Showing posts with label culture war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture war. Show all posts

Monday, January 12, 2009

Fighting Words: From Cold War to Culture War in the Age of Irony

by Al Falafel



The War in Iraq is officially OVER!

As reported by the Daily Beast and elsewhere, the Iraq war ended unceremoniously with the expiration of authority Congress spinelessly granted Bush in 2002 permitting him to use force against that country. Bush did not bother to ask for renewal of the mandate so it expired at the stroke of midnight on December 31st, 2008.

It has been six years since the infamous lie of "Mission Accomplished." With this latest definitive news how about we just let it end now?

Please.

The war is over, Bush is done. Let us not allow our very lame duck ex to enlist us emotionally in any kind of Middle East "Cold War" as he is wont to do. 

As the swan song of his disastrous Presidency - and totally true to form - Bush has signed the "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with the Iraqi government in blatant defiance of the US Constitution.

Isn't that just SOFA-King Bush-like?

It is imperative, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past, that We the People now do all we can to resist buying into the language of a new "Cold War" between us and an imaginary enemy from the Arab world who also exists among us at home. 

History tells us that going along with such a concept can only derail the burgeoning movement away from the Bush-era war obsession and engender a long-term festering of a belligerent national attitude that will consume us, both domestically and in our international relations.

It happened once already - after the end of World War II with the unprecedented selling of the cold war concept which we adopted, hook, line and sinker. 

In no small measure, our wholesale buying into the first cold war is what eventually enabled the poisonous "Culture War" that has been ripping at the spiritual fabric of our nation in recent years. With hopes running high on the eve of President Obama's inauguration, our future is still very much threatened by such underlying reactionary forces.


I believe we can do a lot to nip a new cold war in the bud by simply refusing to adopt any such language, no matter how fitting it may seem. 

Even if they cannot keep the Iraq war going for a hundred years as they had hoped, the cold war concept will be meted out to us in some form by those right wing hawks and politicos newly in retreat. Now more than ever, they only stand to profit by exploiting such internecine conflicts in our hearts and minds -- if we let them.

If we can keep that from happening, however, we would also very likely see a de-escalation in the current "Culture War" raging in the minds of many today.

Consider history.


By all accounts it was Herbert Bayard Swope (1882-1958) who coined the concise term "Cold War" to sum up the relationship between the world's two emergent superpower nations following WWII in 1947. Immediately, this deceptively simplistic concatenation was absorbed into the American vernacular. Its endurance to this day stands as a testament to Swope's mastery of his craft, which had also earned him earlier distinction as the first recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for reporting (1917). It is hard to imagine a more succinct, emblematic and readily fathomable summation of America's deep trepidation about the M.A.D. standoff that had quickly developed between rival nuclear powers, the USSR and us.

When Swope, a war corespondent and political speechwriter, first stuck the word "cold" (frosty, frigid, inhospitable, cold-blooded, unsympathetic), together with the word "war" (conflict, strife, bloodshed, hostility, combat), he could hardly have known how durable his neologistic invention would prove to be.

Nor how potently malignant would be the mind frame he induced with it into the 20th Century American psyche, impressionable as it was.

As with most known carcinogens, the deleterious effects of this advancing linguistic tumor would remain undetected for decades as life went on as usual.

Even at the end of World War II, when the US Department of War was officially abolished in favor of the new improved Dept. of Defense, We the People continued to indulge in the usage of the all-too-convenient oxymoronic "cold war" as part of our casual discourse ("melts in your mouth; not in your hand")

The "Age of Irony" having not yet arrived, we had little means of appreciation for what the concept of a cold war meant... nor for how much it mattered.

What did it hurt?

It was just two little words, a nifty turn of phrase: just words really... that hit the nail right on the head, it seemed ("builds strong bodies in 12 ways"). So what if  hostilities had cooled down and treaties were signed? So what if we still sucked up and regurgitated this bit of militaristic jingoism after the end of the real war? 

