The Supreme Political Duplicity

Peter Schultz 

 

Stalin said “The production of souls is more important than the production of tanks.” (Page 330, “The Devil’s Chessboard.”) 

C. Wright Mills referred to the production of “cheerful robots” by CIA cultural programs as part of its Cold War strategy. (Page 331, Devil’s Chessboard) 

So, a question arises: Does the political ensoul humans or desoul them, enhance their souls or degrade them? Conventional wisdom holds it’s the former. But if it’s the latter then this would constitute what might be labeled the supreme political duplicity, because claims of ensouling humans are duplicitous insofar as what is really going on is the degradation of souls. And “making your soul the best possible,” ala’ Socrates would require treating politics ironically, that is, as with Pascal, not seriously. Even Machiavelli wrote comedies! 

Another, similar question: Does war enhance the souls of humans or degrade them? Conventionally understood, war enhances the souls of humans; hence, the glorification of war heroes. But with only limited experience with war, one could easily be led to question the conventional wisdom. “Achilles in Vietnam.” 

Insofar as the political doesn’t enhance humans’ souls, the consequences of affirming the political are deeply troubling.

The Duplicity of American Statesmanship

 

The Duplicity of American Statesmanship

Peter Schultz

 

                  “To avoid personal and political calamity, Nixon needed … South [Vietnam] to survive a year or two after he brought the last American troops home. If it lasted eighteen months or so, Saigon’s fall might not look like it was Nixon’s fault. Kissinger had a special name for this face-saving period of time. “We want a decent interval.” [p. 30, Fatal Politics, Ken Hughes]

 

                  It needs emphasis that Kissinger’s interval would be anything but “decent.” It would be indecent in both effect and purpose. Its effects would include more death and destruction as Nixon and Kissinger allowed the war to drag on, while prolonging the captivity of America’s POWs, held by the North Vietnamese to be returned as a result of a settlement. And its purpose was to secure and fortify Nixon’s and Kissinger’s alleged bona fides as statesmen. Death, destruction, captive POWs, all for the sake of vanity, or what might be called narcissism in spades.

 

                  And there is more. “Through the Russians and Chinese, Nixon and Kissinger could offer Hanoi something valuable in return for a ‘decent interval’ – a clear shot at taking the South without fear of American intervention.” [p. 30]

 

                  The scale of this duplicity is staggering but, apparently, quite normal politically. To serve their own personal and political needs and desires, Nixon and Kissinger were working with Hanoi and on behalf of Hanoi, thereby undermining the existence of South Vietnam. And it is worth recalling that Kissinger was awarded a Noble Peace prize for his duplicity and Nixon was rewarded with a landslide re-election for his duplicity, as well as being hailed as the statesman who welcomed China into the world order. Both Nixon and Kissinger were named Time magazine’s “Men of the Year” in 1972. In politics, the duplicitous are well-rewarded and even regarded as “statesmen” of the highest order. So it goes.

What Behavior Is Rewarded and Rewarding Politically?

 

What Behavior Is Rewarded and Rewarding Politically?

Peter Schultz

 

                  In two words, duplicitous behavior. Why? Because such behavior preserves and fortifies one’s power and power is the coin of the political realm. Weak or weaker politicians are irrelevant and the weaker they are the more irrelevant they are, the more incompetent they appear. Ironically, in the political realm, the appearance of power promotes the appearance of competence, not vice versa. Thus, to be competent, a politician must preserve and fortify his or her power, doing so duplicitously when necessary. Duplicitous behavior, when it works, is rewarding and rewarded. So, duplicity is not only acceptable, normal political behavior; it is indispensable and even praiseworthy. And, therefore, the duplicitous make the best politicians.

 

                  Consider Richard Nixon and his approach to the Vietnam War. Nixon was committed to pulling US troops out of Vietnam, so a question arose, viz., when? Nixon thought it best to do it toward the end of 1971, but Henry Kissinger thought that too early insofar as if South Vietnam were to fall – which both Kissinger and Nixon thought likely once US troops were gone – in 1972, then it would be unlikely that Nixon would be elected for a second term. So, they decided to reach a settlement with the North Vietnamese in 1972, say in July, August, or even September so it would be unlikely that South Vietnam would fall before the 1972 presidential election.

