Joan Didion's POLITICAL FICTIONS remains as relevant as ever in the age of Senate Public TV hearings. Her book begins with politics of the Dukakis candidacy. She is eloquent about how insiders create a political message that captures the public response without
relating to the issues of the people. This has become a major occupation of political strategists, even perhaps by foreign intervention! Discussing the Clinton-Lewinsky
scandal, she seems more partisan about the Right marshaling forces against
Clinton through Starr. Didion moves to the left here, and there is
little discussion of the political manipulation of the Clintons toward their
opponents. Their role in politics, for better and worse, has impacted right up to the last election. The last part of the book
is about the rise of the "Religious Right" and here she
paints a broad negative picture exploring the effectiveness in
this group's rise to power.
In this last section, she misses a fundamental point from her own SLOUCHING TO BETHLEHEM: The 60's was a chaotic time. The PBS special on the 60s describes the "baby boomer" generation split: those who smoked dope, had free love, and believed in personal self gratification, and those who studied, stayed home, and believed that self denial and discipline is essential for a good society. The commentary of Bork, Meese, and Buchanan commenting in the documentary is instructive. While the narrator extols the 60's rebellion as the seeds of social change in various countries, these men see the events as a failure to respect authority, and self indulgence without any social value. This is the fundamental conflict of the 60s, which has become the political world of the 90s and beyond. It is what fueled the rise of the "Religious Right". She is correct to see that their media presence is no different than any other political manipulators, just as compromised, but it appeals to the values of certain constituents. Today, as cannabis is gradually legalizing across the country, Sessions still threatens to prosecute its use at the federal level.
The “rebel” agenda proposes to relax certain social constraints: pro-abortion, decriminalize marihuana, provide social rights for gays, more social and economic recognition for women, and (some) racial equality. The opposing view sees "rebels" as “self indulgent”, creating moral chaos, and is reactive to perceived changes: women are getting too many abortions, MJ is too freely used, gays have become a major minority in the population despite AIDS, and women make up more of the labor force as the needs of the society move away from physically demanding jobs, leaving uneducated White Males behind. This is the reality of the society changing, and it is doubtful that liberal views accelerated this, nor that conservative ones will stop it. The “Conservative” agenda (i.e. “moral majority”, “Religious Right”, “compassionate conservative”) is an attempt to return to a value system that rejects the social changes that have been expanding in the country since the 60s. There is no evidence that a political system can enact laws, policies or whatever to counteract the prevailing social mores of a society. There can be a major conflict of legitimacy with the society taking a turn at totalitarianism and then a collapse of the regime. Will we go through a cycle of South American politics to learn this?
In this last section, she misses a fundamental point from her own SLOUCHING TO BETHLEHEM: The 60's was a chaotic time. The PBS special on the 60s describes the "baby boomer" generation split: those who smoked dope, had free love, and believed in personal self gratification, and those who studied, stayed home, and believed that self denial and discipline is essential for a good society. The commentary of Bork, Meese, and Buchanan commenting in the documentary is instructive. While the narrator extols the 60's rebellion as the seeds of social change in various countries, these men see the events as a failure to respect authority, and self indulgence without any social value. This is the fundamental conflict of the 60s, which has become the political world of the 90s and beyond. It is what fueled the rise of the "Religious Right". She is correct to see that their media presence is no different than any other political manipulators, just as compromised, but it appeals to the values of certain constituents. Today, as cannabis is gradually legalizing across the country, Sessions still threatens to prosecute its use at the federal level.
The “rebel” agenda proposes to relax certain social constraints: pro-abortion, decriminalize marihuana, provide social rights for gays, more social and economic recognition for women, and (some) racial equality. The opposing view sees "rebels" as “self indulgent”, creating moral chaos, and is reactive to perceived changes: women are getting too many abortions, MJ is too freely used, gays have become a major minority in the population despite AIDS, and women make up more of the labor force as the needs of the society move away from physically demanding jobs, leaving uneducated White Males behind. This is the reality of the society changing, and it is doubtful that liberal views accelerated this, nor that conservative ones will stop it. The “Conservative” agenda (i.e. “moral majority”, “Religious Right”, “compassionate conservative”) is an attempt to return to a value system that rejects the social changes that have been expanding in the country since the 60s. There is no evidence that a political system can enact laws, policies or whatever to counteract the prevailing social mores of a society. There can be a major conflict of legitimacy with the society taking a turn at totalitarianism and then a collapse of the regime. Will we go through a cycle of South American politics to learn this?
What makes this political focus on value
struggles so troublesome is how it fails to reflect the actual tasks of the government. Clinton was the archetypal “rebel”, a self indulgent, brilliant, self
motivated person, who was willing to
take whatever position necessary to gain his personal power. Though it seemed that
his goal in office was to lead an “inclusive” and caring government, in fact his administration was often the
opposite. It extended the trend of favoring the grow of wealth for the super rich. It grew the economy with limited benefit to
labor. “Welfare to work” was not a boon to the welfare mothers. While encouraging minority groups he enacted "law and order" statutes that expanding the mostly Black prison population. Clinton was busy with his sexual imitation
of JFK and his ability to co-opt the center of politics which drove the
Republicans farther to the Right. Also consider the Reagan
administrations. Reagan is viewed both during and afterward as a high point in the
vision of “conservative” politics and personally given credit for this, though it is
clear that he was
in some stage of Alzheimer’s disease, and unclear how much policy was decided by others. The “invasion” of Grenada, and the Marine debacle in
Lebanon were the examples of a poor foreign policy
which “took credit” for the “collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism”,
a process which began long before that administration, to which they made
almost no contribution. The supposedly
fiscal conservatives created tax cuts for the wealthy and excessive
spending that drove the country into its worse deficits. Didion’s portrayal of the Reagan administration as
a movie script esp the Iran-Contra mess is not far fetched, and it expresses the underlying wish for a
macho, morally black and white story with a successful outcome which is the
product of years of watching Hollywood “oaters” by the generation just before
the “boomers”. The movie WAG THE DOG, where script writers and media fabricators create a media distraction for presidential misconduct assumes a public with very
limited capacity for ambiguity and discrimination, a public that requires simple one dimension adolescent
stage heroes. Citizens who cannot tolerate moral
complexity and balancing competing interests are unable to make careful political decisions.
