Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 321: All Shook Up, the American Dionysus, Part Two of Seven

In the previous quote James Baldwin was describing what I call the myth of American innocence, the collection of narratives and images that have allowed most of us to live with the realities of race and empire and yet believe that America has a divinely inspired mission to bring freedom and opportunity to the whole world. Yet, strangely, it is possible that the unforgivable enslavement of millions of black people actually initiated a profound, if exceedingly slow, healing process. Compounding this colossal irony, the individuals most responsible came from America’s most bigoted region.

Southern whites reacted with extraordinary violence (committing well over 4,000 lynchings between 1890 and 1930) when blacks attempted to move into the mainstream of life. Shameful as this period was, however, it brought out both our most feared contradictions as well as the seeds of renewal. For all its sorrows, the twentieth century saw several brief periods when forms of Dionysian madness seized the Apollonian mind in its flight from the body and pulled it back to Earth. These periods fundamentally altered America and began to clean out the festering wounds underlying Puritanism, materialism and our national obsession with violence. What did this? African American music.

Throughout the Jim Crow era, the spirit of Africa survived in such folk traditions as Hoodoo hoodoo-shrines-and-altars-coverand the Haitian influence in New Orleans, but primarily in the black church. Even though many of its members absorbed the conservative social values of their former masters, there was no mind-body split in the practice of their religion. But this created a bind that Southerners, both white and black, have been in for generations, writes Michael Ventura: “A doctrine that denied the body, preached by a practice that excited the body, would eventually drive the body into fulfilling itself elsewhere.” The call-and-response chanting and rhythmic bodily movement typical of southern preachers absolutely contradict their moralistic sermons. This contributes to “the terrible tension that drives their unchecked paranoias” (to which I would add their unchecked sex scandals).

Music, whether sacred or secular, held rural communities together by providing a safety valve from the stifling pressure of rigid conformism. Those who most exemplified this paradox were the traveling singers who mediated between the community’s sentimentalized idea of itself and the forbidden temptations of the outside world.

Were these men mere entertainers, or did they serve a necessary role as messengers from the unknown? In The Spell of the Sensuous, Philosopher David Abram observes that in tribal cultures, shamans rarely dwell within their communities. They live at the periphery, the boundary between the village and the “larger community of beings upon which the village depends for its…sustenance.” In terms of indigenous spirituality, these intermediaries ensure an appropriate energy flow between humans on the one hand, and ancestors, spirits, plants and animals, or (to reduce things to psychology) unconscious aspects of the personality, on the other.

The Greeks imagined that the boundaries were the realms of Hermes — and of Dionysus. Hillman writes,

In Dionysus, borders join that which we usually believe to be separated by borders…He rules the borderlands of our psychic geography.

In 1920, the South was still a primarily rural society with a living folklore that extended back to Ireland, Scotland, Haiti, Jamaica and especially Africa. For this reason, and despite all its feudal horrors, its people retained a vestigial memory of the permeable boundaries between the worlds; and it was the singers, preachers and storytellers who mediated the edge.

By contrast, the urban North was characterized by the crowded, dirty, noisy, mechanized life of factories and tenements (for the poor) and the unrelenting drive for money and status powered by the Protestant Ethic (for the middle-class and rich), and they paid a considerable price in alienation from the natural world. Modern life, writes Greil Marcus, “…had set men free by making them strangers.” Existence in the urban factories had diminished human passions in favor of a reserved, cynical, blasé attitude. This had created a compensatory craving for excitement and sensation, which for some was partially satisfied by city life. But others needed something more extreme, more Dionysian, to make them feel alive.

This damage to the soul occurred along with the most rapid technological changes in history. The all-encompassing verities and authority of religion had been, to a great extent, replaced by nationalism. One Frenchman fated to die in the first weeks of the Great War observed that the world had changed more since he had been in school than it had since the Romans. In the thirty years between 1884 and 1914, humanity had encountered mass electrification, automobiles, radio, movies, airplanes, submarines, elevators, refrigeration, radioactivity, feminism, Darwin, Marx (who wrote, “All that is solid melts into air”), Picasso – and Freud.

What irony: just as the modern world was learning of the unconscious, it was about to embody the ancient myths of the sacrifice of the children. The pace of technological change simply exceeded humanity’s capacity to understand it, and the pressure upon the soul of the world exploded into world war. For four years in Europe, between seven and ten thousand people, mostly young men, were killed or died of starvation, every single day. And then the Spanish Flu decimated millions. Even though the violence did not reach American soil, the pandemic and the grief certainly did. We can never know the extent of trauma this generation experienced.

After the Great War, the anxieties and economic pressures of the new century threatened to overwhelm the small-town values of self-denial, strict moral conduct and racial exclusion in the South. Great political rifts were growing that would eventually explode in the 1960s. Thousands of black veterans returned, mostly to the South, and women were about to achieve the right to vote, just as city dwellers were becoming the majority of the population. 1919 – “Red Summer” – saw 3,600 strikes Red-Summer-ChicagoRiotHeadlineinvolving over four million workers. But it also saw over 25 race riots (all of them white-on-black), the Palmer Raids (dedicated to destroying the Red “Outer Other”) and the resurgent Klan (obsessed with the black “inner Other”).

And something completely new arose. The average age of the onset of puberty was decreasing while the average age at marriage was increasing.  Adolescents began to find themselves in a prolonged period of dependence upon their parents, who first used the word “teenage” around 1920.

As the pace of change led to drinking rates that have not been equaled since, religious reactionaries compelled the government to declare Prohibition. Until 1933, it would be illegal to sell or transport intoxicating beverages. America, alone among industrialized nations, declared that the celebration of Dionysus (whom the Greeks knew as Lusios, “the Loosener”) in even this most literal form was unacceptable. But the repressed quickly returned; sixty percent of the public continuously violated the law. “Dionysus,” wrote psychologist Raphael Lopez-Pedraza, “took his revenge in bootlegging, gangsters and violence.” The word  “underworld” now referred to organized crime, rather than the abode of the ancestors. It still served as a mirror of the upper world, but now of its rapacious capitalism. Instead of a revival of Protestant asceticism, America experienced the “roaring twenties.”

Politically and economically, African Americans remained on the periphery of the American story. But something else new – and critical – arose. New technology brought their culture into the mainstream. In a sense, technology, easily accessible (in the form of records and sheet music) and even free (in the form of radio), gave American culture a permission it had not had before, except through alcohol and violence. Soon, everyone was dancing; tfc3-042-3_charleston-competition_st-louis-1925indeed, “the Charleston” dance craze was actually a West African ancestor dance. People (at least urban people) began to speak openly about sex, gender and the body’s demands for pleasure. And everyone watched movie images of other people’s bodies experiencing pleasure in this period before the introduction of the Motion Picture Production Code.

There were signs that the white ego was loosening up. Psychologist Stephen Diggs writes that this “alchemical process” melded western individual consciousness with tribal orality: “Where the Northern soul, from shaman to Christian priest, operates dissociatively, leaving the body to travel the spirit world, the African priest, the Hoodoo conjurer, and the bluesman ask the loa to enter bodies and possess them”.

Still, the Klan claimed four million members. In 1921, whites destroyed the black section of Tulsa, killing 300 blacks. In 1923, they destroyed the black town of Rosewood, Florida, killing dozens. It was a particularly cruel irony. Even as whites were experimenting with tentative rejection of their ancient hatred of the body, they were – savagely – punishing people who (to them) seemed to exemplify natural comfort in that body. But Blacks were now in a uniquely influential position. Even as they suffered continued segregation and repression, their music (at least watered-down versions of it) was challenging the white majority’s most fundamental beliefs.

Students of myth will recall that (in The Bacchae, by Euripides) the young King Pentheus was both revolted by and attracted to his cousin Dionysus. This story reminds us that fascination always lies just beneath hatred of the Other, because the Other is an unrecognized part of the Self. America played out much of its love-hate relationship with its Dionysian shadow throughout the twentieth century on the field of popular music.

This process has moved in a dialectical series of cultural statements, an insight first proposed by LeRoi Jones (later known as Amiri Baraka) in his seminal book Blues People: Negro Music in White America.  To simplify: blacks merge western techniques with indigenous African traditions to create new musical styles. Whites (such as Paul Whiteman) copy it, dilute its intensity and proceed to reap  most of the profits. Then younger blacks create a revitalized

paul-whiteman-image-lg

musical expression, but this time with the intention of restoring black identity, as a conscious choice to remain outside.

The message, “We are not like you” is a statement about otherness, for once, by the Other, which prefers exclusion if the result is the survival of authenticity. In a culture that elevates the dry, masculine, Apollonian virtues of spirit over the wet, feminine and Dionysian, blacks would begin to use the word soul in 1946 to define their music in contrast to the dominant national values. Eventually other terms – soul brother (1957), soul patch (1950s), soul food (1957) soul music (1961) and soul sister (1967) – would arise in proud contrast to the dominant national values.

Again, white adults copy the new forms, removing their most Dionysian elements to make them more acceptable. But white youth typically prefer the real thing, inviting xenos, the stranger, to become the guest. From Dixieland to Hip-Hop, the cycle has repeated itself for nearly a century.

Xenos. In this twisted yet profoundly important dialogue, whites have consistently feared contamination by the stranger (black people), yet they desperately long for the emotional and bodily freedom offered by the guest (black culture). This is an essential aspect of whiteness itself. “The white itch to affect blackness,” writes Kevin Phinney, “is an ineffable part of the American experience.” Mistrels-A-poster-from-1907-shows-the-Al-G.-Field-Minstrels-caucasian-men-who-performed-in-blackface-653x1024Indeed, blackface minstrelsy had been America’s primary form of entertainment throughout much of the nineteenth century. Forms of it (Amos ‘n Andy, originally voiced for radio by two white actors) would survive into the 1950s, tutoring millions in racist stereotyping. But it provided something else: by watching other whites impersonating blacks, whites could briefly inhabit their own bodies.

 

But popular thinking still remains polarized along racial lines: civilized vs. primitive, abstinence vs. promiscuity and sobriety vs. intoxication, all forming the opposition between composure and impulsivity (mythologically, Apollo and Dionysus). For generations, power elites have manipulated the fear that those who cannot control their desires will tempt the majority to follow them, that no one might resist temptation. In the white collective unconscious, the black man is America’s Dionysus, coming to liberate the women, to lead them to the mountains so that they might dance, free of patriarchal control.

And in this liberating, loosening, archetypal (yet terrifying) role, the mad god offers men two choices. The first is to accept these changes, drop your own stiff, heroic, detached consciousness and dance with us.

Every child has known God,
Not the God of names, not the God of don’ts,
Not the God who ever does anything weird,
But the God who knows only four words
And keeps repeating them, saying:
“Come Dance with Me.” Come Dance. — Hafiz

Or, like King Pentheus, who refuses the invitation, be torn apart.

Read Part Three here.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 424: A Mythologist Looks at the Election of 2024, Part Six

Posted on June 7, 2023 by shmoover

Part Six — What the Debt Ceiling Compromise tells us about American Myth

Watch what we do, not what we say — John Mitchell, Richard Nixon’s Attorney General

The Debt Ceiling bill is a Republican wet dream in four main ways, each with its own implications for the myth of American Innocence, and most Democratic members of congress voted for it:

1 — By cutting everything in the budget except for the military and aid to Ukraine (which Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal described as “…one of the most pressing defense challenges we have right now”), it reinforces the old idea of good intentions and the old story of how America only goes to war to fight aggression and spread democracy. This narrative has filtered down to the local level, where cities across the country are cutting everything in their budgets except for the police. It reinforces one of our most curious yet common and crazy-making mythic contradictions: that the innocent community is endangered, under constant assault by the forces of evil — and, mysteriously — that we are utterly invincible and always prevail. Finally, by repeating the warmongers’ message that conflict can only be resolved through violence, it supports the fantasies of every traumatized individual who has ever contemplated taking his AR-15 and annihilating toddlers at the local school. For anyone to believe that a stance in the world in which this nation has bombed 33 countries since the end of World War Two (most of them populated by people of color) has no relation to the 202 mass shootings in 2023 as of May 8th is the height of denial.