There is no denying that we were being force-fed this cold war guck through the news in print, heard over the radio waves and, not insignificantly, experienced in a new dimension through the innovative medium of broadcast television. It was just too convenient a short hand slogan, going hand in hand with other catch phrases of the time like "baby boom" and "truth, justice, and the American way."  

Sure, you could "See the USA in your Chevrolet," but this "cold war" phrase was more than a misnomer. It was a lie, actually, that we, as a nation, bought into part and parcel with that conglomerate of terms that branded our postwar identity. 

Whatever the mood, temperature or climate, the truth is that WWII really was over when it was over. If we had known where it would lead us, the cold war may have ended as well, before it ever got started.

"A little dab will do ya..."

Like all wars before it, World War II had a beginning and it did have an end.

We have never, in fact, experienced a real war that did not have an end. Even World War I - the so-called "War to End All Wars" - had been given its last rites at Versailles in 1919. Maybe we were so chastened by that gross overestimation that it would be too embarrassing not to remain on a war footing long after. 

But in the case of WWII, the shooting stopped in 1945. The bombing had stopped. Troop movements and strategic battle planning ceased at last when the US wiped two Pacific Islands off the map that year.


The nationalistic feelings whipped up during WWII were like nothing seen on this continent since the American Civil War. Exploiting those intensities was obviously irresistable to the red-baiting McCarthy-era hawks. To their misfortune and to our temporary relief, however, they pushed too hard too fast - tipping their hand too early in the game and losing big.

It is understandable, after what the world went through during those horrible years from 1939 to 1945, that the powers who brought a close to such a planetary nightmare may have felt the need to distract the public while they stayed on guard in case the truce among nations failed to hold. It is even forgivable that the gullible public, the millions of Americans who had suffered so many personal losses during the war, would still feel the need to fortify themselves, emotionally, against any chance that it could happen again while basking in the glory of being part of the alliance that had saved the world.

Keeping the war alive in our minds kept our lost loved-ones alive but that is just one effect of the complex mental conditioning that redefined our world from top to bottom. Another is the unprecedented American internalization of war, driven so deep into our imagination that it was hard for a long long time to have another actual war in the traditional sense.

Any military actions we engaged in during the cold war were called maneuvers, skirmishes or "peace-keeping missions." It was a "police action" in Korea and a "conflict" in Vietnam. We invaded Grenada and intervened in Kosovo but never officially engaged in war. 

There was also that long, drawn-out hostage crisis in Iran. 

All of these bloody involvements could have easily turned into wars, and in other times probably would have. But the word "war" was cautiously never applied in any official reference to those bloody crises. 

Our political leaders often went to great lengths, in fact, to deny that there was anything warlike about dropping bombs, shooting up villages and getting up to more than a million of our own troops slaughtered and leaving even more of them maimed and shell-shocked in the process. It was as if war had been removed exclusively from our real world experience into the realm of imagination. It could not exist in two places at once.  

The napalm that laid waste to Vietnamese jungles and burned many people alive was most definitely hot but by then we had been led to believe that war could only be cold. The only real war was the one smoldering in our hearts. 

Maybe we were reserving the label "war" for that inevitable conflict with our number one rival on the planet and every other act of armed aggression was considered a prelude to that feared eventuality. Or perhaps other conflicts just did not merit such an estimable reference, no matter how many of our young people and foreigners were killed in the fighting.


The cold war hawks did shoot themselves in the foot early on with their outrageous commie witch-hunts as the 1950s came to a close. Unfortunately, however, there was no disciplined alternative to their extremism. 


What emerged in that cultural vacuum was the 1960s "flower child" era soaked in the drunkeness of our sudden liberation from those out-moded mindsets, hyper-powered by the new phenomenon of recreational drugs. The Peace Movement was quickly subsumed into that giddy experimental culture, thanks to our escalating involvement in Vietnam's civil war and, moreover, by the concurrent existence of a military draft in the US.

