This post is public, yet the link is sent to an email group of those who have shown interest in my recently published Shaky Ground. Anyone who wishes to join that group can respond to this post with a comment (below) and an email address:
Last March I attended a meeting in my small town that included many I recognized as liberal artist friends, most of them middle-aged and older. They were cheering for a speaker who identified Putin as the new genocidal Hitler and demanded greater US military involvement. My fear of being ostracized kept me from raising objections, making me complicit, as if I agreed with the crowd.
Now the war fever has died down on the popular level, the rumble of resistance is being heard, following the growing opposition to wokeness and covid regulation. What was officially denounced as Russian-sourced disinformation and censored is now in process of being officially approved. This diminishes my fear of isolation, yet I’m quite aware that I flowed with the tide out of fear. How do I avoid that next time, especially as the drumbeats for war with China get louder, and another world war seems to be the plan?
A recent article by Darran Anderson on Christopher Lasch’s 1979 book, The Culture of Narcissism, is pertinent: “The news cycle becomes continuous in an ever-cascading present that, rather than leaving us hyper-aware, overwhelms and numbs us, dislocating us from the passage of time and our place in it.”
True, but simply knowing this, and that nothing stands between us and a world war, might only numb us further. It does not give us the confidence—the subjectivity—or the reason to articulate our resistance to it. We have been prepared by this culture of narcissism to retreat, to cultivate our private gardens, to seek shelter, all the while knowing that reality will break through. In the past people turned to the left for opposition to war; that is no longer possible.
The above is to preface the following probe into one of many recent reversals:
On Thurs. Feb. 23 the New York Times presented its readers with an article basically telling them that the major current foreign policy is doomed–the decades-long NATO expansion to the East, leading to the Ukraine proxy-war: “The U.S. Tried to Isolate Russia. It Didn’t Work.“ Note the past tense, which implies hopelessness for the continued effort.
The article is an in-depth, collective effort of investigative journalism; what it lacks is an admission that the NY Times is reversing itself in its judgment of this foreign policy objective, which it defended until now.
What comes to mind is SNL’s Emily Litella’s classic “Never mind” when she is corrected after a long rant. It’s no joke, but a humiliating position to be in for a government, or for a source of news and analysis that expects to be trusted. A parallel “Never Mind” was a NYT-sanctioned opinion piece, “The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?” Also, the Times is no longer caving in to wokeness, at least in the area of trans issues. None of this would not have appeared even six months ago.
The NYT readership is the high-educated class the paper depends on for support–revenue, and its’ very existence. It is saying “We were wrong” to those who believe themselves to be the rightful leadership of the country, and who have been enthusiastic supporters of the government and the paper’s claims. Without the authority and respect for quality journalism that paper has achieved (which it used to have for me), those readers might conclude they were fools to believe it in the first place. They probably will not, and that is a matter of subjectivity, as I will examine shortly.
The questions the article raises are many. First, did the Times truly believe the strategy would work or was it publishing propaganda for the government?
Either one is an indictment of the paper. If the former, then why trust its news and analysis in the future? Since many outside the mainstream media saw the flaws in the strategy long ago, it would seem that esteem for them would be raised over the NYT journalists—they would get the Pulitzers. If on the other hand, the paper was thinking that rallying people behind the war was more important than uncovering the truth of the situation, then it was not doing journalism in the first place, and should not be trusted on that basis either.
A related question is, why reverse itself now—did the NYT suddenly wake up to reality? Or is it broadcasting a signal from the government itself, that it is preparing for a retreat, under the cover of constant declarations and promises to the contrary? That would make sense, for the government needs to change its policy on Ukraine if it is to shift the focus to war against China. (Another sign of this change is an article telling us European governments lack operable tanks to fulfill the promise to Ukraine. Yet European governments, as Nato, have committed themselves to fighting China, presumably without the military equipment to do so.)
Modern governments justify themselves in the name of practical reason–their policies are expected to be effective and bring success. The assumption is that in a democracy, failure has consequences and the government will be replaced. And reason would tell us that policies will be effective, for the government has resources for intelligence gathering and analysis far beyond those of private analysts and think tanks, and should be far better at predicting outcomes. This is what government analysts are seemingly paid to do—reason and evidence carefully sifted to give elected officials the basis for successful policy.
It would not be hard to predict, however, as many outside the present government did, that current policy would only push Russia and China closer together. Moreover, it should have been obvious that that alliance would attract the countries of the Global South, who have been looking for a way to escape the coercive hold of the American financial empire. Evidence of hostility to American power, culture, and commercial influence is not hard to come by—all of this is in the NYT article.
