Duplicitous Politics Isn't

 

Duplicitous Politics Isn’t

Peter Schultz

 

                  That is, duplicitous action in the political arena is a way of making politics and political questions disappear, transforming them into personal questions so that politics is identified with, reduced to the personal.

 

                  For example, consider the questions of whether George W. Bush acted duplicitously to get into the Texas Air National Guard and whether he acted duplicitously by going AWOL once in. As one author has noticed: “While the media thinks it is reporting an electoral contest with Madison Avenue gloss, something deeper and more insidious … is going on, largely unexamined.” [Baker, Family of Secrets, 464] Namely, “the political process has been subverted and the public sandbagged.” [ibid]

 

                  So, what has been happening is that duplicitous politicians, like the Bushes, have, via their duplicitous politics, subverted politics and made political questions disappear. The questions of George Bush’s military service, or lack thereof, displaced questions about the Vietnam War and about American foreign policy generally, whether America’s war in Vietnam and American foreign policy generally were imperialistic. And “the result [has been] a government that in essence was not unlike those of third world oligarchs – a vehicle for military dominance and bountiful favors for supporters and friends.” [466]

 

                  When duplicitous behavior becomes the focus of political discourse, then the political order, even though oligarchic and militaristic, goes unexamined. Duplicity masks the political with the personal and, ironically, protects the duplicitous politicians and fortifies the status quo, no matter how imperialistic or oligarchic. Exposing a politician’s duplicity does not represent a fundamental personal threat insofar as the politician in question supports the existing political arrangements, i.e., is patriotic. However questionable Bush’s behavior may be shown to have been, those questions did not subvert his legitimacy because he supported the existing political order. And, of course, by focusing on his alleged – and easily deniable – duplicity, the status quo goes unquestioned, being accepted as fundamentally sound and even praiseworthy.

 

So, even though Bush were to be deemed personally disreputable, the existing order would retain respectability. Status quo sustained, even fortified. Ironically, duplicity works even when it is exposed. And, hence, the great appeal of cover-ups.

Duplicity: How It Works

 

Duplicity: How It Works

Peter Schultz

 

                  So, here’s an illustration of how duplicity works in order to disguise the injustices of any political order.

 

                  George W. Bush had managed to acquire a place in the Texas National Air Guard, obviously in order to avoid having to go to war in Vietnam and just as obviously through his connections, family and otherwise. But then, acting duplicitously, Bush and others claimed that his family connections had nothing to do with his admission to the Guard. And there followed news articles from journalists questioning whether in fact the Bushes were telling the truth about the family connections. The controversy was quite impressive as far as controversies go.

 

                  Take note, though, that this controversy displaced another possible controversy, viz., a controversy over the justice of having such alternative “military” places that allowed a few select people to avoid going to war in Vietnam, or in other wars. Such places for a select few, however chosen, would appear to be unjust to the vast majority of Americans who were subject to the draft and to having to serve, involuntarily as it was, in the war in Vietnam.

 

                  So, duplicity hides this justice question and Bush’s sense of justice is never questioned. The “justice question” is replaced by a “conspiracy question,” you might say. The question whether George W. Bush was just is displaced by the question whether he “conspired” via his connections to avoid the war in Vietnam, a war by the way he supported. And even the justice of his alleged conspiratorial behavior is not debated.

 

                  As a result of the duplicity, which was facilitated by Bush’s defenders, the justice of providing a select few with a way out of fighting the nation’s wars is never raised. The established order, even though it seems to unjustly favor the select few as the expense of the many, is fortified, even legitimized because it was never questioned. Duplicity, by hiding the injustice of favoring the select few over the many, serves the status quo and its attendant injustices.

 

Romantic Comedies v. Politics

 

Romantic Comedies v. Politics

Peter Schultz

 

                  I am a fan of romantic comedies, something even my wife makes fun of me for. But here’s the thing: Why do people put their faith in politics instead of romantic comedies? After all, what do people like LBJ, Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris have to offer us? They have nothing to offer me, as near as I can tell, not a blessed thing! So, why do people go on believing that politics offers hope? Whatever one thinks of romantic comedies, it cannot be as delusional as what people think about politics!🇺🇸

Duplicity

 

Duplicity

Peter Schultz

 

                  Duplicity is not a moral problem. It is a political problem. That is, it’s a problem that arises from the character of political life, from the defective character of justice and of political life.

