowitz had with candidate Bush in > 1999. > > I have felt from the beginnings of the Bush administration that his > presidency is best understood at the level of psychology, not policy or > ideology, and that the insecurities of the president himself (and, I > think, > to a large degree his supporters) were as palpable as they are crucial to > animating his policy choices, his public persona, and his demeanor. > > Of course, Bush's life story gives us the initial clues and probable cause > for assessing his psyche and behavior. The grandson of a US senator, the > son > of one of the most accomplished (to the extent cumulated titles count, at > least) figures in post-war American political history, he is himself a > screw-up underachiever, who drifts from clown, to cheerleader, to > drunkard, > to business failure, to Rove-the-ventriloquist's dummy-politician. It > would > be harder to imagine that young Bush would not be massively insecure under > these conditions than that he would, particularly with a younger brother > long seen as the rising star, and George the Bush clan failure. > > But you could also see it in his presidency, in some of the > characteristics > and occasional revealing insights unintentionally glimpsed within this > tightest and most successful propaganda machine in American history. > Bush's > deep insecurities are there in the swagger and the macho language. They're > there in the choice of sycophant advisors, in the off-message information > never allowed to reach the president (he doesn't read newspapers, and he > only allows pre-screened supporters at public appearances), and in the > rigid, Manichean definitions of a world in which there exists only black > and > white, good and evil. And these insecurities are there in the language > used, > particularly Bush's preference for the self-reaffirming " I " he favors > instead of " we " , or " my administration " instead of " this administration " . > This represents a substantial deviation from the more humble style > employed > by every president in my lifetime. > > Another revealing example of such unintended linguistic insights can be > found in the self-centered construction Bush uses to announce the invasion > of Afghanistan: " Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military > has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military > installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. " Then the same again, > when he launches the Iraq war: " On my orders, coalition forces have begun > striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam > Hussein's ability to wage war. " > > But my personal favorite among unwitting revelations of the president's > powerful insecurities was always this snippet from Bob Woodward's Bush At > War: " I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain. I do not need to > explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the > president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, > but > I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation. " To my mind, this one > small > and inadvertent window on Bush's psyche speaks volumes as to his > precarious > self-esteem, and requires little further elaboration. > > On top of these insights, plus those from the Paul O'Neill (Suskind) and > Richard Clarke books, and from the Downing Street Memo, now comes the > startling (re)revelations Herskowitz captures from his interviews for the > book which would become (but only after Herskowitz, a Bush family friend > before and after, was replaced by Karen Hughes because his drafts weren't > flattering enough) Bush's silly and inflated autobiography, " A Charge to > Keep: My Journey to the White House " . > > The Baker article confirms the inferiority complex which drives this > president's policies: In it, Bush admits to Herskowitz that he never > fulfilled his National Guard duties during the Vietnam era, and that his > business ventures were " floundering " . More importantly, " Herskowitz said > that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the > shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw > the > opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow " . > > It confirms that Bush had planned to invade Iraq well before 9/11, and > indeed before his presidency even began: " 'He was thinking about invading > Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on > his > mind. He said to me: " One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is > to > be seen as a commander-in-chief. " And he said, " My father had all this > political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he > wasted it. " He said, " If I have a chance to invade..if I had that much > capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed > that > I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency. " ' " > > This is, in retrospect, horrific stuff. But then it gets worse. Herskowitz > tells Baker " Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was > difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the > record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars. > > " According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in > part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part > to > now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy > Committee under Reagan. 