2 — In giving critical handouts to Joe Manchin (the top recipient of fossil fuel industry contributions in the Senate), including expedited approval process and the elimination of judicial review for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, this betrayal of the climate activists who supported Biden on the ground  reveals that the real business of American capitalism is inseparable from domination and willful destruction of nature.

3 — In not raising taxes on the rich, it reinforces the absurd notion that since billionaires accumulate their wealth (and create jobs!) only through hard work and enterprise, not through white privilege, family inheritance, elite education, military conquest and decades of tax breaks, then government certainly shouldn’t punish them. The deeper mythic implications are the worship of radical individualism, the story that we all begin with equal opportunities from the same starting point and the equally absurd idea that only exceptional people — or an exceptional nation — are the engines of progress, rather than people who cooperate and collaborate for the common good. Only in America do we still believe that to be a hero or a winner results entirely from one’s own initiative. Only in America do we still believe that each of us is an isolated individual in perpetual revolt against family, community and government. Only in America do straight-faced politicians proclaim their horror of big government while raking in subsidies for the local gentry and calling for further restrictions on abortion rights.

4 — In imposing new work requirements for food stamps on childless older adults, requiring them to work eighty hours/month, it attacks the poor for being poor. The change could result in almost 750,000 adults losing their federal food assistance. Since the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for an individual is $281, this makes the work program route effectively the same as a job that pays $3.51 per hour, or less than half the federal minimum wage. This shadow side of radical individualism is a window into the heritage of Calvinist predestination thinking that lies below America’s brutal contempt for the poor, the young, the disabled and the unemployed. Only in America do we still believe that to be a loser or a victim is to be one’s own fault. Only in America do we punish babies with malnutrition because their parents can’t find work.

With this view in mind, we can see why the Democrats are setting themselves up to fail. David Sirota explains:

The Democratic Party’s political class has developed a rote formula over the last decade: ignore rather than channel discontent among the party’s rank-and-file voters, prevent competitive primaries where those voters can act on their dissatisfaction, and then hope to eke out general election victories on a wave of voter disgust with the Republican Party’s freakshow nominees.

(In 2020) Trump’s horrific first term allowed Biden to eke out a win…Now Democrats seem intent on using The Formula again — only this time, it’s even more risky because this is not a race against a sitting Republican president. In 2024, Biden is the incumbent playing defense, and…CNN’s polling shows that right now, just one third of Americans believe Biden deserves to be reelected — (a lower number) than where Trump was at around this stage of his first term…a Fox News survey shows 28 percent of Democrats already saying they will vote against Biden in a primary…

Elizabeth Vos adds:

However, a lack of popular support matters little to Biden or the DNC because the big-money donors who Biden infamously reassured during his 2020 campaign that “nothing would fundamentally change” under his leadership, support him, and so does the party…Or worse: as in 2016, they would rather lose to Trump than allow a progressive to win and threaten the interests of wealthy Democrats who control the party.

Yes, I know…people like me have the luxury of commenting from the sidelines. Granted, we clearly don’t know what it’s like to bargain with criminals and madmen who would hold the entire nation captive to their extremist fantasies. And I have great respect for those who are willing to do so. Yes, many Democrats who support this monstrosity probably felt that they had no choice even if they hated it.

But along with that luxury comes a responsibility to look at events from alternative views such as mythology. Myth is not interested in psychology or motivation. Myth tells a story; it describes what happens, not why. From this perspective, it’s very simple. Biden’s crowd has joined McCarthy’s mob to risk nuclear war, feed the rich and bash the poor. From this perspective, we don’t care why Biden is so deeply unpopular. From this perspective, we only note that with the same choice as four years ago, fewer people will bother to vote, and that (along with voter repression and computer fraud) spells trouble.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 423: A Mythologist Looks at the Election of 2024, Part Five

Posted on June 4, 2023 by shmoover

The People and the Press

There is a madman inside of you who is always running for office. Why vote him in – for he never keeps the accounts straight? — Hafiz

In just two lines, the medieval Persian poet distills the connection between the inner world and the outer, between our individual yet shared madness, our need to project it out onto celebrities and the inevitable result that a mad culture vomits onto its national stage the most wounded and narcissistic players.

In the spring of 2023 the craziness kicked into a higher gear. This new version of the old story includes five main characters: We are familiar with the first three: the MAGA Republicans, the centrist Democrats and the media (see below).

The fourth is technology itself. I’ve already made a strong case for how manipulation of electronic voting machines has been a decisive factor in every presidential election going at least as far back as 2004. By 2016, we all began to hear how algorithms had moved from social media advertising to manipulation of voting preferences. We’ve already reached the point where we can no longer verify if a photograph has not been doctored. Think about that: for nearly 200 years, photographs have been the gold standard of the truth; if you saw a picture of something, you knew that it had happened. That is no longer so. This year, with AI entering the fray, we may already be at the point where we can’t prove that anything is true, something that those who would like us all to give up voting out of sheer despair will certainly appreciate. You really don’t even know if I’m writing these words.

The fifth factor is the people and the source of our anger. Regardless of how we label ourselves, when polled on specific issues, we remain much farther to the left on most major issues than either of the two major parties, and we feel increasingly frustrated and unrepresented:

1 — Medicare for All: 69% in favor

2 — Full abortion Rights: 61% in favor

3 — Do more to reduce the effects of climate change: 67% in favor

4 — Prioritize alternative energy over fossil fuels: 79% in favor

5 — Reduce military spending: 56% in favor

6 — Increase spending on child welfare: 68% in favor

7 — Raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour: 62% in favor

8 — Support gay marriage: 71% in favor

9 — Increase regulation of banks: 56% in favor

10 — Increase regulation of major technology companies: 56% in favor

11 — Ensure that chemicals used in consumer products are safe: 92% in favor

12 — Oppose reducing the size of Social Security benefits: 79% in favor

13 — Increase taxes on the super-rich: 64% in favor

14 — More important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights: 59% in favor

15 — Support minimum corporate tax: 52% in favor

16 — Add the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution: 78% in favor

17 — Support criminal justice reform: 91% agree

18 — Support asylum for immigrants fleeing persecution: 55% agree

19 — People are rich because of their life advantages, not because they work harder: 65% agree

20 — Minorities are denied equal treatment in criminal justice: 69% agree

21 — Incarceration for long periods is counterproductive to public safety: 71% agree

One problem with citing statistics like these is that pollsters typically question “likely voters”. Since half the population doesn’t vote and that half tends to be darker-skinned and poor, we can safely assume that these stats would trend much farther to the left if pollsters interviewed a real sample of Americans. Another problem is that most people who support progressive policies tend to be congregated in coastal states that are already safely Democratic. Or are they?

22 — Legalize cannabis: 68% of Republicans in favor

23 — Raise taxes on the mega-rich: 51% of Republicans in favor

24 — Know someone who has had an abortion: 55% of Republicans

25 — Support Medicare for All: 46% of Republicans

Read that last one again: theoretically, if the race-bating and war-mongering were factored out, a Republican could run for Congress on Medicare for All!

I would imagine that you are unfamiliar with most of these stats, because you probably don’t see them in the New York Times, CNN or the Washington Post. The media’s intention (yes, we can use the singular here) is to keep all discourse well within acceptable boundaries, using methods such as false equivalencies and to marginalize all alternative voices, whether they be candidates (see below) or serious investigative journalists. Beyond that function, its purpose is to sell you to their advertizers.

While liberals celebrated Trumpus’ legal woes, he raised $34 million through mid-April, with a spike in donations after the indictment. The man may be worried, but the con-man is laughing, once again, all the way to the bank. His account was swollen considerably by CNN’s decision to give him two hours of free publicity in broadcasting his primetime “town hall” performance of the usual lies in front of a cheering audience.

In August of 2022, Chris Licht, CNN’s CEO, had canceled Brian Stelter’s commercially successful show, “Reliable Sources,” which had criticized right-wing media. Robert Reich writes that Licht had also told CNN staff they should stop referring to Donald Trump’s “big lie”.

Why? Follow the money. CNN’s new corporate overseer is Warner Bros…(whose) leading shareholder…is John Malone, a multibillionaire cable magnate…In 2017, he donated $250,000 to Trump’s inauguration.

Follow the money, indeed. Cui bono? As the pandemic created many billionaires from the ranks of Big Pharma, this election cycle will further centralize wealth and power. We recall the notorious 2016 assessment of Trumpus by Les Moonves, CEO of CBS: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS”. Licht, who was certainly well aware of that statement, chose to up the ante. No longer perceiving any need to distinguish between the public interest and corporate profits, he told his staff the morning after the town hall: “America was served very well by what we did last night.” Two weeks later, he scheduled another town hall for early June, starring Mike Pence.

So the first thing to acknowledge about this election is that the media will be an equal participant, along with the same two doddering old fools who are likely to be nominated. And all three will be manipulating technology for their own purposes, not ours. This will not be pretty.

Read Part Six here soon.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 422: A Mythologist Looks at the Election of 2024, Part Four

Posted on May 24, 2023 by shmoover

In May 2023, a blogger expressed a common liberal complaint, writing that that under Biden the economy has been adding over 400,000 jobs per month for 11 straight months. Then he listed many recent MSM articles that expressed “relentlessly dour economic coverage” and seemed to be consistently ignoring the good economic news:

The glaring disconnect between reality and how the press depicts White House accomplishments means a key question lingers: Why is the press rooting against Biden? Is the press either hoping for a Trump return to the White House, or at least committed to keeping Biden down so the 2024 rematch will be close and “entertaining” for the press to cover?

These are legitimate questions that we’ll try to keep track of. But for now, we need to address a much larger issue, beyond the strictly economic one. Even if the media do want to build Trump up (and Biden down) to make for a more exciting and profitable campaign (see Part Five), why is the President so unpopular? I suggest a few possibilities:

1 — Cognitive dissonance. White Republicans in their echo-chambers simply don’t hear any “news” that might portray Biden in a positive light. And when they do, they have been conditioned for decades to re-interpret what they hear to fit with what they believe. That makes a quarter of us (half of the half who vote).

2 — Generational perception. Young potential voters (especially the POC who are the primary Democratic activists) see nothing but a doddering old fool and want him replaced by someone responsive to their concerns, someone who might legitimately hold their “King” projections. And people of my (older) generation are sick of being asked our entire lives to support the lesser of two evils.

3 — Innate, moral intelligence. Despite enduring an educational system deliberately designed to dumb us down, a carceral state intent on keeping millions of us from voting at all and a legacy news media that is no longer indistinguishable from outright propaganda, people may be ignorant, but they are not stupid. A surprisingly large number of us are perfectly aware that we are being lied to on a daily basis by representatives of most of our basic institutions. The only people who still wonder why so many are attracted to right-wing demagogues are liberals who prefer innocence to acknowledging the madness.

So it’s curious: if the media (for their own mendacious reasons) are not featuring positive economic news, they may actually, in a twisted sense, be reflecting the popular will.

In the midterm election of 2022, the Dems retained the Senate (while losing the House) almost exclusively due to a national revulsion with the Supreme Court’s abortion decision. Large numbers of women, very many of them women of color, had organized to repulse the MAGA crowd. But the Dems offered them almost nothing beyond support for abortion rights. As I had predicted, Joe Manchin and his sidekick Kirsten Sinema, with their constant threats to not support any legislation to the left of Darth Vader, were the most powerful people in Washington.

