The Limits Of Discussion
If one is to look for an example of a true American patriot, look no further than Daniel Ellsberg. For if the protection of the integrity of one’s nation is ever outweighed by the protection of a corrupted federal system, then patriotism itself is nothing save the willingness to forgive the abuse of an entire population.
Having been exposed to American television of late, primarily Fox News, which isn’t a mainstay on Canadian television, I have been surprised at how many neoconservatives often routinely guest on their programs, the most common of which, I find, is William Kristol, one of the founders of The Weekly Standard, chairman of the Project For The New American Century (which is now little more than an answering machine), and a member of the American Enterprise Institute.
Kristol’s neoconservative credentials are considerable, and he has routinely made no qualms about his support for American hegemony. One need only listen to his assertions in Why We Fight, or, for that matter, the assertions of the likes of Richard Perle, to see that these are individuals that have found themselves trapped in a belief system that is both unrealistic and has had devastating repercussions on the United States and its people, primarily the United States Armed Forces. And they, like the Vice President and others, persist in their views despite the disastrous results that they have produced.
What you will not see on primetime US news networks are individuals who possess vast amounts of knowledge about US foreign and covert policy history, and whose views, given their knowledge, is far too dangerous and too difficult to counter to entertain the thought of ever including them in a discussion on a major network. In fact, their views have been largely marginalized by the neo-patriotic fervor that has gripped North America, making them easily dismissible rather than overwhelmingly impacting.
I am not talking about people with limited experience either. Chalmers Johnson, head of the Japan Policy Research Institute, a retired Professor emeritus who taught political science at the University of California from 1962 to 1992, and best selling author (Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic), was a CIA consultant from 1967 to 1973 for the Office of National Estimates. Johnson’s knowledge of the ramifications and implementations of American militarism is vast, and his voice has, in many ways, been marginalized primarily because the debate on such issues has become so one dimensional and lowbrow that to entertain the views of someone with that sort of knowledge would be both next to impossible to counter within the framework of a television news program, not to mention damaging to whomever risked allowing such a dissident voice to be heard.
The question must be asked – why are leading intellectuals who have written some of the most telling and impacting literature on subjects ranging from foreign policy history to the overt militarism of the Western world not included in mainstream discourse? Is it because the information that would be relayed might be too complex for most to grasp? Would it require too much of an alteration to the average thought processes of viewers who are used to the simplistic nature in which the events of the last six years have been presented them? And if that is the case, then does that not lend credence to the assertion that societies that remain ignorant, and are treated as such, willingly abandon their primary power within the context of government accountability?
Noam Chomsky is painted a fringe radical by many, yet is the most published, and read, authority on US foreign policy history in the world. How does one compare his works to, for example, those of Anne Coulter? Even though Coulter is a best selling author, her work is in no way comparable to that of Chomsky’s or, for that matter, Howard Zinn’s, Naomi Klein’s, Tariq Ali’s, Chalmer’s Johnson’s, or even journalists such as James Risen. In fact, neither is the work of like-minded individuals that one might consider brighter than Coulter, such as David Horowitz.
Like Kristol, these are people that have found themselves trapped within an ideology that is an absolute dead end because it primarily refuses to take into account that which is of the utmost importance when examining issues, such as the global war on terror - context and complicity.
History, despite its many faces, can no longer be manipulated on a permanent basis. The latter half of the 20th Century changed the face of recorded history in that our ability to examine it has increased to such an extent that it is now possible to peel back those layers that have traditionally been wrapped around it and look at it in a purer sense than has ever been afforded us. Perception obviously still plays a key role, but it is undeniable that the ability to examine historical information at its most fundamental levels has become far more accessible.
So what dangers do they present, those voices that are not so easily disregarded as those of celebrities, as good intentioned as they might be, that foolishly appear on the O’Reilly factor and fumble through information while being torn to shreds for the entertainment of viewers by a man employing falsehoods that they cannot immediately expose?