 

                  Justice, in all its forms, is partial, incomplete, less than comprehensive. Just like rule in all its forms. There is no rule of all. Ruling and being ruled in turn is perhaps the best we can do. This means that doing justice always involves doing injustice. Democrats are unjust toward oligarchs, because democratic justice and oligarchic justice are not only different but contentious. Aristocratic justice is injustice vis-à-vis the non-aristocratic; hence, the prevalence of “aristocratic hypocrisy,” and “aristocratic arrogance.” Even in the best regime there is injustice because “the best” is only “as good as it gets.” And if Aristotle was correct, then the best regime not only has but requires slavery. And, of course, there has never been a political order devoid of crime, criminals, and prisons.

 

                  Hence, duplicity arises in order to deal with the injustices that necessarily exist in all political orders. Take note: “in order to deal with” those injustices because they cannot be eliminated. Justice and injustice always appear together. So, duplicity arises in their train and exists to deal with the flawed character of justice, i.e., with the flawed character of political life. So, while eliminating duplicity might seem desirable, to try to do so shows an ignorance of the political and will prove to be futile.

Did Nixon Sabotage Himself?

 

Did Nixon Sabotage Himself?

Peter Schultz

 

                  While contemplating the above question, another question occurred to me: Do humans screw up politics or do politics screw up humans?

 

                  That the latter is a sensible question is easily illustrated. For example, Ben Franklin, during the constitutional convention of 1787, argued that the presidency as created would be a flawed office because it would appeal to the ambitious and the avaricious, were the president to salaried. Such men would, Franklin argued, engage in political subversion constantly, so much so, that men of peace wouldn’t seek the office. And, of course, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to sense that Franklin’s critique was not just about a salaried presidency but about the presidency itself. Seems Franklin might have known what he was talking about, no?

 

                  It is comforting to think, as many do, that it is humans who screw up politics, rather than thinking that it is politics that screws up humans. So, it is comforting to think that Nixon sabotaged himself because in that way it is not necessary to wonder about, to question the American political order itself. The fault was not in the system; rather it was in Nixon. And, of course, it is just a short step from blaming Nixon to congratulating the system for “working,” for forcing Nixon to resign in disgrace. Or, as Gerry Ford put it: “Our long, national nightmare is over,” once Nixon had resigned.

 

                  Ah, but what if that nightmare arose not despite but because of the American political order? Now, that would “a horse of a different color,” as my mother use to say.

 

                  And, more generally, what if politics, political life itself, screws humans up, rather than humans screwing up politics, political life? That would be ironic insofar as humans seem to embrace politics, even universally, as the way to ameliorate the human condition, to improve human affairs, even to redeem the human condition. But then perhaps the political realm is, essentially, the realm of the ironic, one where the irony is too often overlooked. A character in a novel I like, who is speculating about politics and political life, wondered that if the German people had been able to laugh at Hitler’s rants and pelted him with sausage skins in beer gardens, the holocaust might have been avoided. Ironically, that speculation makes some sense.

 

                  And another question occurred to me as well: Do humans screw up beauty or does beauty screw up humans? It is hard for me to imagine that beauty, the beautiful screws up humans. Rather, beauty seems to fulfill humans in ways that political life cannot do. That might be worth thinking about.

 

                 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Stirring the Stew

 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Stirring the Stew

Peter Schultz

 

                  The greater the evil, the greater the good. So, confronting great evil confirms and demonstrates one’s great goodness. George W. Bush demonstrated his great goodness via his GWOT, Global War on Terror, which was for him an irresistible temptation. And it would have demonstrated his great goodness regardless of the outcome of that war. Moreover, the GWOT would demonstrate such goodness even if that war were waged savagely, even if it led to war crimes. So, ironically, demonstrating one’s goodness by waging war against a great evil makes it difficult not succumb to evil even while proving one’s goodness, a “going to the dark side” that you may and should be proud of. Once the good decide to defeat evil, engaging in evil is almost guaranteed.