And what had liberals and progressives received?

Biden vastly increased the war budget over Trumpus’ own record numbers and was devoting much of his time and the nation’s dwindling money to demonizing Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran with the same old, tired (but still mythically effective) rhetorical combination of American good intentions and fear-mongering. U.S. Navy divers almost certainly sabotaged the Nord Stream pipeline (releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases, by the way), and he continued to lie about it.  Dennis Kucinich writes:

The U.S. has successfully muzzled its energy-starved allies in Europe from even objecting to, let alone investigating the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline. Europe is stuck with the skyrocketing cost of U.S. supplied replacement fuel…The Biden Administration has done everything it could to incite a hot war directly between the U.S. and Russia, sacrificing Ukrainian youth and the majesty of Ukrainian cities…(and) His intent is to bait China, to try to make Taiwan the next Ukraine. Remember, the U.S. has 800 military bases abroad and China has zero.

Is the media against Biden? The NYT has used the word “unprovoked” 26 times in editorials about Ukraine. The (Gray) Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

This business of warmongering vastly overwhelms any good economic news. People see it, and they’re not stupid, although plenty will succumb to fear. But this prediction by Kucinich really is scary:

Biden, like…Bush in the Iraq War, will seek to burnish his Commander in Chief status as a war-time president, beginning in the later part of 2023. Going into 2024, the American people will be told not to change presidents in the middle of a manufactured war.

He sent 113 billion dollars (by 5/23) to prolong the Ukraine proxy war and was pressuring Germany and Japan to re-arm (what could go wrong with that?), without exhibiting anything but a mild intention to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for any of these nuclear-charged risks. His CIA instigated military coups in Peru and Pakistan. His military spending in Somalia alone exceeded the country’s annual tax revenue. He secured a deal to return U.S. forces to the Philippines and complete an arc around China. He offered to give Taiwan $500 million worth of military hardware, further provoking China to more extreme language.

Did I say “nuclear”? For the first time in decades, the mass media were openly discussing nuclear war and the generals were talking about “winning” one. Indeed, Biden ignored (or implicitly approved of) an Air Force general who told his troops to prepare for war with China in two years. He increased the budget of Trumpus’ ridiculous “Space Force” to $24.5 billion and announced that the U.S. would deploy nukes to South Korea and F-16s to Ukraine. What could go wrong?

Human rights? Can anyone forget that Biden fist-bumped with Saudi Arabia’s execrable murderer Mohammad Bin Salman, removed the Jewish Defense League from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations and assured the Yemenis, Egyptians and countless other authoritarian states of continued military support? His State Department caved in to Israeli pressure and removed its nomination of an independent expert to serve on a human rights commission. Later, the administration quietly backed Israel’s latest deadly assault on GazaHe bombed Syria (despite a massive earthquake) after U.S. troops (in the country for several years without Syria’s permission) were attacked. He has not reversed Trumpus’ trashing of the Iran nuclear deal, nor has he reversed his decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He criticized the arrest of an American journalist in Russia while continuing to demand the extradition of Julian Assange for the crime of publishing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

Sanctions kill children. The U.N. defines sanctions as collective punishment. This is a war crime. American sanctions were blocking aid to Syria as thousands were dying. The Cuban government announced that the Biden administration, “…of all those that the Cuban Revolution has known, is the one that has most aggressively and effectively applied the economic blockade.” Biden promised to maintain the State Department’s authority over firearms exports but neglected to reverse a Trumpus order that had weakened it. Of 84 countries codified as autocracies, the U.S. sold weapons to at least 48, or 57%, of them, in two years.

Immigration? His immigration stance mirrored a Trump policy that the courts had already blocked. Deportation of children increased by 30%. During his four-year term, Trumpus had used Title 42 to remove 500,000 asylum seekers. In under a year, Biden deported almost 700,000. The U.S. rejected over 90% of Afghans seeking to immigrate, including relatives of those who had aided the occupation of their country. It accepted 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, while deporting thousands of Haitians. In one nine-day period, the administration expelled 4,000 of them, including hundreds of families with children, without allowing them to seek asylum. Altogether, Biden deported 20,000 Haitians in his first year, nearly as many as were deported during the previous 20 years. He criticized Texas and Florida for sending thousands of migrants to northern states as his administration prepared to finish building the border wall.

Racial justice? He wanted another $37 billion for police. He asked the Supreme Court to leave the racist Insular cases intact, thus ensuring that millions of dark-skinned island citizens would be unable to vote. The Justice Department accused Black liberation organizers of being Russian agents. The number of federal prisoners held in solitary confinement increased significantly. Biden doubled down on the failed war on drugs and refused to veto a Republican bill to block criminal justice reform in Washington D.C.

Public health? Biden’s pick for the director of the NIH has deep ties to Big Pharma. In the ongoing farce of the “debt ceiling” debate, he proposed deep budget cuts — not of course to the military, but to the usual domestic programs, and with the usual Calvinist hatred of the poor. Margaret Kimberley writes:

He said that he would accept republican demands that Medicaid and SNAP benefit recipients be required to work at least 20 hours per week. According to the Congressional Budget Office some 600,000 people would lose health coverage and 275,000 people would lose SNAP benefits every month if these rules go into effect.

Global warming? Biden approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years than Trumpus had in his first two years. He threatened to call for a windfall profits tax on record oil company profits but did nothing. He approved a mining project that will obliterate a sacred Apache religious site, while corporate prosecutions hit a new low.

Finance? Socialism for the rich? He bailed out the risky deposits of two failing banks, one of which had given huge bonuses to its executives hours before it collapsed. He angered organized labor by stopping the railroad worker strike. Then, a week after a train derailment and environmental disaster in Ohio, his Justice Department was backing the responsible corporation in a Supreme Court case that would make it easier to block pending and future lawsuits. He approved a massive oil drilling project In Alaska. His new Chief of Staff had previously helped oversee two health care companies embroiled in Medicare and Medicaid fraud allegations, which they had paid tens of millions to settle.

He kept Trumpus’ repeal of net neutrality in place. He allowed Medicare Advantage plans to continue overbilling the government in the short term after insurance companies lobbied aggressively against proposed rule changes. He insulted progressives by elevating long-time Bernie Sanders basher Neera Tanden to domestic policy advisor.

Perhaps most importantly (though certainly no surprise), despite the constant threat of Republican intransigence and blockage of even mild climate or policing legislation, he showed no interest in pursuing any systemic changes that might encourage a real Democratic majority, from statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to ending the Insular laws and the Senate filibuster to increasing the size of the Supreme Court.

When I say “he”, of course, I mean the royal “He”. For his entire adult life, Biden the man has been a servant of, or at best a spokesperson — a press secretary — for much more powerful forces. Call them the Deep State, or the military-industrial complex, or simply capitalism. From this perspective, his policies for addressing the four most pressing issues for the whole planet — climate change, population displacement, the centralization of wealth and the threat of nuclear war — are essentially no different from those of any of his predecessors of the past half century, including Trumpus. Most Democrats knew this; at the time of the State of the Union address, 58% of them wanted someone else to run for President in 2024. When even the most innocent of us temporarily climb out of our denial, we tend to agree with Noam Chomsky:

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.

As Tony Soprano used to say, Whatahya gonna do? For some, the alternative to despair is to plunge (back) into the world of activism, to support progressive causes and candidates (at least local ones), to make the beloved community. Some will go further into spiritual work, knowing that the peace we seek out there must first be found within. Others, such as this writer, choose to walk the fine line between revealing the darkness around us and creating images of the light we have not yet allowed ourselves to see.

Read Part Five here.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 421: A Mythologist Looks at the Election of 2024, Part Three

Posted on May 23, 2023 by shmoover

Before we begin to look at 2024 let’s consider three concluding questions about 2020, because like any repressed and unaddressed themes, they will threaten to bite the Dems in the butt this time around as well.

First Question: Why was Joe Biden nominated?

Long before the primaries it was clear that Biden had no charisma, no base of voters, and no chance of beating Trumpus. But as I argued, the corporate Democrats feared their own left wing (even as the public favored it) more than it feared any Republicans. They feared the insurance companies more than the 69% of the public who supported Medicare For All; they feared the warmongers more than the peacemakers; and they feared the petrochemical industry more than they cared for the future of their own children. 

Second Question: Why did Biden win (really: why did Trumpus lose)?

1 – With the most profoundly unpopular and deeply reviled president in American history, it still took a pandemic with 300,000 dead (by the time of the election) and an economic depression with forty million out of work to elect such an uninspiring fraud as Biden. I’d like to find a way to factor in the impact of voter suppression and computer fraud. But all we have are (quite reliable, in my view) allegations, rather than actual numbers; so we’re left with the “facts” that political scientists have gathered. In that innocent universe, it seems that with no pandemic, Trumpus would be in his second term, as this study suggests. Biden’s most persuasive argument, once again, will be simply that he is not Trumpus.

2 – A second major factor is the work of people like Mike Podhorzer, political director of the AFL-CIO, who concluded that the chief difference between the U.S. and countries that lost their grip on democracy was that America’s decentralized election system couldn’t be rigged in one fell swoop. As early as March, he organized a national campaign to counter most of the Republican efforts to suppress the vote. In August and September, it sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them. The result was that 108 million people voted early, nearly 70% of all votes cast. Those early ballots (and millions of other votes cast in voting booths on election day in some states) were all paper ballots that could not be compromised or flipped by corrupted machines (as they certainly were in many states).

However, despite Biden’s popular vote margin of seven million votes and his 306 to 232 Electoral College victory, this was a real squeaker. He won three critical states by a combined margin of 43,560 votes – Arizona (10,457 votes), Georgia (12,636) and Wisconsin (20,467). Those three states account for 37 electoral votes. If Trumpus had won those states, the election would have ended in a tie, 269 to 269. If so, the House would have determined the winner, with each state delegation getting one vote, and Trumpus would have won.

Certainly, an astonishingly large number of people still preferred Trumpus. But he did not receive 74 million votes. His official numbers were greatly swelled (and Biden’s greatly reduced) by those same corrupted machines in the 26 states ruled by Republicans. We will never know the actual figures, but it’s clear that Biden won by even more than the official numbers. However, this leads to a deeper question:

Third Question: Why did the Democrats perform so badly in the House and Senate?

Why didn’t the biggest turnout in history sweep the Republicans away? Why didn’t the Democrats clobber this buffoon and his allies in massive landslides at every level? What happened to the expected “blue wave”? Why (once again) were the polls so wrong? Why did millions of people apparently split their ballots, rejecting Trumpus but re-electing Republicans who supported his policies?

Despite the heroic efforts of Stacey Abrams and countless others, voter suppression was the deal-clincher. The biggest turnout in history was still much smaller than the numbers of people who actually wanted to vote or thought that their votes had been counted. We know for example that over 300,000 ballots were checked into the mail system but not checked out of it. As Greg Palast reminds us, 22% of all mail-in votes never get counted.

And there were other factors.

1 – Old-fashioned fraud and deceit: Can any reasonable person believe that over a million Floridians voted for raising the minimum wage but also supported Trumpus over Biden? In Kentucky, as I showed here, Mitch McConnell had under 40% approval on election day, but beat Amy McGrath (who received more votes than Biden in in 119 of 120 counties) by 19 points. And, we were told, McConnell won by landslides in heavily Democratic areas, most of them using the easily hackable ES&S machinesnot Dominion machines. In South Carolina, Lindsay Graham won in the same dubious manner. The pattern was repeated in Maine, Texas, Iowa and Florida, and probably in other states.

In 2007, by the way, California sued ES&S, alleging the company had sold 972 machines to five counties with hardware changes that the state had never authorized. Two years later, ES&S paid a $3.25 million settlement. Chump change, of course, compared to Fox News’ 2023 payment to Dominion for $787.5 million. But it does provide background. Those Secretaries of State certainly knew where to shop for voting machines.