Against this backdrop, it was the effort of a well-intentioned Democratic President who gave the still subdued movement toward the coming "Culture War" an inadvertent boost. At the height of the Vietnam folly that had once again given war a deservedly bad name, Lyndon B. Johnson announced his "Great Society" program, a large scale campaign to address the inequities of race and class in the United States: a noble undertaking indeed.


In an unfortunate linguistic miscalculation, LBJ chose to invoke the language of war in order to distract attention from Vietnam while instilling a sense of urgency and generate headlines for his effort to eradicate the injustices due to poverty. 

Notably, Johnson's "War on Poverty" was the first in a progression of instances when our national leaders would apply the three-letter word to any large-scale non-militaristic social policy.

Too bad Johnson could not have made his analogy to something more humanitarian, like an urgent reclamation effort to clean up after a devastating natural disaster: an earthquake or flood, for example. At best an incomplete analogy it was the first war declared by this nation that did not indicate an actual enemy. Decidedly avoiding any call to "spread the wealth around" Johnson's war on poverty was not a war on the rich. The war on poverty was the first war on an fundamentally abstract human condition.

It was not without its successes, among them ushering in at last, the golden age of irony. 

With a deadly and expensive conflict raging in Vietnam, where we butted against a proxy for our Super Power enemy, we were asked to buy into a more palatable idea of a war at home with no enemy at all. 

Later, in 1971, an embattled Richard Nixon would put his own spin on the idea of conceptual war turning it against something more frightening than poverty to middle class Americans - the "war on drugs." This was seen as based in a moral judgment against the deviant hippie drug culture as much as against the supplier cartels of South America.

By 1979, Vietnam was remembered as a tragic mistake but Jimmy Carter would make an even worse miscalculation than his Democratic predecessor Johnson had by urging us to adopt the "moral equivalent of war" during the energy crisis: explicitly linking morality and nationalistic pride, still in the absence of any named enemy (Ironically, a few months after Carter's speech, Iran stepped up to claim the title of enemy by taking 52 Americans hostage just months after the "moral equivalency" speech and held them long enough to doom Carter's re-election bid).

By then, the idea of war as a concept rather than reality had taken root so deep in the American psyche that we had grown much more accustomed to it than we were to any real war. But some of us had also become frustrated being constantly ready to do battle but lacking any real enemy. 


The only step left, then, to set the stage for a "Culture War" with a real home-grown enemy was to regain political power and credibility in a well organized campaign that would exploit the existing inclination to engage in conceptual warfare.

Finally they could name an enemy - something they had not dared since pinpointing commies back in the 50s. Lavender became the new Red as queers and their sympathizers would draw the bulk of fire in this culture war. And now they could label it a "war" outright. No more need to disguise their intense loathing of this detestable bunch of deviants. After all, their very existence threatens to destroy the fundamental building block of society, according to the movement's propaganda. 

By 1992 the reactionary Republican right had found religion big time and on drummed up fear and hatred toward marriage-seeking homos, they won back power after a 40 year exile, taking over both houses of Congress on the strength of their subversive "Contract on America" 

With 9/11 and a new Republican President squarely aligned with the cause, The Age of Irony was over and all Hell was let loose.

With the installment of a Republican President hell-bent on restoring war as a ruinous reality on the world stage we would eventually come to realize more than ever the horrific effects of sustaining battles on multiple fronts, both real and imaginary.
 
In the waning days of this calamitous administration, with the reactionary forces who would thrust us into a new cold war defeated, we are apparently fortunate enough to have a great deal more discipline than we did heading into the 1960s. 

With a bit of luck and determined caution against repeating our linguistic mistakes along with other errors from history, we have a much better chance today to finally dispel the notion of perpetual war - beginning with how we talk about it.

With a bit of luck and determined caution against repeating our linguistic mistakes along with other errors from history, we have a much better chance today to finally dispel the notion of perpetual war - beginning with how we talk about it.


Here's one more thing you can do - totally symbolic if you are into this sort of thing: take Yoko up on her invitation in memory of John: take the vow of non-violence at the Alliance for a New Humanity Website. It doesn't cost a dime and it only takes a few seconds.