 

                  There are two alternatives to this thinking that I am aware of. (1) To think that evil cannot be defeated; it can only be contained or “evicted,” moved around. A corollary here is that the amount of evil and good in the world is constant. Neither evil nor good grow or shrink and, so, acceptance, resignation, and containment are as good as it gets. The benefits of war to defeat evil are then illusory.

 

                  (2) Evil and good are illusions created by humans to endow their existence with significance, to give their existence meaning, as in war is a force that makes our lives meaningful. This view might be labeled “nihilism” – or pacifism. Is nihilism attractive then because it underwrites peace, because it undermines the case for making war morally justified, even morally attractive? Or is this why nihilism is unattractive and almost always universally condemned? Hmmm?

 

                  Almost all humans desire and strive to be good, or at least to seem good. Politicians, e.g., cover up their crimes almost automatically, as do institutions, even religious or “sanctified” institutions. They don’t stop to wonder: If being good requires covering up being bad, or repenting being bad, what is goodness? They don’t wonder, in other words, Is the good always mixed up with the bad? Are the good, the bad, and the ugly merely illusions when thought of separately? Don’t they always occur together?

 

                  If so, then maybe the best we can do is to stir the mixture, so it doesn’t congeal in a way that the scum rises to the top. Which might be taken as a reason for rejecting elitism in any form. Insofar as the good, the bad, and the ugly in inextricably mixed together, then the benefits of elitism are, like the benefits of war, illusory.

Joe Biden's Demise

 

Joe Biden’s Demise

Peter Schultz

 

                  The demise of Joe Biden’s presidency should come as no surprise. After all, consider the demise of LBJ, of Richard Nixon, of Jimmy Carter, of Reagan, of Bush I, of Clinton, of Bush II, and of Trump.

 

                  Failed presidencies reflect failed politics. Consider the failures in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, Central America, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, the 2008 economic crash, COVID, the border crisis. So much failure, but so little thought given to it.

 

                  Maybe it is time to think about our politics, rather than just going on and on and on about the need to restore or revitalize our political culture via “culture wars.” It was once common to hear people talk about “rehabilitating” criminals. But what if those criminals had never been “habilitated” in the first place? That would be a horse of a different color.

 

                  Restore, revitalize or revolutionize our politics? That is the question. And I suspect you actually know the answer.

The Clintons and Whitewater

 

The Clintons and Whitewater

Peter Schultz

 

                  The Clintons and the Whitewater hearings were much ado about nothing. Clinton supporters say that this was the case because the Clintons were innocent of wrongdoing regarding the Whitewater project. There was nothing they could be charged with, at least not successfully.

 

                  Ironically, though, even if the Clintons could have been successfully charged with contributing to the failure of the Madison Guarantee S&L, and/or profiting from that failure, the results would not have been destabilizing in the sense of undermining the Clinton presidency. Why not? Because the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency did not ultimately depend on the corruption or the lack of corruption of the Clintons. Proving or disproving the Clintons’ culpability was, strictly speaking, irrelevant with regard to the president and the legitimacy of his administration.

 

                  Official proceedings such as congressional hearings are politically stabilizing whatever their outcomes. The Watergate hearings, even though they led to Nixon’s resignation, proved to be stabilizing and were praised as such because “the system worked.” But even if those hearings had exonerated Nixon, the result would have been the same, viz., an illustration of the fact that “the system worked.” Congressional hearings like Watergate and Whitewater, while being seen as a way of exposing political misconduct, which they do, do it in a way that reinforces the status quo, making the exposures of misconduct ultimately irrelevant. As a result, such exposures of culpability do not undermine the system. Ironically, they strengthen the system.

 

                  From this, we may learn something important about politics. Politically speaking, the Whitewater hearings were, in fact, much ado about nothing. Ditto with regard to the Watergate hearings. Exposing Nixon’s culpability and eventually forcing his resignation proved to be politically insignificant insofar as it did not change the prevailing political arrangements. Ditto with regard to Whitewater. As a result, even though some thought the Clintons were “guilty as charged,” such thoughts proved to be irrelevant when it came to judging the Clintons politically.