Does ES&S stand for “Every slime-ball in the State”?

I suggest that election commissioners in most of those 26 Republican-controlled states gamed the electronic voting machines to flip five percent of the votes — not enough to get the media’s attention, but more than enough to win elections in many close races and more than enough to win the House. If we were to subtract 5% of Trumpus’ national totals – perhaps four million – and add them back into the other column we might have a clearer idea of Biden’s victory. And we’d have a clearer sense of what happened in the Senate and House.

Going forward, there have been two unanticipated results of Trumpus’ constant predictions – and then claims – of voter fraud. One is that millions of right wingers (mostly residing in the old Confederate states) have been confirmed in their sense of victimhood. Rather than retreating back into apathy, they received a new “Lost Cause” to organize around. The second is that once again, liberals find themselves on the defensive and have been forced to insist that there was no computer fraud, thus repressing, once again, the issue of the massive electronic crimes that actually did occur and will certainly occur next year.

2 – Apathy and voters’ distaste for moderate Dems. About 67% of eligible voters cast ballots, but that still means a third – eighty million adults – did not. A majority of these non-voters believe it makes no difference who is elected president and that things will go on just as they did before. They also, as I wrote throughout the campaign, tend to be Latino. Only 52% of Latinos surveyed said they were registered to vote, compared to 80% of whites and 78% of Blacks.

A strong endorsement of Medicare For All and the Green New Deal would have made a major difference. Why? Because progressives won almost all their races, while many of the Dem losses were by moderates and freshman congresspeople in essentially blue districts. And there was much vote-splitting, in which people voted against Trumpus (rather than for Biden) and left the rest of their ballots empty. Susan Collins, for example, won by 55,000 votes in Maine. But 50,000 voters who voted for the top of the ticket failed to cast a vote in Maine’s Senate race. Early in the Georgia (pre-runoff) count, Jon Ossoff trailed David Perdue by 90,000 votes. But 98,000 people who voted for President failed to vote in that Senate race.

3 – Ignorance: The government had provided enhanced unemployment benefits and stimulus checks (with  no taxes to pay for them) to millions of households. Partially as a result, 40% of polled voters thought they were better off financially than they were four years ago and apparently saw little reason to vote for change.

4 – Fear: The Dems allowed the Repubs to reframe the Black Lives Matter protests and the “defund the police” issue into the old standby of “law and order.”  As a result, Trumpus won a higher percentage of white women than he did in 2016. And although 55% of registered young voters turned out, a much higher number – 65% – of elderly people responded to the fearmongering and supported policies that might protect their investments and privileges but would deprive their own grandchildren of a future. Once again, we find ourselves in the realm of mythology – the killing of the children.

The Inauguration: The King is Dead? Long Live the King?

So where does this whole election cycle – and the $14 billion that was spent on it – fit into our understanding of myth? The narrative at the base of the American story is that of the killing of the children. What lies on top of that within our psyches is our story of American innocence. So I refer back to the questions I ask in interviews and book talks: When did you lose your innocence? – and – When did you lose it again?

When innocence is the foundation of a belief system, when a culture refuses to offer its young people the initiatory rituals that affirm their unique gifts and permanently erase their childhood innocence, people have little choice but to live lives of perpetual childishness, with a child’s attachment to simplistic ideas, mind-altering substances and vicarious violence.

When the inevitable tears in the fabric of the myth of innocence appear, they quickly close back up. So each new disillusionment, no matter how old we are or how often it happens, feels like the first time. Only the most naïve among us should be surprised to see that Nancy Pelosi’s initial statement about the Capitol insurrection was: We’ve really lost our innocence.

After five years of non-stop lies, insults, boasts, threats, buffoonery, immigrant bashing, misogyny, racist provocation and gratuitous cruelty, Trumpus had so alienated so many of us that exhaustion, massive anxiety and a collective PTSD had set in even before Covid and long before January 6th. Brand Trumpus was so toxic to all but his cult followers and those scared white, suburban women that it actually had the effect of building up Brand Biden. By inauguration day, liberal America had convinced itself that it now had a kindly, religious, poetry-spouting, emotionally accessible, purposeful leader.

The sentiment was authentic because we were so desperate to believe. Watching the inauguration, we breathed a collective sigh of relief, even as we noticed (if we were paying attention) that one of the invited guests on the podium listening to Biden denounce fascist violence was Carlos Vecchio, who had fled to the United States to escape incitement of violence charges in Venezuela and then posed in the Oval Office with Trumpus.

So what did Biden do in his first two years as President? We’ll see in Part Four. (Hint: no surprises here).

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 420: A Mythologist Looks at the Election of 2024, Part Two

Posted on May 21, 2023 by shmoover

Any politician running for President is well aware of a particularly complex role they will be called upon to play, one for which they have been practicing their entire adult lives (quite literally, in the case of Joe Biden). This is because they will face a unique political dilemma created by two conditions.

The first is the capitalist domination of politics, which requires a primary spokesperson to enact the national narratives and keep them consistent with the grand aims of the military-industrial-petrochemical-pharmaceutical-media complex. The second is his symbolic role. As head of state, he must embody the mythic figure of the King for his people. And these two conditions require that he play two opposite aspects of the myth of innocence against each other.

As spokesman for the Empire, he must continue at all times to amplify the national mood of paranoia and fear of “the Other” so as to justify a permanent national military state and repression of people of color at home. In other words, he must manipulate the traditional white American sense of being the innocent victim, or at least the potential victim, of some dark (and dark-skinned), irrational, violent, predatory outsider. This of course would be nothing new to him, since anyone even aspiring to his office, not to mention those who are actually vetted behind the scenes by the gatekeepers, would be perfectly aware of it. And to be sufficiently convincing, he must, in a sense, play the victim himself, so that his followers can identify with him. Hence, Trumpus and all of his impersonators continually vacillate between absurdly macho stances and whining complaints of how they (and you) are being victimized by everything from the FBI to “socialist billionaires”.

As the King, however, his job, along with his Queen (it’s almost inconceivable that a presidential candidate would be unmarried) is to absorb the idealistic projections of two hundred million people. I write “absorb” because in myth this is a two-way process. The Sacred King receives our psychological projections and then radiates them back out as fertility, as abundance, as blessing. Not to do that is simply to suck those dreams into a black hole of narcissism and give nothing back. This has been Trumpus’ game for decades, and perhaps the consequences are finally catching up to him. Until that point, he will continue to enact (for some of us) the archetypal shadow of the Sacred King – the Tyrant. His combination of Tyrant and Con Man is his unique contribution to American myth.

Consider, by the way, that image of abundance. The King, if he is to remain King, must ensure the abundance of the realm. As a mythic image, then, he must embody that abundance. Understanding this takes us a long way toward understanding why tribal chieftains in some places are expected to be obese. It also helps explain the American obsession with positive thinking and the Prosperity Gospel, and why those con-man televangelists go to such lengths to show off their wealth.

Any person who assumes the presidency automatically takes on these public projections. At the level of image, metaphor and deep narrative, these men are the nation because they embody it, and the nation must endure. Why must “the nation endure”? In this demythologized world, authentic myth and ritual have disappeared, to be replaced by consumerism, fundamentalism, the culture of celebrity, substance abuse – and nationalism, in which the individual identifies completely with the state, and is willing to sacrifice its young to its aims.

In a twisted sense, there is some good news here. The fact that so many of us are no longer willing to soil ourselves by voting actually indicates that very large numbers of us (not including conventional liberals) can see through the ritual charade. The bad news, well…not voting gave us Trumpus. And later, it gave us an ineffective Congress that remains subservient to oligarchic and militaristic interests.

Back to the presidential dilemma. Another consequence of the loss of myth is that we have conflated two archetypes, the King and the Warrior, who is supposed to serve the King. In doing so, we minimize the creative potential of each of them. This Warrior-King must continually re-affirm the fantasy that his intentions (and ours) are noble, protective and altruistic, that America is truly exceptional, that America has a divine mission to save the world and will always prevail.

And to do that, he must play the exact opposite of the victim, the Hero (the immature form of what Jungian writer Robert Moore called the Warrior archetype) He must reassure us of his – and our – ability to meet all threats and defeat them, while simultaneously bringing the Good Word of our Christian compassion to those evil ones who would – for no apparent reason – harm us. As G.W. Bush endlessly repeated after 9/11/2001, America will prevail against the external Other — formerly the Native Americans, then Mexicans, then Germans and Japanese, then international Communism, then Islamic terrorism, which in just a few years has shifted back into “the Russians” (minus the “communist” label) and “the Chinese” (still absurdly pinned as communist) — because the nation, which he embodies, is charged with the divine mission of defeating evil and spreading freedom and opportunity. Not to do so would be to call our most basic national and personal identities into question.

Here is his — and our — dilemma, condensed down to a simple phrase. He must simultaneously and repeatedly tell us, be afraid, be very afraid – and – we are absolutely unconquerable!

He must prove to be a master storyteller of the double-bind, conflicting messages that some psychologists consider to be the genesis of schizophrenia. And after many, many generations of hearing these crazy-making narratives, it really is a sad commentary on all of us that we have come to expect nothing better from our leaders.

The media gatekeepers face an even more complicated dilemma. As fascism threatens to descend upon us, liberal America has been attempting to walk a fine line: alternately normalizing and de-legitimizing Trumpus and those who would follow his lead, while carefully refusing to examine any of the bedrock assumptions of our myth of innocence. For the sense of “nation,” with all its white privilege, economic disparities and permanent warfare to endure, the media must continually try to shore up each new crack in the veneer of American innocence. So, controlling the narratives and manipulating our perception of what any child can see as really terrible people is one of the primary functions of our media gatekeepers. The classic analysis of the media’s gatekeeping role is Noam Chomsky’s article, “A Propaganda Model.”

One of the ways they do this is by re-habilitating the reputations of previous presidents, such as Bushhis father and even his grandfather. In this context, it really shouldn’t be surprising that Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon, that Barack Obama lavishly praised Ronald Reagan, that Hillary Clinton is a close friend of the hideous war criminal Henry Kissinger, or that Trumpus should be granted an insane sort of normalization.

War criminals. I don’t want to belabor this point, but it is critical to understand what the people we vote for – almost all of them – are willing to do to prove their loyalty to the power brokers. As Chomsky has said,

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.

It is equally important to understand how those same oligarchs require the same proof of loyalty from the media gatekeepers, who have responded by creating a mainstream consensus that the madness of normal life is normal. Dr. Gabor Maté calls this the Myth of Normal.

This is the “normal” to which Biden promised he would return us.

So it is useless and counter-productive to criticize Trumpus as merely a negative, even terrible exception to the grand narrative of American exceptionalism, or even as someone who has corrupted this story. There is nothing to be gained by arguing, for instance, that he is dangerous, incapable, racist, misogynist, stupid or unpatriotic because he won’t listen to the “intelligence community” (and his followers certainly won’t change their minds by listening to us), as if ethically minded people have any business aligning themselves with the murderers and regime-changers of the CIA.

Here is another aspect of our diminished American reality: if the CIA “leaks” any “alleged” information about “events” anywhere in the world, they are doing so because they want you to consume a narrative they have constructed, to serve the long-term aims of the American empire. In 2020, from Russia to China to Syria to Israel/Palestine to Afghanistan to Venezuela, and sometimes even Iran and North Korea, most leading Democratic politicians were criticizing Trumpus from the right.

And this bizarre truth leads us into the mystery of how they shamelessly stole both the 2016 and 2020 nominations from Bernie Sanders. Here is the fundamental reality of politics in America: both Republicans and Democrats tamper with election results whenever they can get away with it, but they do so at differing points in the election cycle. That this happens this way is no mystery. Why it happens is the mystery.

