The United States and the Politics of Failure

 

The United States and the Politics of Failure

Peter Schultz

 

                  For the life of me I cannot figure out why Americans seem to think so highly of their political elites and their political system. Here’s a partial list of the failures that have occurred in my lifetime.

 

Eisenhower’s Crusade for Peace

JFK’s New Frontier

JFK’s Assassination

The Bay of Pigs Invasion

LBJ’s Great Society

LBJ’s Vietnam War

RFK’s Assassination

MLK’s Assassination

Fred Hampton’s Assassination

Kent State and Jackson State

Watergate

Chile

Carter’s Desert Fiasco

Iranian Revolution

Iranian Hostage Crisis

Reagan’s Near Assassination

Iran-Contra

Nicaragua

War on Drugs

Challenger Disaster

Mass Incarceration

Waco

Ruby Ridge

Oklahoma City

Bin Laden

The 2000 Presidential Election

9/11

Occupation of Iraq

Afghanistan

2008 Economic Meltdown

Universal Health Care

Afghanistan: Again

COVID

2016 Presidential Election

1/6 Insurrection

Immigration Policies

 

                  A fairly long and consistent record of failures. It would be useful to ask, Why? Obviously, the failures are not aberrational but are endemic of our political elites and to a political system that is damaged and is damaging. Exceptionally so? Probably not.

The Political and the Psychologically Damaged

 

The Political: The Psychologically Damaged Healing the Psychologically Damaged

Peter Schultz

 

                  The following passages are from a book entitled Deadly Paradigms, by D. Michael Shafer: In 1961, JFK initiated a “new Program of Action” in Vietnam, labeled the “Presidential Program for Vietnam.” That is, South Vietnam. It called for “initiating on an accelerated basis … actions of a political, military, economic, psychological and covert character, designed to create … a viable and increasingly democratic society and to keep Vietnam free.” [p. 249]

 

                  This is truly mind-boggling stuff, that goes well beyond naivete and turns into narcissism, that is, into a psychological disorder. Only a narcissist would think it possible to remake a society employing such programs and doing so “on an accelerated basis.” In other words, the psychologically disordered were to be managing, reforming, even healing the psychologically disordered.

 

                  But think about it: Isn’t this characteristic of the political generally? The psychologically sick undertake to manage, reform, render healthy the psychologically sick. Isn’t that, for example, the point of the book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? A “big nurse” and others, who are psychologically damaged themselves, are to undertake the project of healing the psychologically sick. The psychologically damaged like JFK, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Donald Trump will manage and heal the psychologically damaged people who elected them. It seems like sheer madness to me. 

Deadly Paradigms

 

 

 

Deadly Paradigms

Peter Schultz

From Deadly Paradigms: “President Kennedy made counterinsurgency a priority….As General Lemnitzer…put it…Kennedy wanted ‘ nothing less that a dynamic national strategy - an action program designed to defeat the Communists without recourse to…nuclear war; one designed to defeat subversion where it had already erupted, and…to prevent it taking initial root…a strategy of both therapy and prophylaxis.’” 

The comical, mythical elements herein: “dynamic national strategy,” (oh how wonderful to be dynamic nationally!), an action program (because action is always preferable to inaction, be proactive always!), “defeat” “Communists,” (who are identifiable easily and are always defeatable), no nuclear war (of course no nukes!), defeat “subversion” (however defined and of course never justified), after it appeared or before it appeared, being both therapeutic and prophylaxis (hence, counterinsurgency as condom foreign policy!). 

General Lemnitzer asserted this with a straight face, believing it to be possible, and no one laughed! Oh, the madness! If Pascal’s take on Aristotle and Plato was correct - that they saw the political as a madhouse - then those guys got it right. And still very few laugh. The essence of the political: making madness socially acceptable! Ala’ WW I, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, GWOT, war on drugs, etc. 
 