There are reasons why the likes of Bill O’Reilly, et all, do not entertain the idea of speaking with anyone who possesses the sort of knowledge that is not easily discounted. It’s because to refute it would require them to both refute historical evidence and the examples that prove it largely unassailable. And if men such as Bill O’Reilly have to use tactics like yelling and interrupting those he has on his program simply to counter half formed arguments, he’d probably have to show up with a shotgun in his hands were he ever to sit down with the likes of Gwynne Dyer.
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviews Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on patriotism in America.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Richard Dawkins will be on the O’Reilly Factor on Monday. Should be interesting. I’m not entirely confident in Dawkins’s rhetorical skills, but hopefully the sheer size of his brain will be enough to crush O’Reilly.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Dawkins! That should be entertaining. O’Reilly will probably somehow end up calling him a pedophile.
Horowitz I can stomach, albeit with a headache, but Coulter is some sort of vitriol-spewing racist homophobic mechanical man from the planet Shithead. I don’t know why anyone gives her the time of day.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I completely agree
all the news networks are little more than info-tainment and fox news is by far the worst
I think CNN is the lesser of the evils but still pretty bad, however I don’t personally know of any newspapers or websites that I find very good either…maybe someone can point me in the right direction
CSPAN is the other extreme, its so fair and unbiased and intelligent that its beyond boring…im one of the few people that still watches it but i am only able to watch it in small doses
April 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Speaking of Faux, for a bit there they had an article up, something about claiming (or postulating) that that poor messed-up kid from VT was possessed by the devil…I’d like to be able to say more about it but I didn’t have the stomach to actually dive into the shallow end of the pool.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
It’s a dangerous situation when a countries ‘free media’ is scared of the governement.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
People like O’Reilly (and Coulter) have no interest in examining the truth when they make salaries hovering around $9,000,000 per year and $50,000 per speaking engagement selling right wing propaganda.
Oh yeah…gotta throw out the shameless plug for the Canucks tonight…45 mins until the puck drops.
GO NUCKS.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I had the opportunity to hear Amy Goodman speak at an event honoring Thomas Merton. She is a true soldier and incredibly inspiring.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The answer to this is very simple: If people really were made aware of what their government has funded and executed over the years and in present day, the whole political system would get turned upside down. Corporations would lose their untouchable status, politician would lose their privilege, and defense contractors would go broke. Of course, the information that meticulously details government improprieties is out there already, but that means people would have to pick up a book and do a bit of reading. If the book isn’t adorned with pictures of Paris Hilton or Sanjaya, then it’s about as likely to be read as GW Bush is to admit failure.
What it comes down to is the ‘who’s who’ of this country have a vested interest in keeping such information from being disseminated. After all, when somebody dares challenge the status quo, it’s rather easy for those in the fraternity to label an intellectual with vast knowledge of foreign policy a ‘left-wing nutjob’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist.’
April 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I recently picked up Chomsky’s “Failed States”, an excellent and informative read as you would expect.
Chomsky always amazes me when I read him because of the way he presents such shocking and provocative information with a calm, cool, matter-of-fact’ness. This is even more front and centre in audio or video interviews that he does.
I would pay top dollar to see any of the talking-right-heads sit down with Chomsky for an interview, the thought of their heads simply exploding at his reasoning is something I could see happening…
April 19th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Chomsky does sit down with the talking heads, or at least did in the 60’s and 70’s according to some interviews I’ve seen. The problem isn’t that the people talking to him (again referring to those in his Vietnam debates) were unable to wrap their minds around the suggestion that America isn’t the greatest thing to happen to humanity. Until pundits learn to set aside nationalism while at work, the arguments of universality will continue to be moot.
I’m concerned with patriotism in Canada. We largely define ourselves on two fronts now: autonomy and “nice-guy” image. The former being one of Will Ferguson’s “great themes of Canadian history,” the latter being a false image carefully incubated by the CBC and embraced by the people in their struggle for autonomous identity. God bless the CBC for fighting the good fight, by the way.