This essay is not really about politics, except to the extent that politics reflects mythology. Our first responsibility as mythological thinkers is to cultivate discrimination, to take a step back and attempt to perceive the narratives that are being played out in our culture, how they circulate within our psyches. We must understand how we participate in those stories through our own unconscious acceptance of their primary themes. We must acknowledge how they have constrained our view of the world within narrow parameters of the possible.

And before we can engage effectively in the cutthroat world of politics, we must actively grieve how they have diminished our lives, because our constrained view of the world also means a restricted view of ourselves. It means that at some level we believe that we deserve no more than what these nasty old men have to offer. It means that we have traded a moral, visceral, natural response to the world for a fragile sense of innocence. It means that we give our consent to perpetuating a world in which the father gods offer their children for sacrifice.

Who are these guys? What really drives them? Please, please don’t tell me that either Trumpus or Biden is motivated at any level of consciousness by a sense of duty to the nation, by a desire to serve the people. To do so is to reveal your own insistence on American innocence. It is to reveal your addiction to the culture of celebrity, your willingness to project your own inner nobility onto an image of a person, a brand.

We absolutely will never know what either of these men actually thinks, except in those rare occasions when their handlers forget and allow them to speak spontaneously. As Caitlin Johnstone writes:

The only reason to pay attention to a U.S. presidential election is to highlight the elite manipulations that go into it to help people understand that the game is rigged. Once you get sucked in to cheering for actual candidates you’ve lost sight of what’s really happening, like someone who got so drawn in to the movie that they forget they’re sitting in a theater.

Granted, one appears to be crazier than the other. And we really do need to keep him out of power before he ups the ante any further. But we no longer have the luxury of hiding behind our own ignorance and pretending that the other candidate is not a servant of the same oligarchs whose boundless greed will take us all down. Yes, Biden for the Supreme Court. Yes, for abortion rights. Yes, for union rights. Yes (maybe) for mitigating Climate change. Yes, for a more rational Covid policy. Yes, for mild increases on taxes on the mega-wealthy. Yes, for the possibility of making the streets a little safer for immigrants and people of color.

But be absolutely certain that to a Venezuelan farmer, or a Palestinian child, or a Syrian mother, or a Sudanese peasant, or almost anyone in dozens of Third-World countries under the thumb of the American empire, or to a black single mother in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward who used to work cleaning houses before her back went out, or to her autistic son – or to the military / industrial / financial / petrochemical / health insurance / carceral / high technology complex – it will make absolutely no difference who wins this election.

A mythological perspective acknowledges that when a society is in decline, it does two things. The first is that it refuses to welcome and initiate its young, condemning them to a hopeless and meaningless future. The second thing is that it elevates the very worst of its people to positions of power and grants them permission to engage in acts of cruelty that in earlier times had been restrained by public shaming, and still earlier, through effective ritual. As my book argues, such patterns inevitably include the literalization of the old myths of the sacrifice of the children.

The public knows these truths, if even at a subliminal level. A 2020 pre-convention poll concluded that 56% of likely Biden supporters were voting for him because “He Is Not Trump,” proof that he still hadn’t offered anything positive, let alone progressive, to the 100 million other people who, once again, probably wouldn’t be voting. Trumpus went low, doing everything possible to provoke fear and violence and arouse his base (the predatory imagination manipulating the paranoid imagination), while Biden went high.

This would be a fine strategy in a normal world. But idealistic language without a commitment to actual progressive policies sounds insincere — because it is. People are not stupid if they are apathetic about voting. And treating them as if they are only makes things worse.

This is no reason to remain disengaged. Of course, Trumpus had to be removed. But Liberals must also remove something – their innocence about the American empire and America’s good intentions in the world. They must also drop their colossal ignorance about how three issues — the military budget, refusal to tax the rich, and our national tendency to punish the poor and the non-white for their own poverty — are the unspoken bases of any discussion about government funding priorities. Whenever you hear Biden ask, Yes, but how are we going to pay for it?, know that both he and his media interviewer are colluding in a very deadly game.

Eventually we will (happily) turn our attention away from Trumpus. But we’ll (unhappily) have to look seriously at the corporate stooges and warmongers Biden has surrounded himself with.

So far one of them is a perfect example of everything that could go wrong actually going wrong. Neera Tanden, who would be White House Budget Director, is president of the Center for American Progress, a “liberal” think tank funded by oligarchs such as the United Arab Emirates. She is the epitome of the Washington swamp who has spent years publicizing the Russiagate lies, and she has been (writes David Sirota), “…the single biggest, most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic…” and (writes Glenn Greenwald) one of Sanders’ “most vicious and amoral attackers.”

Granted (once again — do I really need to say this?), Trumpus is a monster. But blaming him for everything distracts us from acknowledging that the emperor wears no clothes. Chris Hedges writes:

The cynical con the Democratic Party and the FBI carried out to falsely portray Donald Trump as a puppet of the Kremlin worked, and continues to work, because it is what those who detest Trump want to believe…If Russia is blamed for Trump’s election, we avoid the unpleasant reality of our failed democratic institutions and decaying empire. We avoid facing the inevitable rise of a Christianized fascism borne out of widespread impoverishment, rage, despair and abandonment. We avoid acknowledging the complicity of the Democratic Party in the orchestration of the largest social inequality in our nation’s history, the evisceration of our basic civil liberties, endless wars and an electoral system bankrolled by the billionaire class…

And, I would add, we avoid acknowledging that the U.S. provoked Russia into this terrible proxy war in Ukraine, with its tens of thousands of dead and its hundreds of billions of wasted dollars funneled directly into the accounts of the warmongers.

Yes, there was a large increase in voters in November 2020. About 67% of eligible voters cast ballots. But that still means that eighty million adults did not. Finally, somebody (the Medill School of Journalism) has surveyed non-voters, and the results should not surprise critics of the DNC. Twenty percent — that would be 16 million people — disliked both candidates. A majority believe it makes no difference who is elected President and that things will go on just as they did before. They are less likely to say that elections in this country are free and fair for all. They are also more likely to be younger and make less money than people who vote. And fewer than a quarter of them (compared to almost half of voters) said any political campaigns had reached out to them. They also, as I wrote throughout the campaign, tend to be Latino.

Read Part Three here.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 419: A Mythologist Looks at the Election of 2024, Part One

Posted on May 20, 2023 by shmoover

Readers of this blog may recall that I analyzed the two previous Presidential elections from a radical and mythological perspective. You can read the 2016 series here and the 2020 series here. Or perhaps after several years of unending stress, you really don’t want to hear any of this; I can’t blame you. But we can’t tell a new story until we have digested and fully rejected the old one.

From 2016:

It is clear that extraordinarily large numbers of people either chose not to vote, or voted against or what they perceived as the corruption, elitist arrogance, irrelevance and/or incompetence of a Democratic Party symbolized by Hillary Clinton, whose essential messages were limited to I’m more of Obama and I’m not Trumpus.

Afterwards, Bernie Sanders pointed out the obvious:

You cannot be a party which on one hand says we’re in favor of working people, we’re in favor of the needs of young people but we don’t quite have the courage to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class…People do not believe that. You’ve got to decide which side you’re on.

For 25 years the Clintons had led the Democratic Party into neoliberalism, militarism, increased inequality and betrayal of working people. The Democratic National Committee did everything possible to marginalize Sanders. And it deliberately fueled Trumpus’s rise to power with its self-described “pied piper” strategy.

Decades of lies have had their effect. With these unappetizing choices, some one hundred million Americans apparently decided that the lesser of two evils is still evil and stayed home. If “Did Not Vote” had been a candidate, it would have won in a landslide.

This is nothing new; it is a long-term trend that began in the late 1960s (only briefly impacted by Obama), that the Republicans have consistently manipulated, and which the Democrats have consistently accepted as the price of selling their souls to Wall Street.

This was the choice the election offered: management of a broken system, or replacing it. Trumpus of course did nothing of the kind, but this is what people perceived, and perception is everything. In this context, how can we can judge those who refuse to participate?

When educated (not propagandized) people vote, they vote in favor of their self-interest, not the pseudo-interests fed to them by Fox or CNN. Noam Chomsky teaches about two views of democracy, exemplified by Aristotle and James Madison. Both agreed that if we have full democracy, the poor will eventually unite and expropriate the property of the rich. Aristotle’s solution was to reduce inequality. Madison, articulating the basic contradiction of American mythology, argued that the solution was to reduce democracy. This is why elites of both parties are comfortable with our absurdly low participation levels.

A Harvard study ranked the U.S. electoral system as the worst in the developed world. But let’s not be too hasty to blame the Republicans. Julian Assange, Greg PalastBob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman convincingly demonstrated that in the 2016 primaries the DNC was able to manipulate the vote, all to the detriment of the Sanders campaign. “In State after state”, claims Jonathan Simon, author of Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century, “the vote counts were more in favor of Clinton than the exit polls, which were more in favor of Bernie Sanders.” In one of the worst examples, Sanders won every Massachusetts precinct that used hand-counted paper ballots but lost all the ones with electronic voting machines.

Much of my writing asserts that this is one of those times in American history when great holes appear in the façades of our myths. When they do, the oligarchs who most profit from its continuation go to extreme lengths to shore up those holes and re-invigorate our sense of innocence, and the tools they deliberately utilize are the time-honored themes of American myth. It’s increasingly obvious that the old story no longer fits, but that we have yet to imagine the new story. Until we do, they’ll be able to manipulate us.

But what does it mean in practical terms to say this? To me, it means that as culture begins to collapse, its institutions – all of them – collapse as well. And this means that institutions that may have evolved over very long periods of time to bring out the best in people – their higher selves, so to speak – now function to maximize the worst in us. Others, such as the police, the military and the Electoral College, were deliberately designed to do this.

You and I were nauseated at the thought of this charlatan Trumpus and his nouveau-riche gaudiness crashing the refined atmosphere of the White House, nailing his World Wrestling Federation awards on the wall of the East Wing, partying with anti-Semites. Yes, and our reaction is a function of our class privilege and our innocent expectations. This bears regular repetition. His brand is different from Obama’s or Clinton’s or Joe Biden’s, but they are all media brands, and media have only one purpose: to sell you to advertisers. It is the image of Trumpus that he and his people have expertly created out of mud, like a golem, which the mainstream media (MSM), no less than Fox, obediently fed to us.

From 2020:

All this optimism, all this denial, all this obsession with blaming Trumpus for our ills, all this unwillingness to confront deeper issues is happening within the broader context of the myth of American innocence.

We’ll talk about the Democrats soon. But there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the Republican Party is comprised entirely of career criminals, con men and outright sociopaths. Republican governors and secretaries of state ruthlessly, absolutely control the entire election process, including registration and access to voting, in half of the states. These are the people whose operatives actually “count” the votes, and we can assume that they will do everything possible, legal or illegal, to influence the results, exactly as they did four (and eight) years ago.

This culture has vomited Trumpus up to be our symbolic King. But he did not cause any of our problems. He simply embodies them and mirrors them back for all of us. Trumpus is us, and as long as we do not collectively admit this and refuse to confront our racist and violent national character, we deserve him.

The U.S. has the lowest turnout rate in the world because so few of us see any significant differences between the two major parties. And the twin curses of voter suppression and computer fraud have ensured that millions of votes that are cast are not counted. That is reality. But the mystery is why the Democrats have done so little about it through the last five election cycles.

Here’s another mystery. What does it say about the public’s appreciation of the Democrats that, with the most profoundly unpopular and deeply reviled president in U.S. history, it took a pandemic with a half million dead and an economic depression with forty million unemployed to finally push Biden’s poll numbers past those of Trumpus?

Here’s another one: Michael Bloomberg spent nearly a billion dollars attacking Sanders. Can you imagine the good that money would have done had he spent it registering voters?