The Virtue of Simplicity

 

The Virtue of Simplicity

Peter Schultz

 

                  Adam Hochschild has written an excellent book, King Leopold’s Ghost, which has one flaw. He wants to blame what happened in the Congo under King Leopold of Belgium on a particular kind of politics. At one point, he says “The Congo offers a striking example of the politics of forgetting. Leopold … went to extraordinary lengths to try to erase potentially incriminating evidence for the historical record.” [p. 294] At another point, he wrote that “One reason I wrote this book was to show how profoundly European colonialism has shaped the world we live in.” [318]

 

                  Hochschild is aware he is simplifying history: “it is wrong to blame the problems of today’s Africa entirely on colonialism.” [318] Other phenomena have been important, for example, the status of women, “the deep-seated cultural tolerance and even hero-worship of strongmen like Mobutu,” as well as “the long history of indigenous slavery [that’s] still deeply and disastrously woven into the African social fabric.” [318]

 

                  But while Hochschild criticizes simplicity, it may be that more simplicity, not less, would be illuminating. It is not particular kinds of politics, either a politics of forgetting or the politics of colonialism, that are to blame. Rather, it is politics simply. Focusing on particular kinds of politics as root causes of inhuman consequences in Africa obscures or “disappears” the political itself as the root cause. And just as it is incorrect to think that any particular kind of politics has caused Africa’s problems, so too it is incorrect to think that there is a particular kind of politics that can solve those problems. The political is inseparable from imperialism, slavery, and war, which is reflected by the facts that “The rebel militias, the Congo’s African neighbors, and many of their corporate allies have little interest in ending the country’s Balkanization.” [317] Nor should we be surprised insofar as “For western Europe to move from the Holy Roman Empire … to its current patchwork of nations took centuries of bloodshed, including the Thirty Years War, whose anarchic multisidedness and array of plundering outsiders remind one of the Congo today.” [318] Centuries of bloodshed which, of course, continue today and not only in the Congo or in Africa but that occur among the “current patchwork of nations” world-wide.

 

                  That we readily speak of “political problems” does not mean that we should assume there are “political solutions” for those problems, any more than because we speak of “moral problems” we should assume there are “moral solutions.” Centuries of bloodshed should alert us to the naivete of such thinking.

The Road to War: Honor

 

The Road to War: Honor

Peter Schultz

 

                  The road to war, politically speaking, is paved with good, i.e., honorable intentions. Hence, making war is so much more popular than making peace or avoiding war. It is the nature of the political.

 

                  In his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank offered an assessment of conservative voters in Kansas that led to the conclusion that those voters had voted against their own self-interests. Hence, they had voted irrationally, implying that they and the conservative movement were beyond rational appeals and hopelessly askew politically.

 

                  But that these voters were not voting irrationally is evident when it is recognized that, politically speaking, “means” often become or are “ends.” Those voters perceived themselves as voting honorably, as voting for “the honorable” as opposed to and even at the expense of their self-interests. So, they had demonstrated their virtue(s), their patriotism, their good citizenship in that they preferred the common good to their self-interests. As such, voting is not simply a means to advance one’s self-interest; it is an end in itself, a demonstration of one’s virtue(s), political and otherwise.

 

                  This is a reminder that honor is a commodity that easily trumps self-interest politically. Self-interest may dictate abandoning losing causes, like wars, but honor does not. In fact, honor dictates persisting even in losing causes, including wars, because such persistence demonstrates one’s virtue(s). Appeasement based on calculation can always be made to seem dishonorable. Which is why making war is so much more popular than making peace via appeasement.

 

                  When trying to get the United States out of Vietnam, JFK used statistics, duplicitously as it turned out, to persuade people that it was in the interests of the United States to get out or stay out of Vietnam militarily. Apparently, JFK knew that his statistics gave an inaccurate picture of the military and political situations in Vietnam. And as it turned out to be the case, Kennedy’s prospects of keeping the US out of Vietnam dimmed considerably.