 

                  In other words, the worth of political systems is to be judged not by the character, the morality of its actors. It is not the morality or immorality of political actors that determines the worth of a political system. Political systems or “regimes” should be judged not by such moral standards but by political standards, e.g., by their justice and their humanity.

Stentorian Baboons

 

Stentorian Baboons

Peter Schultz

 

                  Here’s a thought: Christianity originally, or Jesus, were not about morality or moral codes. Moreover, more radically, Christianity or Jesus rejected moralizing in favor of something else.

 

                  Consider, briefly, by way of example, Augustine, one of the earliest and most thoughtful Christians. In his Confessions, Augustine presents himself in all of his immorality. Eventually, he turned away from his immorality, but his turn was not motivated by morality. It was motivated by beauty, by the beatitudes, by a spirituality which included his love for his mother and for God. In other words, morality or moralizing did not “save” Augustine or lead to his “redemption.” It was his spirituality, a spirituality that transcended morality. Put differently, unlike many these days, Augustine was not saved or redeemed by religion, which may be described as formalized morality. It was not the Bible that saved or redeemed Augustine.  

 

                  Think about this politically. Over and over, politicians are heard to say that what America needs is moral reform. Some moral reforms are favored by conservatives, while other such reforms are favored by liberals. But apparently, there is a consensus that what is needed is moral reform. And, hence, we find ourselves in the midst of “culture wars,” where battles are waged over which moral codes are or should be deemed fundamental. Our most important political battles and events are understood as moral fables, as “the good guys” versus “the bad guys,” with disagreements of course over who are and who aren’t “the good guys. “

 

                  What if, however, moral reforms are not what we need? That is, what if, like Augustine, our political “redemption” or improvement depends, not upon morality, but upon something else altogether, something like a new way of thinking about and of living in the world? A new way of understanding the human condition, of humanity, a way that sees humans not as power-seekers but as adventurers, not as acquisitive beings but as inquisitive beings, not as warriors but as lovers, as beings who are best or better when they “make love, not war.” And what if our moral reformers, our moralizers, our politicians merely constitute “a roadblock of stentorian baboons,” standing in the way of redemption or some improvement?

Kennedy, Nixon, and American Imperialism

 

Kennedy and Nixon and American Imperialism

Peter Schultz

 

Here’s a thought that helps make sense of JFK and Nixon: Both were conventional American imperialists, meaning they embraced an elitist corporatized imperialism, the kind of imperialism that recommends the kind of stability which corporate elites crave and profit from. But this means it was their conventional imperialism that put limits on their anti-communism. Ironic, no? 

So, JFK could oppose invasions of Cuba, both the Bay of Pigs and during the missile crisis because they would be too disruptive and unsettling and, hence, bad “for business,” thereby threatening the US’s conventionally grounded imperialism. Ironically, it was JFK’s imperialism that set limits on his anti-communism. Ditto regarding Laos and Vietnam. Even his counterinsurgency bias can be seen as limiting his anti-communism, keeping it contained, so to speak. 

Nixon appears in the same light: his push for detente with the USSR and his opening to China were in the service of his conventionally grounded, corporatized imperialism that would benefit from stability rather than from anti-communism. 

So, JFK and Nixon were, we might say, shrewd in that they hid their imperialism, dressing it up as a modified or rational anti-communism. That is, they dressed their imperialism up in sexy clothes, especially JFK’s New Frontier and Camelot, that would titillate and arouse while not really changing traditional American imperialism. Of course, JFK, being “glam,” could make his politics look sexier and more seductive than could Nixon. 

But the irony is delectable, I think: It was their imperialism that set limits on their anti-communism. Priceless! 