Here’s another one: Democrats approve of the CIA more than Republicans Do.

And another: Do the Democrats really care about winning?

I hope I’m wrong. May the future bring us something better than this. We deserve better, or so we’d like to think. But here I want to present some mythological and psychological speculations.

What exactly are these two old white guys contending for? Liberals lament that the system is dysfunctional or broken, while radicals will argue that it has been doing quite well in terms of its actual functions of maintaining military empire abroad and redistributing wealth upwards at home. As a mythologist, I see both points of view, and I suggest that the myth of American innocence holds it all together.

One aspect of what Joseph Campbell called our demythologized world, especially in America, is that the distinctions between religion, politics and entertainment have collapsed (as I wrote this, Trumpus sat in the Oval Office and endorsed a brand of beans. You can’t make this stuff up). This is perhaps because all three of these areas of public life are the realm of the con man’s main interests: making money and aggrandizing the self. For more on this American archetype, read my essay The Con-Man.

Please understand that nearly anything spoken for the public by anyone at that level of power has been carefully vetted in front of focus groups and edited precisely to fit the perceived needs of a very specific audience. If in the Age of Trumpus (or for the past several election cycles) you haven’t noticed this, you haven’t been paying attention. But it began long before this particular con man entered the White House.

Trumpus and Biden (and everyone around them, including the entire press corps) know very well that every president since Harry Truman has been essentially a spokesperson for interests far more powerful than he; a “master of ceremonies” in the lesser sense; a salesman for the myth and the empire. He certainly is not its ruler. Caitlyn Johnstone writes:

…it’s a testament to the power of media echo chambers that for the most part they remain just as wrong about him as they were four years ago…All sides pretended that Trump was a radical deviation from the norm, and so did Trump, when all he actually did throughout his entire time in office was protect the status quo just like his predecessors did.

Read Part Two here.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 205: Funny Guys, Fake News and Gatekeepers

Posted on May 5, 2017 by shmoover

I’m just a comedian. – Jon Stewart

Back in the day, I enjoyed watching Jon Stewart preaching to the choir as much as anyone. However, I never expected any authentic, radical commentary from him, for three reasons. First, the fact that he never mentioned the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in office) indicates the limits of his criticism of American policies that have been remarkably consistent, if hypocritical, since the end of World War Two.

Second, and perhaps more fundamental, was his policy of regularly inviting truly revolting creeps like Bill O’Reilly as well as government spokespersons and representatives of the corporate media onto his show. Stewart is first and foremost an entertainer, and no one should have expected him to jeopardize his own status.

Now I have nothing against “reasoned debate.” Indeed, we need much more of it. But by doing this, he gave them and their positions legitimacy before the camera and the millions who watch it, a legitimacy that they neither needed (they got plenty of exposure on their own) nor deserved. This expresses what I call “liberal innocence” – the insistence, despite all evidence, that conservatives (I prefer the term “reactionaries”) and liberals will sort out “the facts” in a disengaged, orderly, intellectual process, on a “level playing field.”

Bullshit. The unedited history of the last sixty years should show anyone who is willing to look that the Right has never played by the “rules” and never will. Naively hoping that they will only solidifies our sense of innocence and leads ultimately to disillusionment with the political process itself.

Stewart had a clear function within the corporate media: to constantly remind his viewers of the limits of acceptable discourse: meaning, from far-right to moderately liberal. Every time he playfully bantered with O’Reilly and his ilk, those scumbags moved a bit closer to the middle in the public, liberal eye. And, given that many young people admitted that they got all their news from him and, perhaps, Stephen Colbert, their roles become even more important.

For a broader understanding of the gatekeeping function in America, see my essays:

Deconstructing a Gatekeeper

False Equivalencies – How Media Gatekeepers Marginalize Alternative Voices

Old White Men: Historians as the Gatekeepers of American Myth

Howard Zinn and the Academic Gatekeepers

For a while I also enjoyed watching Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow trash right-wingers with their devastating wit. However, the fact that they rarely criticized the Obama administration (whose fundamental policies and financial supporters were not significantly different from its predecessors) indicates a similar kind of innocent refusal, even denial, to rock the boat. By skewering right-wingers without either acknowledging collusion by Democrats or offering any authentic, progressive alternatives, they served the function of all the media: to constrict the terms of debate to a fraction of the spectrum and give the impression that we have real freedom of expression in this country.

Eventually, I realized that Maddow and all her MSNBC crowd had become nothing more than spokespersons for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, as Fox TV is for the Republicans. The jokes became stale, safe and predictable.

But ultimately, Olberman was deemed unacceptably liberal to his corporate bosses, who eventually fired him. And who was given the task of letting the public know just why it was good riddance? Why, John Stewart, who slammed Olberman for his “bombast” and “rage,” thereby solidifying his own position as the arbiter of reasoned discourse. Here is the third reason why he never offered any real criticism of corporate power in America. I remember how parents told their activist children in the 1960s, “We approve of your goals but not of your methods.” In attacking Olberman’s style, Stewart was deliberately instructing his audience that, as bad as things may be, one would be wrong to even feel rage, or by extension, to feel anything at all, other than mild (if short-lived) euphoria after having had a good laugh, let alone to act upon it. He rarely spoke truth to power, and when he did, it was from the stance of wounded innocence.

Eventually, with the dominance of Fox News, the Koch-funded Tea Party and the grand con-man Trumpus, the issue of fake news arose to muddy the boundaries between truth and fiction on several levels. But as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky had been arguing for decades, the established, corporate, “liberal” media had always purveyed news and opinion through subtle but highly slanted narratives quite deliberately intended to reinforce the myth of American innocence and the good intentions of the American Empire.

Stewart and Colbert revived an old entertainment form: comedians pretending to be newscasters, as in Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update.” Perhaps they were simply taking note of how American culture had been changing since the Ronald Reagan years. As (despite the media’s determined efforts) our grand narrative was breaking down, so were all of our institutions. Especially in the realms of politics, education and entertainment, many people were realizing that there was hardly any difference anymore. Who coined the term “edutainment?” Walt Disney, in 1954.

But Stewart the fake newsman never pretended to have values other those of Stewart the affluent, New York Jewish liberal, or “PEP” (progressive except for Palestine). And for the reasons I’ve mentioned, he could never break out of that bubble, with its gatekeeping function.

Stewart alumnae Samantha Bee, John Oliver, Trevor Noah and Larry Wilmore (along with Seth Meyers) have carried on the tradition without playing the fake newscaster role, but as straight-up, if progressive, comedy. I would argue that Bee and Oliver, angry, persuasive and hilarious as they are (and thankfully not hosting conservatives for “reasoned” debate), have still, on occasion, revealed that they can function as gatekeepers as well. Bee regularly reinforces the anti-Russia narrative that denies the real reasons why Trumpus was elected, and Oliver has demonized those who question Big Pharma’s pro-vaccination narrative. I could be wrong on these issues myself, but we are still talking about gatekeeping, and ultimately gatekeeping always serves the interests of the wealthy. Noah, in keeping with Stewart’s old format, also continued the gatekeeping tradition.

The African American Wilmore committed a more serious sin: he hosted a show with an angry, progressive, mostly person-of-color cast and was openly critical of Barack Obama. He retained the interview format, but his guests were often political activists, and the interviews themselves included members of the cast. There were always at least two Black persons in front of the camera. It’s really surprising that his corporate chieftains kept him around as long as they did. Eventually, they claimed, his ratings were insufficient.

And of course this thought reminds us of a question I regularly pose in these essays: Cui bono? Who profits? Follow the money. Do you remember what CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said of Donald Trump’s presidential run: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

By this logic, even Bill O’Reilly would become a liberal commentator if the sponsorship or the ratings justified such a change. Up to a point, this seems to be one of the fundamental values of media in late capitalism: if it sells – if there is an identifiable market – keep selling it. Beyond that point, criticism of the system itself, aside from some of the clowns who embody it, becomes intolerable. This, combined with low ratings, spelled Wilmore’s demise.

Colbert was the only fake newsman (his show was called “The Colbert Report”) who actually slipped some real criticism into his schtickAs Emily Nussbaum wrote,

Colbert created a persona—a Bill O’Reilly-inspired blowhard—that evolved into a surprisingly flexible instrument. By wearing a mask made of his own face, he inflected every interaction with multiple ironies, keeping his guests—including politicians and authors—off balance, and forcing them to be spontaneous.

I’d take that statement further. By pretending to be a conservative chatting with other conservatives, he was able to reveal them as the thugs they really were, without giving them legitimacy. It was a subtle difference between him and Stewart, and a very important one: parody vs. satire. Colbert was a subversive: he undermined the dominant discourse and got away with it, because he had great ratings. By the way, those ratings provided the answer to the common question: “Why would those people allow themselves to look so foolish?’ The answer: Cui bono. Any publicity is good publicity.

I use the past tense here, because his shift from a cable channel to CBS sucked him straight into the vortex of national gatekeepers, as he now regularly interviews every celebrity he can find who has a new book, movie or political campaign. But without the conservative mask, there is no irony and no implied criticism.

One of his very first guests in September 2015 was Trumpus himself. Perhaps Colbert assumed that a Trump nomination, not to mention presidency, was so unlikely that the comic potential and legitimization would be worth it. Fans who expected him to skewer Trump were certainly disappointed, however, as Trump refused to take his mild baiting and Colbert actually apologized for having criticized him in the past.

Indeed, like every interview he would do on the new show, it was a typical network-style discussion: long on safe, predictable jokes, short on the old irony and de-legitimizing. The effect was what we would later describe as “normalization.” Nussbaum describes these interviews:

With the irony drained away, Colbert was less vivid. He had a try-hard earnestness, a damp corporate pall; he was courtly with guests, as if modeling bipartisan behavior. Taking off the mask had made him less visible, not more.

Eventually, as Trump ascended, so did Colbert’s anger, but the late-night format continues to dictate the content – and the normalization. Attacking Trump is necessary and provides needed relief.  But it isn’t in itself subversive when everyone is doing it, and when much of the criticism is calculated to support the liberal narrative of Hillary Clinton, the DNC and Russian hacking: If only they hadn’t done that, we’d have a real president.

Under an absurdist regime, intensified by the digital landscape…all jokes become “takes,” their punch lines interchangeable with CNN headlines, Breitbart clickbait, Facebook memes, and Trump’s own drive-by tweets, which themselves crib gags from “Saturday Night Live.” (“Not!”) Under these conditions, a late-night monologue begins to feel cognitively draining, not unlike political punditry.

Nussbaum prefers Oliver, Bee and Myers. But it always comes back to gatekeeping, one of the primary functions, incidentally, of The New Yorker, where her article appeared.These three are all excellent and progressive comics. Unlike Wilmore and his cast, however, they’re all white, and it shows.

In 2023, when haters have free rein, from MAGA Republicans down to violent cops and loonies in bleacher seats, when humor is nearly indistinguishable from government proclamations, angry (even if funny) Black men are still beyond the pale, with the exception of the mild Trevor Noah. Keeping them – and their implied assault on American innocence – out there is one reason why gatekeepers do what they do, and why they are paid so well.

Meanwhile, everyone Colbert invites on the show, no matter how heinous, is “a friend of the show”.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 120: A Truce for Christmas

Posted on December 22, 2014 by shmoover

November 2018 marked the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One. Within two months of its beginning, it had devolved into the stalemate we know as trench warfare. The opposing forces established a line along the Western Front extending from the English Channel to the Swiss border that would not fundamentally change for the next four years. The armies settled into a perpetual clash under the most barbaric and miserable conditions: soggy, frozen trenches, constant bombardment, suicidal attacks against massed machine guns, and hordes of rats consuming the corpses; by Christmas there were over a million casualties. In this essay, I write about the massive and completely unnecessary sacrifice of thousands of young men on the very last day of the war.