The reality is that a person with no per-existing knowledge of Canada and the United States would have a hard time telling where the border is and would probably not figure it out until Saturday night. A nation with no identity is a nation with no purpose or direction and this is reflected in our laissez-faire approach to politics (present company excluded). We’ve sleepwalked into colonization believing our salvation to lie in Molson ads and Stewart MacLean books, but our emancipation will only come about by making our counterfeit image an economic reality.
All this ads up to a fear compounded by one of Mr. Ferguson’s other themes of Canadian history, “trying to get the Natives to somehow disappear.” i.e. ignoring our complicity in the extreme poverty wracking our country. Have we suffocated our abilities of self-examination with a long history of self-deception?
The first step towards Canadian patriotism is to admit that there’s no such thing. The second is to enforce our intended image economically, thus achieving true autonomy.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:46 am
“…that means people would have to pick up a book and do a bit of reading. If the book isn’t adorned with pictures of Paris Hilton or Sanjaya, then it’s about as likely to be read as GW Bush is to admit failure.”
—-
Ahh, here in lies the problem. The progressive dumbing down of America that has occurred in the last half century has lead us to this point. The lack of critical thinking skills, the “its all about me”, the “whatever!”, or the “its not my fault” attitude has developed this country into a bunch of idiots where only about 5% of the population has a fucking clue!
We’ve been fed mindless entertainment, fast food, designer dog purses, bullshit news and politics for so long that people cannot think for themselves. They can only think about themselves and they’re numb to the reality of their surroundings.
Its not until some catastrophic event rocks “their” world that people stop and ask the question, “What the hell have we done here?” And the sad reality is the terrorist attacks of 9/11, all the school shootings, katrina, a botched presidental election, the war in the middle east, these events don’t change the minds/actions of most Americans. I think a majority of the US population forget about these events within a week or so of them happening. Why? Because they were not there. They were not directly involved so it didn’t change THEIR world. They fail to see the correlation between those events and their house.
The biggest complaints you’ll hear here in the states is, “Why the hell is gas so damn expensive?” “I hate shopping at Wal-Mart, but the prices are so good I have to?” and “When is Bush gonna build that 1000 ft wall to keep those Hispanics from coming and taking our jobs?”
When people do finally take the inititive to ask the questions, “why did this happen?” or “what are we going to do about it?” they are so far behind in their knowledge that they don’t know how to develop a personal opinion. Americans idea of research is absorbing the spoon fed propaganda from the news media. Why?…Because it’s EASY!
April 20th, 2007 at 7:32 am
The Chomsky, Zinn interview is fairly rare - in that it doesn’t happen together all that often! Thanks for letting us in on that I forget to watch Democracy Now! every once and a while.
Btw, if you haven’t already, there is a good movie called OutFoxed:Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism. It’s a great film to watch to see the inner right-wing workings of Fox news.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:20 am
It seems to me that the limits of discussion comes down to self-interest. Whether covertly or overtly, what the neocon pundits are doing is appealing to self-interest, in as Matt suggests, a “one dimensional and lowbrow” way; this is done primarily through the marginalization and juxtaposition of the “other.”
Historically, this is not an old concept, but in a globally integrated world openly patronizing an ‘other’, one of your neighbours, has larger complications than the cheap patriotism of yore.
The trick then, for us, is to evolve the discussion into a question of global self-interest, rather than national self-interest, or divisions upon any other lines. This of course, is the underlying thesis of Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival.”
***
SerfinUSA,
I suspect we agree in principle, but I would respectfully disagree with your approach.
Canada, as Richard Gwyn has suggested, is the world’s first “post-nation state” or in other words, that Canada is the most decentralized nation in the world (in terms of also being a G8 member).
If we consider this fact in the same context as also bordering the US, the world and perhaps history’s wealthiest and most enterprising economic machine federated thereon, in direct comparison, Canada invariably risks looking “inferior.” Though I agree that beer adds are not a healthy platform for a national sense of self.