Fast forward to the present. The country elects a president who promises to reverse all the social and economic issues that distress conservatives, with a joint majority in Congress that grudgingly supports him. Though not elected by majority, enough people in critical states support this fantasy to vote for a man with no experience in politics, and marginal success in his business. They want to believe the fantasy promoted by political operatives that this will correct the imbalances of the last 8+ years. The results so far suggest the same favoring of the needs of the wealthy over middle and lower class citizens and a total disregard for debt (that only a real estate developer can have). This simple minded view of world relationships in both the Bush and Clinton eras is exaggerated in the current administration: America is the "lone superpower" and can tell everyone else what to do. The failure to recognize how this supports unification against our country is idiotic. No country is powerful enough to ignore the rest of the world, nor should be.
In this context, the Senate hearings on Kavanaugh are pure political theater. The idea of holding public hearings on television to assess the reality of accusations against a man is stupid. Once informed of the accusations, if the committee was unwilling to carry out the personal investigations by professionals to assess this situation, they should simply have said they were are unwilling to do so. Instead, the two characters are the leads in a drama which devolves down to whose fault it is because the investigations have never taken place. The shallow and mindless grandstanding of the various senators reveals more than anything else the silly and hollow nature of the proceedings. The hearing pretends to be about values, but are simply empty political maneuvering about a major decision regarding the Supreme Court. The country is careening toward a situation in which the balance of power established in the Constitution is systematically undermined.
Fast forward to the present. The country elects a president who promises to reverse all the social and economic issues that distress conservatives, with a joint majority in Congress that grudgingly supports him. Though not elected by majority, enough people in critical states support this fantasy to vote for a man with no experience in politics, and marginal success in his business. They want to believe the fantasy promoted by political operatives that this will correct the imbalances of the last 8+ years. The results so far suggest the same favoring of the needs of the wealthy over middle and lower class citizens and a total disregard for debt (that only a real estate developer can have). This simple minded view of world relationships in both the Bush and Clinton eras is exaggerated in the current administration: America is the "lone superpower" and can tell everyone else what to do. The failure to recognize how this supports unification against our country is idiotic. No country is powerful enough to ignore the rest of the world, nor should be.
In this context, the Senate hearings on Kavanaugh are pure political theater. The idea of holding public hearings on television to assess the reality of accusations against a man is stupid. Once informed of the accusations, if the committee was unwilling to carry out the personal investigations by professionals to assess this situation, they should simply have said they were are unwilling to do so. Instead, the two characters are the leads in a drama which devolves down to whose fault it is because the investigations have never taken place. The shallow and mindless grandstanding of the various senators reveals more than anything else the silly and hollow nature of the proceedings. The hearing pretends to be about values, but are simply empty political maneuvering about a major decision regarding the Supreme Court. The country is careening toward a situation in which the balance of power established in the Constitution is systematically undermined.
Governments must believe the fantasies they spew out to convince voters. If actions exaggerate the economic and social imbalances while assuring they are reducing them eventually they will hit a wall. If problems in security and economic stability are addressed with repetitive platitudes instead of exploring the complex changes in policy needed no changes occur. Reagan becomes a
dramatic cowboy hero despite the myriad failures and impotence of his
administration. JFK is champion of a bold new vision, cut
down before his prime, despite his inability to move civil
rights in the congress, his dangerous course in Vietnam, the failure in the Bay of Pigs, and his drug addiction and sexual
distractions. The fifties are idealized
as a high point in American moral culture despite the betrayal of personal
liberty by HUAC and McCarthy (which ultimately had to be stopped by the US
Army!), using FBI data collected by a closet
homosexual/transsexual. The nuances of reality are so collapsed in this discourse that no balanced approach to governing society is possible. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which have left the Arab world in chaotic turmoil are not so easily dismissed. In the words of Colin Powell, "If you break it, you own it."
It is no wonder that with increasing frequency we are selecting leaders for the country who portray themselves in fundamentally adolescent terms (and often behave that way as well). The public is encouraged to believe that the country is weakening because of its failure to fulfill its adolescent dreams (either “rebel” or “conservative”) instead of recognizing that an adult world is never so idealized and must accept compromises to function.
It is no wonder that with increasing frequency we are selecting leaders for the country who portray themselves in fundamentally adolescent terms (and often behave that way as well). The public is encouraged to believe that the country is weakening because of its failure to fulfill its adolescent dreams (either “rebel” or “conservative”) instead of recognizing that an adult world is never so idealized and must accept compromises to function.
No comments:
Post a Comment