During those four years, because of the close proximity of the opposing trenches (in some case, as little as 80 yards) and the extreme danger of being shot if they peeked over the parapets, many men reported never seeing the sky except by looking straight up. They rarely saw enemy soldiers, except in their rifle sights.

1
Unknown-1

But that same proximity allowed for something else, something unpredictable and extraordinary: unofficial, spontaneous cessations of hostility.

On Christmas Eve 1914, German troops in the region of Ypres, Belgium decorated the areas around their trenches. They placed candles and Christmas trees on the parapets and celebrated the holiday with singing. The British responded by singing carols of their own. Soon, the two sides were shouting Christmas greetings to each other. The word went out all along the Front.

20140627-WARARCHIVE-slide-F4TV-superJumbo

On Christmas Day, men on both sides – perhaps 100,000 of them – disobeyed their generals, rose out of their frozen trenches and met their opponents face to face in No Man’s Land, where they exchanged small gifts such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as pictures of loved ones, buttons and hats. The artillery fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell for the dead to be buried. Joint religious services were held. Football games occurred, giving one of the most enduring images of the truce, which lasted until New Years in some sectors.

Was the Christmas Truce unique? There had been other truces, but none so universally subscribed to, and there would be few others. These men chose to emphasize their common humanity and common suffering, rather than their hatred. And this is how we choose to remember them, because, for a few days, they created a model for us all to emulate. In a time when the world was descending into a time in which the fathers were literally sacrificing their children to the war gods, these men briefly acknowledged the humanity of the Other. It has been called the last moment of the nineteenth century.

Generals on both sides were horrified at this display and feared that it might happen again. In some cases they removed or punished the units that had participated. They made sure that the war would go on, and for four years an average of seven to ten thousand young men would die every single day. But there was one day when common people ignored the hatred and the will to destroy.

You can see actual photos of the truce. Here is a 2004 interview with one of the last known participants. Here are two videos about the truce. It has been a rich source of inspiration for artists and musicians. Here is John McCutcheon performing Christmas in the Trenches. The truce occurs in several movies, including the excellent 2005 fictional drama Joyeux Noël.  For more in-depth reading, see Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce, by Stanley Weintraub.

There are also many accounts of soldiers refusing to fire on their enemies, even without truces. Of 112 French divisions on the Western Front, 68 experienced mutinies. Fifty men were killed by firing squads for refusing to fight any longer. Three of those executions became the basis for Stanley Kubrick’s antiwar masterpiece, Paths of Gloryin which a pompous general castigates his unwilling soldiers and lectures them “patriotism.” Another officer (played by Kirk Douglas) defends his men and enrages the general by quoting Samuel Johnson: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

There have been many significant truces throughout history when opposing sides agreed that the rituals of tending to the suffering and the dead had higher priority than those of the War God. One curious and isolated event happened in World War Two. Indeed, the percentages of front-line American infantrymen in that war who never fired their weapons was so high that, afterwards, the military instituted large-scale, mandatory operant conditioning programs deliberately intended to raise those percentages. By the time of the Viet Nam War, firing rates rose significantly. Even so, I have read about informal agreements between American enlisted men and their Vietnamese opponents in which each side agreed not to fire upon each other unless provoked. Ed Tick describes one instance of such spontaneous respect in War and the Soul.

But truces have occurred on our own streets.

In 1992, after some ten to twenty thousand young people had been killed in gang violence, the Los Angeles Bloods and Crips called a truce that would last for over ten years and resulted in a major decline in violence. Gangs in Honduras and El Salvador, sick of their own carnage, copied it. This video was made on the 20th anniversary. You can see some images from that truce here.

Unknown-2

Gangs in Honduras and El Salvador, sick of their own carnage, copied it.

_67689157_67689152
images

Despite all the political, economic, social and even religious pressure to turn young men into unfeeling automatons and killers, there is something very deep in us that insists on commonality with the Other. I would call this an archetypal aspect of the soul. Greek myth recognizes this. Truce scenes occur in the Iliad that reflect the very long tradition of halting all fighting every four years for the Olympic games.

It is customary to wish each other “Peace on Earth” at this time of year, yet a glance at the news always threatens to drop us into despair. Well, how about calling a truce at least? And who better to suggest it with than the warring voices in your own head? A truce is not necessarily time-bound; it can always be extended, from one moment to the next. While you are at it, consider the military metaphors we all tend to use in our daily speech.

For these holidays, I wish you this kind of truce. If world violence is ever to end, it will happen when enough individuals determine to call a truce with it in their own souls and no longer need to inflict it upon others or watch others harming each other on electronic media.

For even a short time, may we realize, as John McCutcheon sings, “…that on each end of the rifle we’re the same.”

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 76: John F. Kennedy and America’s Obsession with Innocence, Part Four of Four

Posted on November 30, 2013 by shmoover

Sing sorrow, sorrow, but good win out in the end. – Aeschylus

As a mythologist (and sharing our common curiosity about these things), I felt responsible to watch several 2013 documentaries and read much of what passed for journalism on the Kennedys that was published that year. On TV, pundits lined up to calmly and rationally discuss the major issues and then conclude, predictably, that we should all trust the dominant narratives of John F. Kennedy’s life, of his death, and by implication, of our own innocence.

Daniel Mendelsohn’s work rises above the general level of bogus pontification. His essay on the Kennedys is noteworthy for two reasons: First, and very rarely among prominent journalists, because he addresses social issues from the perspective of Greek myth. And second, because, like the New Yorker itself, he functions ultimately as a gatekeeper.

It is a great gift to American thinking to point out that we can discern very old stories in our national obsessions and repetitive behavior. But it is a great disservice to use mythology to subtly manipulate that thinking, to define, as all gatekeepers do, the proper range of acceptable discussion, and to demonize those who stand outside it. It reduces mythic images from mystery to parable.

Myth says: Here is a story. Take ten or twenty years of your life to let it work on you and consider what it tells you about yourself. Parable says: This is how you should interpret the image. Myth serves the soul. Parable serves the dominant ideology.

Mendelsohn acknowledges that Jacqueline Kennedy made Camelot the official myth of the Kennedy Administration. But, he says, Greek tragedy may be more appropriate, because

Athenian drama returns obsessively—as we do, every November 22nd—to the shocking and yet seemingly inevitable spectacle of the fallen king, of power and beauty and privilege violently laid low.

He mentions another familiar mythic theme evoked by the Kennedy saga, that of family curses and original sins that come back to haunt the innocents. The list is quite long: brother Joseph’s death in war; brother Robert’s assassination; brother Ted’s scandal at Chappaquiddick; three lost Presidential opportunities; airplane crashes, madness, murder scandals and drug addictions – all stemming from the alleged crimes of the family patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy.

Mendelsohn suggests that this is tragic thinking: “…assuming that there is a dark pattern in the way things happen…”

Using the Oedipus and Oresteia myths as examples, he reminds us that

…the impulse to expose, to bring secret crimes to light…lies at the heart of Greek drama. You could say that all tragedy is about the process of discovery, of learning that the present has a surprising and often devastating relationship to the past…slowly uncovering the deeper meanings of things…

600x4022

This desire underlies much of our curiosity about the Kennedys and the national trauma we associate with them. So we “…constantly revisit it, as much to convince ourselves that such a thing could happen as to hope, each time we go back, that it might turn out differently.”

Indeed, we annually revisit both the assassination as well as the entire weekend that followed, from the first news through Jack Ruby’s alleged revenge killing of Oswald to the grand funeral procession that (for a time) re-established our national sense of continuity and purpose.

This suggests that the conclusion to be drawn is not about “the role of the media”—about news and how we get it—but about drama: about our need, as ancient as the Greeks, to see certain elemental plots re-enacted before our eyes, at once familiar but always fresh.

So far, so good. Mendelsohn then moves to the theme of the King/God/Hero as sacrificial victim, which, he says, has deeply influenced our fifty-year-long response to these stories (not to mention, I might add, our even older fascination with Abraham Lincoln:And, once again, this is where the gatekeepers come in.

Hero and victim: our ambiguous relationship to the great—our need to idolize and idealize them, inextricable from our impulse to degrade and destroy them—is, in the end, the motor of tragedy, which first elevates and then topples its heroes…

But we are talking about an American story, which was born, as I have said, in what Campbell called a “de-mythologized world.” This world suffers from a profoundly diminished imagination. It’s not that we have no myths, but that we are generally unconscious of them, of how profoundly they determine our identity, and of how little they nourish us.

Indeed, the myth of American Innocence offers only one alternative to the Hero: the Victim. If Americans feel the constant need to revisit the theme of the Hero reduced to victim, perhaps it is because many of us sense that our long-assumed sense of white, male privilege (and its shadow of victimization) that underlies our national identity and military/industrial empire is collapsing. Perhaps we all know at some deep level that the cracks in the veneer of the walls of the City are exposing a rot that we cannot ignore much longer.

And, once again, this is where the gatekeepers come in. Their function – as intellectuals, professors, writers, broadcasters, pundits and journalists, as managers of elite opinion for our upper-middle class – is to control the spin and sheer up those cracks in the story we tell ourselves about ourselves. This is where Mendelsohn shifts from classicist to gatekeeper:

The tragic conviction that there are long-hidden reasons for the fall of kings finds its most extreme expression, today, in the obsessive desire to find “plots” of another kind in the Kennedy story: here you can’t help thinking of the conspiracy theories. With their Rube Goldberg-esque ingenuity, their elaborateness directly proportional to their preposterousness, these can end up looking suspiciously like madness (That other favorite tragic subject.)

Note the similarity of his patronizing attitude to that of Steven Gillon in Part Two of this essay. Mendelsohn the classicist wrote ninety-five percent of a very insightful article, but Mendelsohn the gatekeeper inserted the above paragraph, and by doing so, revealed his real agenda. Patronizing: the attitude of the patriarch. Trust him.

What is the difference between the old myths and ours? Greek drama, like all art forms deriving from indigenous myth, expresses archetypal themes and is embedded in the physical places where some of those themes were first told. As such, it still retains the soul-making potential to connect readers and audiences to their essential natures. It still carries the possibilities of a functioning mythology. It is and will continue to be re-told to modern audiences because its themes are our own. It remains relevant to an understanding of both who we are (what Euripides, in the words of Sophocles, showed) and who we might become (what Sophocles himself tried to show).

The myth of American innocence, by contrast, functions essentially on Campbell’s sociological level – to enable us to rationalize the contradictions of our lives and our belief systems, to live in a mad system without going mad, by projecting that madness upon the Others of the world. As such, our myth is profoundly unstable. The truth (its mythic image is Dionysus at the gates of Thebes) always threatens to intrude upon our fantasies of innocence, good intentions and exceptionalism. Because these cracks in the myth continually appear, because we are clamoring for a different story, the gatekeepers must continually re-tell it, as if one more re-telling will put us back to sleep.

In the case of the Kennedy assassination, the gatekeepers are well aware that most Americans doubt the dominant narrative. They know that if that doubt were to become universally expressed, then we would have to call many other aspects of our American story into question. So the gatekeepers have been working overtime, as they do every November, so that we might sit down for Thanksgiving dinner to feed on fantasies instead of on dreams.

Public education, writes Chomsky, is a system of imposed ignorance in which the most highly educated people are the most highly indoctrinated. “A good education instills in you the intuitive comprehension – it becomes unconscious and reflexive – that you just don’t think certain things…that are threatening to power interests.”

From this perspective, it is the thinking of the “educated” classes – the teachers, managers and professionals – that most need to be kept within the bounds of acceptable debate. In this realm, our most important gatekeeping institutions are not the major TV networks (their function is obvious enough), but the media consumed most innocently by these classes, the so-called liberal media: The Public Broadcasting System, the New York Times, the Washington Post and The New Yorker. 