 

                  Additionally, though, in arguing as he did in favor of what he said was statistically validated “progress,” JFK had, implicitly, embraced the war’s legitimacy, that it was an honorable war. If opposing communism was honorable, as almost all Americans thought then, the war was honorable. So even if it were not going well and even if South Vietnam itself was not essential to the national security of the United States, the war itself, as opposed to its possible outcomes, was honorable. To oppose the war would be to act dishonorably. And were a president to act so dishonorably, unconscionable consequences might be forthcoming.

Thought Experiment: Killing JFK

 

Thought Experiment: Killing JFK

Peter Schultz

 

                  Why was it necessary to assassinate JFK? That is, “necessary” for national security reasons?

 

JFK was committed to abandoning South Vietnam, which would have compromised US national security – not because the existence of South Vietnam itself fortified US national security. But because US war-making fortified US national security and did so even though South Vietnam would not survive. This is what Nixon understood and why he felt justified in extending the war for the duration of his first term, to achieve “peace with honor.” Continuing the war was crucial to US national security because it was what US “honor” required. To cut and run would have been “dishonorable,” thereby compromising US national security.

 

                  “US national security” was/is a euphemism for “US honor.” It was honorable to continue the war, no matter how badly it was going and dishonorable not to do so. Doing the honorable thing, even though futilely destructive, was politically requisite. Honor is a political virtue even when it leads destruction and death in what seem to be futile causes.  And dishonor is a political vice even when it leads to peace because it is “appeasement.” In politics, means are just as important ends. This is one reason why politics is so violent and deadly.

 

                  Making war always appears honorable, while appeasement always appears dishonorable. And presidents are constitutionally inclined toward acting honorably because the office itself privileges the honorable just as much as monarchies privilege honor. Because JFK was prepared to act dishonorably, he was compromising the presidency itself. Such a compromise would undermine US national security, which depends upon, as everyone knows, there being strong presidents, i.e., powerfully acting presidents. The honorable act powerfully, not timidly. They do not appease; they make war. Insofar as JFK was unwilling to do that, he was compromising US national security. Hence, his removal was necessary.

A Few Reflections on Aristotle and the Political

 

A Few Reflections on Aristotle and the Political

Peter Schultz

 

                  Some views on Aristotle: “Moreover, he thought that such knowledge [of human actions] is the necessary prerequisite for politics because politics has as its end the making of virtuous citizens.”

 

                  “For Aristotle, the science of politics was the architectonic science, the master science, because its end, the good for man, is employed in directing political affairs and is ultimately directed at the education of citizens…. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient merely to live. Man must live well, that is, live as a human moral agent. As the science of human action, political science enables man to fulfill this aspiration.”

 

                  So: Humans aspire to live well; that is, to live as “human moral agents.” To fulfill this aspiration, humans turn to political science, to politics because “politics has as its end the making of virtuous citizens.”

 

                  And, of course, this assumes that “virtuous citizens” are “human moral agents.” But Aristotle explicitly denies this identification when he asserts that a good person is virtually always distinguishable from a good citizen or that it is almost never the case that a good citizen is also a good person. Being either a good person or a good citizen seems to be a choice humans have to make. Does political science as the architectonic science, the master science illuminate that choice? Or does political science so understood obscure the necessity of making that choice? It could be that understanding politics as architectonic, as commanding is in fact not illuminating, but blinding. And it is a blindness that often leads to fanaticism, the fanaticism of living well as “human moral agents.” Extremism in the defense of virtue is no vice.

 

                  So: What was Aristotle doing? Could it be that he was – as he did with regard to slavery or to the origin of the polis – laying out the conventional wisdom, the citizen’s or the political wisdom in order to expose its flaws? As some have argued, Aristotle does adopt the conventional or citizen’s view of politics, but he does so to expose it, and not to endorse, embrace, or affirm it.