'Start a small war. Pick a country where there is > justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.' > > " Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political > capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the > Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: 'They were just absolutely blown away, > just > enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people > throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in > Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.' > > " Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall > could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that > President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the > narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny > opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. " > > Oh, and one other thing we might note. " He told me that as a leader, you > can > never admit to a mistake, " Herskowitz said. " That was one of the keys to > being a leader. " At the end of " The Downfall " , the real-life, now-elderly > Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary upon whose recollections the film is > based, > talks of her horror at learning after the war about the Holocaust and > Germany's other crimes, and concludes that 'We [the German people] could > have known about these things and stopped them, but we didn't'. > > What of Americans? Are we to be the Nazis of the 21st century? The > imperialist power which invades Iraq - instead of Poland - on flimsy > pretexts? The purveyors of " the gulag of our time " ? Or have we learned > about > these things and stopped them, as Junge wishes she had in her day? > > There are reasons for both hope and despair. Hope, because 'only' two some > years into Bush's Iraq adventure, the American public is now showing clear > signs of disdain for both the war and its architects. This despite the > absence of a draft, war taxes, civil unrest at home, or serious coverage > of > the war bringing even a hint of its real human consequences into people's > living rooms. And this before the Downing Street Memo and like revelations > have begun to gain traction in America's political discourse about the > war, > showing the lies behind it. > > But despair, also, because this is a war which transparently should never > have occurred. Hitler said " What good fortune for those in power that the > people do not think " . Americans, despite believing they long ago > understood > the dangers of totalitarianism, and despite the more recent scar of > Vietnam > to remind them of the consequences of leaders lying them into war, still > have taken far too long to get to where they now barely are in opposing > the > war. And, what is worse, it seems clear that any real mass public distaste > for the war reflects neither morality nor concern for others. Indeed, had > the war been the cakewalk the White House evidently expected, Bush would > likely be a hero amongst Americans today, emboldened to launch another > 'small war', not the bum to which he is instead coming to be seen. > > Despair, also, because we have so little excuse, in a historically > relative > sense. At least Germans were hurting bad at the time of Hitler's rise to > power, and can legitimately account for some of their monumental folly by > reference to the desperation of their times, driven by the toxic cocktail > of > WWI humiliation, onerous war reparations, political chaos under the > stability-averse Weimar Republic, and crushing economic depression. We > Americans? We're the richest country in the world, the unchallenged > superpower, and - 9/11 notwithstanding - highly secure from any real > military threat on our shores. How will we answer history when it asks > what > was our excuse? > > In his New York Times review of " The Downfall " , A.O. Scott writes " But of > course, millions of Germans - most of them ordinary and, in their own > minds, > decent people - loved Hitler, and it is that fact that most urgently needs > to be understood, and that most challenges our own complacency. " > > Indeed it does. I have been shocked and awed in recent years by the > desperate rigidity of many of the president's supporters in clinging to > their conclusions about national and international affairs, even in the > face > of clear evidence to the contrary. I have had multiple conversations with > such individuals which were abruptly truncated when solid evidence was > placed on the table, as if they were simply psychologically unprepared to > go > where such facts inevitably led. > > In my judgment, these Americans have entered into a post-empirical era of > policy 'analysis' and political 'discussion', a time in which politics has > become for them a faith-based enterprise. They believe what they believe, > and there is neither need, nor desire, nor tolerance of dissenting > information or opinion. > > Polling data suggests to me that there is a very large core of perhaps 40 > percent of the American public who fall into this category, including - > most > surprisingly - people like those described in Thomas Frank's " What's The > Matter With Kansas? " , for whom Bush's economic policies are particularly > and > personally ruinous. Whatever antidote it will take to shake this very > large > contingent of Americans from their Bush-induced and Limbaugh-nourished > hallucinations has evidently not yet been discovered. v And, at the end of > the day, there may be no such item or even catalog of items, just as there > was not for Magda Goebbels. So