I’m not calling for a boycott of these venerable institutions. I’m suggesting that as you read and watch them, it is more important than ever to remember the necessity of understanding their real intentions. If, as Mendelsohn says, “…all tragedy is about the process of discovery,” then why not let people discover the truth – and the tragedy – for themselves, instead of spoon-feeding them with such heavily-loaded words and phrases as “preposterousness,” and “Rube Goldberg-esque”?

Conclusion: Innocence

Again, I’m not really interested in the superficial political questions, or even, for that matter, in answers. I’m interested in deepening the questions themselves. I began this inquiry by asking two of them: When did you lose your innocence? and When did you lose it again? Now let’s reframe them: Did you really lose it? Can we afford to remain innocent?

As a moderate-liberal, do you still hold to the single-gunman narrative that has functioned for nearly sixty years to shore up the holes in your national identity? How does such thinking affect your views of contemporary issues, from abortion and Black Lives Matter to Iran, North Korea and “the Russians?”

As a progressive, what does your acknowledgement that the CIA really did kill JFK really mean? Knowing that every President since 1963 has been held captive to the dictates of the Deep State, did you vote for the last two Democratic candidates? Were you hedging bets against your own cynicism, or were you, once again, caught up in the temptation of “hope?” Do you, in late 2017, still long for the days of Barack Obama?

Please don’t misinterpret my meaning. I’m not arguing against involvement and activism, but rather, as Campbell also said, to “participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world.” To do that, however, we have to wake from our national daydreams.

An authentic capacity to think mythologically brings with it the knowledge that any truth, rather than ending the discussion, merely points us further down the road to deeper truths. It dispenses with one-dimensional parables and soothing reassurances in favor of metaphor, nuance and symbol. It gifts us with better questions, not cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all conclusions. It invites us further into both the tragedy and the mystery at the core of our stories, our behavior and our identity, and then it encourages us to imagine models for who we – and our nation – might become if we were truly in alignment with our soul’s purpose. It expands our thinking rather than constricting it. It speaks truth to power. And that is why we need to be familiar with mythology: not for armchair pontification, but to change the world.

Categories
Uncategorized

Barry’s Blog # 75: John F. Kennedy and America’s Obsession with Innocence, Part Three of Four

Posted on November 23, 2013 by shmoover

Wow! I never realized that Kennedy and Vietnam was to your generation what Princess Diana and 9/11 is to ours. – A thirty-something

The Dying God (1)

He was known in Babylon as Tammuz, in Egypt as Osiris and Serapis, in Asia Minor as Attis, in Persia as Mythra, in Italy as Bacchus, in Syria as Adonis, as Fufluns among the Etruscans, as Dionysus in Greece and as Jesus when the Pagan world collapsed.

Dionysus

The ancients marked as sacred not the places where gods and heroes had been born, but the places where they had died. Christianity replaced them with the saints and added, along with their relics, the dates of their deaths. Our modern toxic mimic of that world, the culture of celebrity, does the same thing. Who remembers the birthdays of JFK or Elvis?

Steven Stark itemizes the long list of Pop culture celebrities who died young, Elvis most prominently, and he points out the mythic connection:

Dying young freezes the stars at their peak: like the promise of Hollywood itself, they remain forever young and beautiful – the perfect icons for the immortality that films and records purport to offer…As a cultural symbol whose life can now be made into anything with impunity, Kennedy, like Presley, has become, in Greil Marcus’s words, “an anarchy of possibilities” – a reflection of the public’s mass fears and aspirations and also a constant vehicle for discussing those sentiments…Thus Presley and the Kennedys have evolved into a collection of cultural deities – modern-day equivalents of the Greek gods, who were immortal while sharing the characteristics of the human beings who worshipped them…

Stark’s conclusion makes intuitive sense to any perceptive observer of mass media. Today, much, perhaps most political rhetoric, especially the deliberately provocative variety, is not intended to persuade the opposition to change its mind on a given subject. Politicians offer their statements to rile up their own constituencies, not to convince another. The lie repeated often enough becomes the accepted reality. Every time you roll your eyebrows at one of these lies, however, somebody who has already been entertaining them is becoming even more certain. This is known as confirmation bias. Preaching to their own separate choirs, these demagogues (and entire TV networks) are essentially entertainers rather than advocates in the realm of public ideas. Stark concludes:

If mass entertainment is now the civic religion in a country where government can never constitutionally fill that role, it should be no surprise that the path to immortality for a politician today is to become an entertainer in order to become a deity.

Myth tells us that Dionysus was always followed by a band of raving, shrieking, dancing, ecstatic women known as the Maenads, a word related to mania. 

Young people, who had been so identified with JFK’s symbolic renewal of the world, took his death particularly hard. Perhaps it is no coincidence that a new form of maenadism erupted only two months later, in February of 1964, when the Beatles performed before seventy million Americans on the Ed Sullivan show.  Barbara Ehrenreich wrote, “At no time during their U.S. tours was the group audible above the shrieking.” Someone dubbed the experience “Beatlemania” and the phrase stuck. Sociologist Susan Douglas argues that the resonance between Kennedy and the Beatles allowed for “a powerful and collective transfer of hope.”

But only some of that hope was channeled into collective political action, because idealism, for many, had already been degraded into its opposite, cynicism (see Chapter Eleven of Madness at the Gates of the City for a more in-depth discussion). Cynicism led to apathy; apathy led to abandonment of hope that change could occur through conventional politics; and reduced voting eventually begat Reagan, the Bushes, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, mass incarceration, Trumpus and our current Supreme Court.

Sixty Years Later

Like almost all politicians, media pundits are, quite simply, entertainers charged with diverting the public from the men behind the screen – and from the collective weight of our unexpressed anger and grief, from the anxiety of our diminished, alienated lives and from the pain of remembering that we once dreamed of serving the great King of our souls. The pundits entertain us with silly concepts such as the “red state/blue state” divide, when in fact both major political parties are far more conservative than they were in 1963, indeed far more conservative than the nation as a whole today.

In the context of the myths about John F. Kennedy, the real divide today is between two other groups. The first group is composed of those who still accept the dominant narratives about both Kennedy’s death and about American exceptionalism. They tend to be white and old (Roger Ailes, may he burn in Hell, famously admitted, “I created a TV network for people 55 to dead.”) Many consider themselves “moderates,” or “independents” who thoughtfully weigh the issues and vote Democratic as often as they vote Republican. And they are either very angry or very scared, because it is harder and harder to cling to their sense of innocence. They tend to be evangelical or mainline Protestants. They respect the police and many of them believe that white people are more discriminated against than black people. They support all of America’s wars, if reluctantly.

The second group is younger, darker-skinned, more tech-savvy, much less affluent and more cynical, despite their youth. They have very little hope of any good coming out of the political process, because they see it as hopelessly broken or rigged to perpetuate power and privilege. They hate the police. Many are rooted in communities that never subscribed to the myth of innocence. As novelist Walter Mosley has said,

I have never met an African-American who was surprised by the attack on the World Trade Center. Blacks do not see America as the great liberator of the world. Blacks understand how the rest of the world sees us, because we have also been the victims of American imperialism.

Many of them feel that they have nothing to lose.

Granted, their disdain for the cesspool of national politics leaves the field to the very worst people in the world. But who can blame them for not voting?

Many others in this second group, however, have permanently rejected the patriarchal, homophobic, racist, violent, imperialistic, individualistic, competitive and monotheistic values of the dominant culture in favor of non-political (or at least local), collective, creative, soulful, pagan, meditative attention to truly human and environmental values, values of the Whole Earth, who is the ultimate transcendent cause.

Here I recall the Rumi quote that opens my book:

I have lived on the lip of insanity wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I’ve been knocking from the inside!

Members of the first group occasionally view the madness behind the door. Horrified, they slam it shut, and as G.W. Bush exhorted after 9-11, they go back to shopping. For them, a quick glimpse into the margins where cracks appear in the seemingly solid walls of the myth of innocence is too much to bear.

But others have chosen to live there, because they know that when the King has vacated the center of the realm, the realm rots from the center outward. And healing comes from the margins.

The Dying God (2)

Only the Goddess lives on, unchanging. The God – or the King – must die, because his rebirth awakens the world, the tribe (or the psyche) to the necessity and the possibility of renewal. His capacity to die to what he had been so as to be reborn into what he could be is the very essence of initiation. And this is why we long for his return, not because he might save us, but because he symbolizes our own renewal.

It is our responsibility to determine the fact, the literal truth of a situation and then to refine, reframe, re-imagine and retell it in its mythic context. We look at what people do and re-imagine how they would act if they were in alignment with their higher purpose. Ironically, JFK himself quoted George Bernard Shaw: You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?” Political rhetoric? Of course. Archetypal thinking? Certainly.

Even Gore Vidal, that strong critic of Kennedy’s imperial policies, admitted:

The thing about myths and legends, should we allow reality to intrude; the Kennedy legend is a very good one for the world, and it’s a very good one for the United States. And as a critic, I am sort of split; because on the one hand, I know it’s not true, and on the other hand I think, Well, if it’s not true – it ought to be true.

One of the few factual things that we can say about JFK is that, like Barack Obama, he did not take office as a liberal. He redbaited the Republicans to get elected. In Noam Chomsky’s words, “Kennedy launched a huge terrorist campaign against Cuba (and) laid the basis for the huge wave of repression that spread over Latin America…” He built up the American forces in Viet Nam from a few dozen to 17,000 men. Ronald Reagan praised him for having lowered taxes on business. He initially tried to prevent the March on Washington and didn’t speak out on Civil Rights until circumstances forced him to.

Unlike Obama, however, he actually became more liberal. And he did speak out. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he told Arthur Schlesinger, “I want to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” In June of 1963 he gave a remarkable speech that seemed to offer a just, workable peace to the U.S.S.R., and it quickly led to the first arms control treaty.

As I mentioned in Part Two of this essay, he may well have been about to pull the nation out of Viet Nam. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims that on the morning of November 21st, as JFK prepared to leave for Texas, he told his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff,

“It’s time for us to get out…After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.”

To be fair, we should note that Noam Chomsky disagrees with the claim that JFK was planning to withdraw from Viet Nam (Chomsky also subscribes to both the “lone shooter” narrative and the official 9/11 explanation). Michael Parenti and John Judge criticize Chomsky’s position. But Allen Dulles, whom JFK had fired as CIA chief (and who later “served” on the Warren Commission), said, “That little Kennedy…he thought he was a god.”

Some writers claim that his deepest values (imagine even using that phrase to describe his successors!) had undergone profound transformation. Consider the liberating influence that Mary Pinchot Meyer, his mistress, may have had on him.

But so much of what we think we know remains in the category of allegations and has been managed by the Kennedy clan. John F. Kennedy remains a chimera, and because he is more myth than human, we all remember him through our own highly subjective lens. So I choose to remember who he – and we – might have become.

Ultimately, the pull of JFK’s image in our national memory evokes that same symbolism I began this essay with, the same image that allows us to picture America in its most ideal light: the New Start.

As Yeats wrote, “the center cannot hold.” Perhaps this is a good thing. When the center is rotten – when the King dies – the renewal of the world must come not from there but from the margins. Perhaps only those who inhabit the margins of the culture – the realms of Hermes, Dionysus, Coyote and Kokopelli – are capable of reframing the American story.

Perhaps history is forcing us to learn the languages of mythology and psychology. Perhaps renewal will come when enough of us discover that we have projected too much of ourselves onto public figures. It is time, as Robert Bly said, to withdraw our projections. The archetypal King that Kennedy attempted to embody – that we wished he’d embodied – will not return until enough of us realize that the King lies within each of us.

 Part Four

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started