 

                  Was Nixon duplicitous regarding his plans for pulling out of Vietnam? Of course. His duplicity was in the service of making him look competent by severing or disguising the link between his actions and the defeat of South Vietnam. And he and Kissinger were hailed for their competence, which actually was a kind of duplicitous politics, and a duplicitous politics that led to more death and destruction by extending the war and by extending the captivity of the US POWs being held by the North Vietnamese. For these duplicitous actions, Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peach prize. And their duplicity not only made Kissinger and Nixon look competent, but they were even said to look statesmanlike. Such is the stuff of statesmanship and political greatness.

Awakenings

 

Awakenings

Peter Schultz

 

                  Why is it thought that Plato asserted that “Only the dead have seen the end of war?”

 

                  Is it because “war is the health of the state” and, therefore, it is always engaged in proudly?

 

                  Is it because contemplating the consequences of patriotic, virtuous politics is deeply disturbing?

 

                  Is it because contemplating the lives, say, of Socrates or MLK, Jr. leads to doubt that “the arc of history bends towards justice” or that “you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free?” [Ironically, i.e., revealingly, the latter is written above the entrance to the CIA in the U.S. You can’t make shite like this up.]

 

                  That war is the health of the state is confirmed by the fact that wars are always waged proudly, and its most successful killers celebrated with the highest honors. To kill righteously is a sign of political health because righteousness is the coin of the political realm, as illustrated presently by both Trump’s supporters and his enemies. Apparently, the only legitimate option regarding Trump is supporting or opposing him righteously, which requires taking him seriously. Trump’s enemies act as if opposing him righteously weakens him. Ironically, it fortifies him and his supporters.

Patriarchal Politics and the Clintons

 

Patriarchal Politics and the Clintons

Peter Schultz

 

                  Hillary Clinton’s assertion that there was “a vast right-wing conspiracy” that wanted to undermine her husband’s presidency and humiliate him served well to preserve the patriarchal politics that underlay the American political order. That charge shifted attention away from the patriarchy and its sexual politics. Given the potential explosiveness of that issue, it had to be defused, and it was with the aid of Starr’s “pornography.”

 

                  That Starr’s report, given its graphic details of Clinton’s and Lewinsky’s sexual activities, had crossed a line as evidenced by the fact that “enough [people] felt offended by the prosecutors’ conduct … to change the dynamics of the struggle. There was something prurient about what Starr and the Congress were doing that [offended] more people than Clinton’s conduct had.” [527, A Woman in Charge] Starr’s prurience was offensive because it threatened to expose the obscene character of sexual politics in our patriarchy. It offended because it threatened to expose the lie in thinking of Bill Clinton’s sexual excesses as mere “dalliances,” and not as indications or illustrations of the obscenity buried deeply in our patriarchy.

 

                  Similarly, Hillary’s status, her public stature rose as she played the role required by the patriarchy, viz., of “standing by her man” and “handling herself … with dignity and fortitude.” [528] “She kept to her own schedule of events, giving speeches, traveling in the United States and abroad.” Which broadcast the message, comforting to many, that the president’s actions were sexual dalliances, mere picadilloes, and are not indicative of a deeply rooted patriarchal sexual psychosis. Or as James Carville put it: “You can’t elevate a blow job to anything more than a blow job.” [524] At least, you shouldn’t elevate blow jobs to anything more than blow jobs if you wish to preserve the patriarchy. And in terms of preserving our patriarchy, it might even seem that insofar as there was a vast right-wing conspiracy in the United States to do so, that the Clintons were, willy nilly, involved in it.

The Pathological Is Political

 

The Pathological Is Political

Peter Schultz

 

                  The hypothesis: the pathological has roots in the political.