 

Kennedy and Nixon, Part Two

 

Richard Nixon was smart enough to understand that anti-communism could subvert US imperialism and its drive for hegemony. Thus, Nixon’s imperialism limited his anti-communism vis-a-vis the Vietnam War, the USSR, and with regard to China, just as JFK’s imperialism limited his anti-communism with regard to Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and his Alliance for Progress in Latin America. Similarly, President George Herbert Walker Bush understood that removing Saddam Hussein by going to Baghdad would undermine American imperialism. But his son was not so smart, failing to understand that his GWOT would subvert US hegemony and undermine its imperialism. 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to show for it other than trillions wasted and lives lost and taken. Savagery is one thing; futile savagery is something else altogether. The price of ignorance can’t be exaggerated. 

American Politics as Pornographic Politics

 

Thoughts on American Politics as Pornographic Politics

Peter Schultz

 

Try this: American politics is pornographic. Our politics aims at arousal, appeals to our prurient interests rather than at accomplishments. Trump fits into this scheme rather nicely, joining Stormy What’s Her Name as a “porn star!” Ditto JFK and Bill Clinton. Of course, pornographic politics, like pornographic movies or books, is a way of enjoying stimulation while you’re expected to do very little and to have very little to show when you’re done. 👍🇺🇸

 

The GWOT is clearly pornographic, with assassinations providing the stimulation. In fact, stimulation might even be the goal insofar as the wars go on and on and on. And recall this: the pictures of Obama et. al., glued to watching on a screen the assassination of bin Laden, which was we know now as choreographed as any porno movie. Did anyone in that room get off on what they saw, then or later? Did anyone there want to get off then or later? 🇺🇸✌️

And elections! Whoa: all stimulation devoid of almost any significance. Again, all for the sake of maintaining the status quo, meaning the obscenities that characterize our politics.

 

Question: Is this an American phenomenon or a political phenomenon? Methinks that Machiavelli would say it’s a political phenomenon. And Aristotle in his Politics provides some ammunition for it being political by cataloguing instances where sex and sexual adventures led to revolutions or significant political change. 

 

Oh, would that I were still teaching. I would propose a new course: Politics as Pornography! What fun! 

 

Part Two

 

Pornography aims to titillate, to arouse people by means of sex or violence. To do so, pornorgraphy uses sex and violence but the sex and violence isn’t real. It’s staged and if we saw the staging [as was shown in the movie Love Actually], we would not be titillated for aroused. Similarly, porno politics seeks to titillate and arouse by means of events that are staged, just as the sexual and violent acts that constitute conventional pornography are staged. 

 

Why is porno politics appealing? Because it allows controlling elites to create the appearance of political conflict while actually doing nothing more than preserving their power, their status, their notoriety. The political conflict is staged, just as the sex and violence of pornography is staged. But it is titillating, arousing, gratifying to think it real, to accept and even embrace it as if it's real because little is more gratifying than believing you live in a “democracy” where important, even crucial issues are decided by the people. And that is probably as gratifying as believing people are capable of sexual or violent acts that could only be performed by supermen and superwomen. And it is definitely more gratifying, more exciting than believing you are being “played” by elites that control your lives while benefitting themselves at your expense. 

 

Part Three

 

How about more pornographic politics? And Bibi is just another porn star? 

 

I would say they’re repeating the same porn movie. Why? Because it emphasizes how porno politics is titillating and arousing. Unlike porn movies, porno politics lets people think something historical is happening. And, so, with porno politics, people can feel as if they are witnessing and/or taking part in historical events, which makes them feel important. You know, the kinds of things that are analyzed and that books are written about. 

 

So, staged events like elections and even assassinations, like the killing of bin Laden, titillate and arouse in part because they take on historical importance, even though they are for the most part unimportant, having no significant impact on the prevailing situation. They excite, titillate, arouse, but change very little. Think about the assassination of Awlaki, for example. Or think of the Trump presidency or, for that matter, the Obama presidency and ask: Other than preserving the status quo, did either presidency have any significant impact on our society or our politics? 

 

Further, with porno politics, partisans can “get off” when their stars “score,” but the scoring is no more meaningful than masturbatory sex, or sex between “fuck buddies” or as the result of “booty calls.” Clinton got off with Monica; Clinton destroyed a pharmaceutical plant. One is about a meaningful as the other but both titillated and aroused. 

 

So it goes.