"You'll wonder where the culture war went when you brush off Bush as President."

Thursday, January 01, 2009

What If They Threw a Culture War and Nobody Showed Up?

by Al Falafel

Back when the presidential campaign was just getting warmed up - was that like eight years ago? - I was one of those who caught a lot of heat for not backing Barack Obama in the primaries. Let's just say I had my reasons but they were not based in any truly negative feelings about the Senator from Illinois.

Barack Obama seemed like a great candidate to me for a future national campaign. I felt this way mostly because the country had had such little exposure to him at that point that it would be too easy for the Republicans to stir up baseless suspicion about every aspect of his life - just as they did and continue to do. I am gratified that Obama and his growing team of professionals proved to be able to hold up under such mud-slinging and clinch the Presidency for him.

Still, the right wing persists conspiratorially, pounding lies into the heads of their obstinate followers that Obama is indeed a foreign-born secret Muslim socialist with ties to terrorism even as the President-elect prepares to take office. They are not about to quit any time soon so let's just hope that reason will ultimately prevail and those dubious unfounded claims will eventually yield to reason for the most part.

My greatest doubts about his early campaign were more about his "followers" than about him. I admit I was put off by the degree of blind devotion his early supporters showed: it seemed more apostolic than politic. I was suspicious of the heights to which his supporters raised him on that pedestal of adulation as though he embodied a prophesied savior sent to lead us out of bondage.

If there was anything about the man, Obama, that put me off it was his undeniable charisma.

I had felt the pull of it myself on that one occasion I had to be in his audience - when he came to in Philadelphia during the 2004 campaign. His charismatic draw was palpable and awesome. He could have said anything, I thought; the whole lot of us were inexplicably entranced by something emanating from this man's presence.

Lo, it made me sore afraid!

But of course I voted for him and I am thrilled that Obama won. I look forward to the inevitable huge changes that have already begun to take shape in the way we think about the government and the way the world looks at us. I believe he could become one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. But I am still weary of some of Obama's followers now that he has begun to take on the job as President.

About a year ago, when I saw how some some of Obama's devotees were breathlessly in awe of him, thinking he would be the answer to all our problems, I wondered aloud how crushingly awful it would be for them when he actually started work and made his first decision, after being elected, that did not necessarily please them.

Now I have seen this come to pass as well. Obama's choice of homophobic minister Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation has pissed off some people in the LGBT faction of the Democratic Party so bad that they are saying such things in blogs and elsewhere that they are sorry they voted for him. Some are already saying they won't vote for him in 2012 and are threatening to boycott the inaugural parade (Really? come on, now!).

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign sent a letter to President-elect Obama decrying his invitation to Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the January 20th inauguration as "a genuine blow to LGBT Americans."

I think this does represent the vocal response of many in our community but not all of us. I, for one, feel that all this fuss is an unfortunate overreaction that makes us look more like a bunch of spoiled brats, kicking and screaming over a minor infraction that is overall and in the long run, ultimately meaningless. Two minutes of mumbo jumbo uttered during the warm-up to a right of passage should be considered nothing more than a blip on the radar, whoever does the uttering.

Obama obviously felt indebted to Warren - who is no doubt a bigot - for the exposure he provided him as a Presidential candidate that may have actually been the cause of more than a few votes switching from the McCain camp to ours. If this is the extent of his political payback for that favor - a cameo appearance at the inauguration for two minutes of meaningless jabber - then so what?

The media has enthusiastically picked up on the overblown rift between Obama and his LGBT supporters dredging up the tired old specter raging in the minds of those right wing extremists who invented the phenomenon of a "Culture War" in this country. Once again, we are foolishly letting ourselves be dragged right into the middle of it.

Is it worth it? Wouldn't it be better to let this minor, unmemorable and meaningless infraction slide and keep our sights focused on the real battles yet to come?