 

                  Consider the Clintons, Bill and Hillary. Hillary’s failures were due to her ambition. The ambitious seek, above all, success, but success requires playing by the established rules. The established rules in the United States are patriarchal. So, to achieve success, Hillary had to play by those rules, which ultimately left her angry and bitter.

 

                  One senior White House official, who worked with Hillary asked, “whether Hillary had ever been a genuinely happy or even content person.” He said that “perhaps … it was most essential” … to realize that “she must have been an unhappy person for most of her adult life. And a very angry one at that … often in a state of agitated discontent … sometimes icy cold and embittered, though … capable of fun and laughter and warm friendship (though rarely of irony).” [pp. 310-11, A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein]

 

                  So, to achieve the success she craved, Hillary had to play by established rules, which left her angry and bitter. And the “higher” she rose in the established order, the tighter she was bound by those rules. Because that what happens – to everyone. Bill Clinton described the presidency as “a high class ‘penitentiary.’” [279] More success invariably means less freedom and less privacy. And if you are incapable of irony – of laughing at what are conventionally thought to be the most serious matters – you are bound to become angry, bitter, and discontent.

 

                  One possible response to this situation is to seek solace or comfort in ways that are conventionally disapproved of, for example, in sexual or drug-induced excesses. But insofar as you are a member of the elite, these choices, if revealed, will ruin you, lead to your downfall because they threaten the established order, revealing its hollowness. This helps explain why elites condemned Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades more forcefully than did ordinary Americans. The latter are not as deeply invested in the established order as its elites are. Hence, it should not have been surprising that “editors and reporters” of the nation’s three leading newspapers, the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, treated “Hillary and Bill [as if they] were neck deep in corruption.” [348-9] And, of course, protecting the established, patriarchal order required that Clinton’s sexual pathology be exposed, because his right to privacy was less important than the established order. He might try to claim that his pathologies were only his and Hillary’s business, but given their political implications, that claim would be and was easily denied.

 

                  Our pathologies have roots in the political. Which gives added meaning to Aristotle’s claim that we humans are “political animals.” Because she lived in a patriarchy, Hillary’s road to political success went through Bill Clinton, went through a marriage that was destined from the outset to be characterized by bitterness, anger, discontent, and disappointment. Moreover, it also meant that Hillary’s decision to seek success politically guaranteed the same kinds of pathology. Our pathologies have roots in the political. Patriarchy is a way of life.

Hitler and the Political

Hitler and the Political

Peter Schultz

 

                  Which best explains Hitler, his “unique instinct for power,” or the incompetence of his enemies? The question matters regarding the character of the political. The former implies that the political is potentially an arena conducive to greatness, both personal and political. The latter implies the political is an arena characterized by incompetence and blindness. The former leads to the affirmation of the political, while the latter leads to irony. What looks like greatness isn’t that at all. Rather, it’s a comedy of errors made to look heroic or noble, a comedy of incompetence made to look like competence, or savagery made to look like righteous war. Danger lies in affirming the political, whereas safety lies in treating it ironically. The danger is characterizing Hitler as “unique,” whereas safety lies in laughing at him.

 

                  Similarly, conspiracy theories about 9/11, for example, affirm the political because they assert the attacks were made possible by carefully laid plans to create “a new Pearl Harbor” so the United States could eventually dominate the world. Ironically, such “thinking” is reassuring. Thus, the attacks were seen as impressive feats, thereby implying that the political arena is characterized by such feats and the equally impressive Global War on Terror, undertaken in response to the attacks. Whereas if the attacks reflected and were made possible by incompetence and blindness, then the responses should be carefully calibrated, i.e., not monumentally grand like eradicating evil. Given the character of the political, the monumentally grand is monumentally delusional or mad.

 

                  Conventionally understood, Hitler had a “unique instinct for power,” by which he fooled and rolled over his enemies to become “the master” of the German Reich. Serving evil ends, he was nonetheless “a genius.” But what if Hitler was merely less incompetent that his enemies? And because he was less incompetent, he succeeded – but only for a little while. “Funny how falling feels like flying – for a little while.” Funny, too, how the road to political glory is actually a dead end.