far, at least, neither the pre-9/11 > security > failures of the Bush administration, the tragedy of the Iraq quagmire, the > drunken-sailor spending binge of the national treasury, the wholesale > exportation of jobs, the thrashing of international law, alliances, > treaties > and morality, nor the disgust and anger of the rest of the world at > American > behavior abroad appears to be sufficient. > > Rather, put more accurately, it is likely that the awareness of the very > existence of such maladies is only dimly perceived by the bulk of these > Americans. For the Bush team has well understood the central lesson of > Magda's husband, the 20th century's master propagandist: " If you tell a > lie > big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe > it. > The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the > people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the > lie. > It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers > to > repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by > extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. " > > But there is more to the story than the diabolically clever and largely > successful efforts of the Bush team, and the movement of regressive > politics > they lead, to stifle, intimidate, ignore, end-run and replace a free > press, > as well as the constitutionally guaranteed rights to meaningful free > assembly or redress of government. > > We must ask what, at a psychological level, drives the nationalist and > religious imperatives - both needs, along with a passion to be led, > requited > in spades by the Bush presidency - haunting so much of middle America in a > time of general peace and prosperity. > > I don't pretend to have the answer to this question. Indeed, I would be > skeptical that there even exists a single answer to the question. > > But if I had to hazard a guess, my intuition suggests to me that we may > now > be paying the price for the human commodification and atomization that has > been a product of the hyper-capitalism which has proliferated here in > recent > decades. > > During this period, the incredibly rich have gotten incredibly richer, > while > the basic web of economic security which once provided a safety net to > middle-class Americans is being systematically dismantled from every > angle, > whether that takes the form of good jobs being automated or leaving the > country, college tuition becoming prohibitive in cost, private healthcare > and pension plans retracting or disappearing, Social Security, Medicare, > Medicaid and other government programs under assault and retrenching, > tightening of the bankruptcy noose, the decaying of organized labor's > bargaining power, and/or stagnant wages matched by rising costs and > skyrocketing personal debt. > > Anyway you slice it, the message of the cosmos is quite clear to those > spiritually underprivileged bipeds inhabiting this bit of planet Earth at > the rise of the third millennium: " You're on your own, pal! " . If there's a > better recipe for existential angst, I'm hard pressed to imagine it. And > if > there's a better way to drive people, during a time of relative peace and > prosperity, into a feverishly-maintained, logically-unsustainable, but > nevertheless emotionally-satisfying politics, I can't think of that > either. > > Is this too simple a solution to the puzzle of what lurks in the American > heart, circa 2005? Probably. > > But this much I think we can say, for sure. Progressivism will never again > succeed in America until we begin to understand Americans at the level of > their psychological functions, and start addressing not just their > rational, > material and moral needs, but their deeper emotional requisites, as well. > > Bush, and his movement of the American bunker, understand this well. > Indeed, > they must, for they cannot deliver at any other level, and they can only > pretend to even deliver at the emotional level by creating conditions of > heightened fear and focused rage which barely cover their myriad policy > failures. Troubled by your slipping standard of living? Forget that. > Homosexuals now want to legally marry each other! But Bush is more than a > successful politician able to be skillfully marketed, like so many > detergent > flakes, by the evil Dr. Rove. He is certainly all that, but he is also, > regrettably, a mirror reflecting the troubled psyche of the American > superpower, and a window into its anxious, selfish and fearful soul. > Progressives must find ways to speak this same language of emotion and > soul, > but not falsely, and not for ill, but instead to better our country and > our > world. It can be done. > > Finally, a program note. > > Somewhere in America, on the highest perches of a tall mountain, a small > rock has begun its descent, bringing others down with it. This rock was > loosed by the release of a secret memo far across the Atlantic, but its > path > has been prepared by years of political deceit, arrogance, and aggression > at > home and abroad. The avalanche it has precipitated is at this moment > gaining > mass and velocity at a fast-growing rate. Its ultimate destination is > Pennsylvania Avenue, in the American capital, though it remains unclear > whether it possesses sufficient energy to carry that far. > > While the vast bulk of Americans haven't yet a clue of what lurks on the > horizon (because their media persists in not telling them), there is