Politically, I think it is best to call a truce over this silly battle immediately. Obama has responded to the complaints, reiterating his support for our community as much as ever. Though he outwardly opposed California's Proposition 8 while Warren supported it, Obama NEVER supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples, any more than all the other major candidates for national office except for Dennis Kucinich.



At this point, if Obama gave in to our mounting demands and yanked Warren from the inaugural program he would be seen by the media as responsible for escalating the fake Culture War and he is not about to do anything as stupid as that. Rabid fundamentalists, still itching for a battle, would brand Obama as beholden to the interests of their enemies. And this would open up an even greater opportunity to the likes of the fag-hating Reverend Fred Phelps to bring more of his idiotic followers out in force to picket the inauguration and dog the new President for who knows how long?

As I said before, we are in danger of a replay of the same kind of issue that bogged down President Clinton at the start of his presidency. Then it was gays in the military that was used by the radical right to hinder his effectiveness in the long run and actually solidified the fundamentalist base who believe they are fighting the good fight in this imaginary Culture War. The cause was and is righteous but the tactics were tragically counterproductive, to say the least. We ended up with the worst possible scenario, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" which helped turn Clinton into such an emasculated advocate for our rights that he finally sold us out altogether, signing into law the "Protection of Marriage Act" under a cloak of shame.

HRC's current letter to President-elect Obama correctly points out that "Our loss in California over the passage of Proposition 8 which stripped loving, committed same-sex couples of their given legal right to marry is the greatest loss our community has faced in 40 years."

But it goes overboard, I think in following that with: "by inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table."

After ticking off inarguable legitimate reasons why Warren's views and actions are offensive to reasonable people everywhere, the HRC letter concludes, "We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination. Only when Rev. Warren and others support basic legislative protections for LGBT Americans can we believe their claim that they are not four-square against our rights and dignity. In that light, we urge you to reconsider this announcement."

So, OK, now that our main advocacy organization has made our objections known, I am just saying that we should move past it. Let Warren have his payback with those fleeting two-minutes of fame. This will appease those who need to see somebody at the inauguration speaking as though from a "pulpit" - a concession to religion that I find more objectionable than anything else but I'm not going to raise hell about it.

For those who still buy into the divisive myths of our day, it's time to withdraw our gay troops from the Culture War. We have bigger fish to fry, real issues to confront and other, real-world wars to end.

---------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Obama may have picked a turd to deliver the invoca-shun, but I expect real inspiration will come from the Inaugural Poet he has chosen: Elizabeth Alexander.

This will be only the fourth time a poet has been asked to compose a piece and read it at the swearing in. The first was Robert Frost who read at JFK's inauguration.

Big Surprise: Republicans have never had a purely creative person of culture featured at their inaugurations. Alexander is a cool and edgy choice and we are in for a real treat that will surely outshine any of the fire-and-brimstone crap the preacher man may bore us with.

Here is an excerpt from one of her works...

Neonatology

Is
funky, is
leaky, is
a soggy, bloody crotch, is
sharp jets of breast milk shot straight across the room,
is gaudy, mustard-colored poop, is
postpartum tears that soak the baby’s lovely head.

Then everything dries and disappears
Then everything dries and disappears

Neonatology
is day into night into day,
light into dark into light, semi-
and full-fledged, hyperconscious,
is funky, is funny: the baby farts,
we laugh. The baby burps, we smile, say “Yes.”
The baby poops, his whole body stiffens,
then steam heat floods the pipes.
He slashes his nose with nails we cannot bear to trim,
takes a nap, and the wounds disappear.
The spirit lives in your squirts and coos.
Your noises and fluids are what you do.

Neonatology
is what we cannot see: you speak to the birds,
the birds speak back, is solemn,
singing, funky, frightening,
buckets of tears on the baby’s lovely head, is
spongy.

“One day you’ll forget the baby,” Mother says,
“as if he were a pocketbook, a bag of groceries,
something you leave on a kitchen counter-top.
I left you once, put on my coat and hat,
remembered my pocketbook, the top and bottom locks,
got all the way to the elevator before I realized.

It only happens once.”