However, Canada is so complex a place that even well meditated generalizations such as this, though well meaning, often fall short. And while Canadian patriotism is a nice idea, the central virtue of Canada is its total affront to “exceptionalism”, even to the imposition of an inferiority-complex in direct contrast to the exceptionalism practiced by the US, and which, as Matt’s post above goes to show, is highly criticized, both domestically and internationally. Have you read George Grant’s “Lament for a Nation”?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I actually did a class project recently mocking Fox News’ sensationalism and reliance on graphics, theme music, goodguy/badguy simplification, and distortion of the truth. Our assignment was that we were Taco Bell executives having to deal with the PR crisis that came when our business partner Kraft produced taco shells with our licensed name on it that were tainted with a genetically modified corn ingredient not approved for human consumption, Based on the real life incident in 2000. The video is on my blog (http://thelastpopstar.blogspot.com) and on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiWDYOaBVlg) if anyone cares to take a gander since its looooooooosely on topic and not just self promotion.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I am not sure how credible the fellow who wrote this book is but try reading “The Great Limbaugh Con” by Charles M Kelley. I believe this guy is a professor of some sort, but I can’t find anything on the internet about him, and it has been awhile since I read it, but it was very good and had a lot to do with Rush Limbaugh and conservative demagogues in the United States. It is a bit dated as it was written in 94′, but it says a lot about American political commentators and the manipulation of public perception.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“The answer to this is very simple: If people really were made aware of what their government has funded and executed over the years and in present day, the whole political system would get turned upside down. Corporations would lose their untouchable status, politician would lose their privilege, and defense contractors would go broke.”
You must have more faith in people than I do. I don’t think they’d care all that much. I think propagandist organizations like Faux News are popular because people don’t want to feel guilty about not caring. That’s the service Faux provides- a salve for what little social conscience the herd has.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“You must have more faith in people than I do. I don’t think they’d care all that much. I think propagandist organizations like Faux News are popular because people don’t want to feel guilty about not caring. That’s the service Faux provides- a salve for what little social conscience the herd has.”
Perhaps I do. I often wonder what would happen if the loads of evidence and under the rug information was exposed to the people on the national media and it was presented in such a way that people wouldn’t be wary if such info was ‘conspiracy theory’ or ‘unamerican propaganda being used to demoralize the troops.’ That is to say it would be presented predominantly on the news, much like how the VT Shooting was covered. It seems like television news outlets can run 24-hour coverage of how wearing black hats can possibly cause cancer and before you know it, all black hats would disappear from the shelves and people would flock to wear blue hats. Or in a real life context, how Y2K was going to cause all sorts of anarchy and a good number of people flocked to the stores to procure flashlights, water, and canned goods.
Ultimately, it’s on the people to educate themselves beyond what the television presents to them, but it’s fact that people today read less and take much less interest in world affairs and politics, so the chances of this happening are very slim. Throw into the equation all the news talk shows that offer differing points of view - some based on fact and some not - and what you end up with is a great number of people who are confused, disenfranchised, and/or forming opinions based on flawed arguments.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Great post.
April 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“Ultimately, it’s on the people to educate themselves beyond what the television presents to them, but it’s fact that people today read less and take much less interest in world affairs and politics, so the chances of this happening are very slim. Throw into the equation all the news talk shows that offer differing points of view - some based on fact and some not - and what you end up with is a great number of people who are confused, disenfranchised, and/or forming opinions based on flawed arguments.”
Exactly so, and I think they take less interest as a way to blind themselves. Knowing the harsh truth requires that people of conscience feel the need to so something. I often feel guilty that I’m not more involved myself. People avoid guilt because it’s an uncomfortable emotion, and organizations like Fox help them to do so by assuring them there’s a simple formula for righteousness- stand up for your country without question and do not challenge authority. Religion serves the same purpose. It gives the faithful the false sense that they are doing good by following a simplistic set of principles, thus they can avoid guilt.