in > fact > more than a whiff of regime change in the air as a potential Washington > Spring of our time gains momentum. > > Consider. On Memorial Day, a major metropolitan newspaper called the US > president a liar who has abused his most sacred trust as commander in > chief. > No, it wasn't Le Monde or The Guardian. It was the Minneapolis > Star-Tribune, > crying out from the American Heartland. Then, yesterday, from next door in > Wisconsin, came passage of a resolution at the state Democratic Party > convention, calling on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings > against > America's president, vice-president and secretary of defense. Meanwhile, > increasing numbers of major newspapers across the country are > editorializing > angrily on the Downing Street Memo, even while their front pages so far > remain bizarrely and unaccountably (in both senses of the word) silent. > > Before the war, Bush once dropped in on Condoleezza Rice's office and said > to three startled senators visiting there, " Fuck Saddam. We're taking him > out. " But it now appears at least as likely that the opposite will be > true. > Saddam may well be returning the favor. It is no longer inconceivable or > even broadly improbable that the Bush junta will fall, and that America > and > the world will breathe free once again. This may be particularly likely > after a new Congress is seated in January 2007, with quite possibly a > substantially different complexion from the current one, and also quite > possibly Nancy Pelosi, rather than Dennis Hastert, as third in line of > presidential succession. > > All of which makes the hearts of progressives leap with a joy they've not > felt for a very long time. But, given what has been discussed above, we > would do well to also consider the dangers inherent in our looming > possible > success. If nothing else, the last decade has taught us that the > regressive > right will do anything to obtain and retain power, whether that means > stealing elections, judicial coups, impeachment for minor personal > offenses, > rewriting centuries-old Senate rules, or smearing war heroes like Max > Cleland or the Johns, Kerry and McCain. > > Given such a pattern, this also makes it not unlikely that a > congressionally > unseated Bush and Cheney might simply decide not to go, plunging the > republic into the second worst constitutional crisis in its history. > Meanwhile, egged on by the Fox/Limbaugh/et al. propaganda circuit, the > forty > percent of Americans described above might line-up behind the > president-cum-dictator accordingly, no doubt convinced that impeachment > was > illegitimate partisan revenge for Clinton. > > Now is not yet the moment to get too explicitly engrossed in the details > of > what may yet turn out to be a far-flung and wildly improbable scenario. > And > yet, which part of the formulation so far seems patently ridiculous? The > chicken-hawk Bush (so anxious to send, so careful not to be sent) is > caught > lying to the American public about the bloodbath into which he's plunged > the > country's youth, and they therefore angrily demand his scalp? Especially > after Congress changes hands because of a landslide anti-Republican vote > in > 2006? > > Or an entrenched, power-obsessed administration, backed by the rude > screeches of right-wing media and the enraged forty percent of the > American > public they've mobilized, refusing to yield the keys to the government? > > So, what then? While I wouldn't bet on this scenario (yet), neither does > it > strike me as wildly improbable. It is therefore not too early to consider > how such a political drama might then play out, and what assets each side > might bring to the conflict. > > Generally, which way the military goes is determinative in civil contests > of > this sort. And, generally, the American military is certainly not known > for > its progressive political tendencies. However, the leadership may decide > that duty, honor and country require that they place the Constitution over > and above ideological commitments. Or, given what we now know about the > Air > Force Academy, they may not. On the other hand, we may also entertain the > hope that increasing numbers of military personnel will recognize that the > Vietnam War-avoider Bush has been a complete disaster for America's > over-strained volunteer military. > > We must, in short, think strategically and long-term if we are to have a > hope of rescuing this country from its present peril. At a minimum, it > would > be wise for progressives to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam-era protest in > attacking the soldiers who are sometimes every bit as much the victims of > this war as are Iraqi civilians. More broadly, if we are to avoid a > complete > constitutional meltdown, we progressives may wish to start building > bridges > today to key constituencies which will prove crucial in eventualities like > those described above. > > Conditions look better in America today than they have for a long and dark > time now. Still, there is much work to be done to survive the disaster of > the radical right's capture of American government. Not only the nightmare > of these last years, but also its unraveling, will prove to be very > dangerous waters to navigate. > > David Michael Green (pscdmg) is a professor of political > science > at Hofstra University in New York. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.