So given the support of the government bureaucracies (State, Defense, CIA, etc.) for a foredoomed policy, we might conclude that those in charge of predicting the outcome of different policies were merely telling the politicians what they wanted to hear. More shocking is that they–the top echelons of our two-party duopoly–were driven not by the consideration of the odds that the policy would actually work but by irrational needs.
The material, and therefore rational argument has often been made, that motivating the government policy is the submission of Europe and especially Germany to American economic interests (which would explain blowing up the Russian gas pipeline). That goal may justify the policy to its creators (privately of course), but the gain shrinks in comparison with the weakening of American world power and influence, which the Times article has detailed.
It is not some revisionist history that would show this to be the latest in the long history of postwar military/foreign policy failure. It began with the ousting of China experts from the State Department in the late forties, followed by the domino theory, Vietnam, and the Middle East; Europe fits the pattern. (For a brief history see Shaky Ground, p. 158ff.)
As for the press, we might assume they are in a position to caution the politicians by raising questions about the long-term policy of Nato expansion, etc. What motivates the mainstream press’s willingness to risk their credibility? Perhaps the NYT feels secure in its grasp on its readership, fearful of questioning the wisdom of their most trusted news source. The repercussion of such doubt would be to isolate them from their class and risk being branded as defectors to the right, which would even threaten the livelihood of some. And if the government is lanning to retreat from the Ukraine war, they can view the Times as helping to correct the course, as if no one could have foreseen the failure of current policy.
Needs that cloud our and others’ thinking and lead to disaster are crucial for us to understand, for we too are easily misled—including myself, as I readily admit. The need common to Americans is to be the good guys fighting evil (I discuss this in Shaky Ground ### as fundamental to the wokeness phenomenon).
To cast the other as evil is a successful strategy to rally Americans, especially today, but it is easily deluded about the strength of the opponent, enjoying instead the self-image of being strong and superior. In the good/evil fight, if the good fail in their mission they have the option of considering themselves suffering as martyrs and underdogs, thus exonerated and rewarded even in defeat. (This has been historically common on the left.) To be able to survive defeat without admitting you were mistaken is one of the great strengths of that appeal to goodness, an encouragement to ignore the consequences.
Furthermore, the narcissism that usually accompanies power has led the politicians to assume that Americans would fall in line and would sustain them in power despite setbacks and even policy reversals. This ignores the long history of blowback—most recently the Trump presidency, which came on the heels of government failure in the financial disaster after 2008. Today’s blowback is for the revelations about government covid policy, deeply affecting the political scene, while resistance for Ukraine expenditures is growing.
Either the policy makers and political bosses knew the Ukraine policy would contribute to the decline of the American Empire or they were led by fantasy, which they preferred to assessing the situation. Those caught up in the fantasy would include not only the Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and NPR, but the mass of people cheering on that policy and wanting to censor any sign of dissent as disinformation and conspiracy theory. You only censor those voices you hear that might persuade or seduce you, the conservative position in the past.
Traditional American optimism, the secular version of “God on our side,” proved fruitful historically, but it has encouraged people to think that “we”–the government out front leading us–can pull off anything we set our minds to. If we recognize that pitfall then the next question is, why is a fantasy so satisfying to the psyche when it has led to failure time and again (America’s wars since Vietnam)?
The problem with the challenge to fantasy is that to act politically in any way involves some form of expectation that is not yet reality, that is hoped for, and that could easily be called fantasy. Without that we are merely critics on the sidelines, effectively cynics, with no imagination of how things could change and what part we might play in that change.
To get out of this dilemma, the question to ask of any fantasy is, what is the aim? The aim involves the fantasy of achievement. For many on social media the aim is to be well liked; for those pursuing a professional career it is advancement—status, respect, and income. For the main body of the woke it is likely the cleansing of all feelings of guilt and fragility—purification, innocence. For the present government it is world power, or more specifically to halt the decline. To learn the fantasy behind a policy is to ask ourselves whether it is something we share or not.
It is reasonable to ask, what is my aim in writing this analysis? As with Shaky Ground, it is first of all personal, and not really a fantasy. It is to overcome my alienation from the world during this period, the most massive upheaval since the time of my birth, the beginning of the last world war. More figuratively, I experience it as enjoyment–learning how to dance on this shifting ground, and I invite others to do the same.
My aim in posting this is related, and the political fantasy is moderate. It is to have something concrete to communicate with others to whom I send it, a private network that will help us to find our way collectively and overcome our isolation and intimidation.
jackiswright 
“Is the Government Losing its War?” asks the heading of Jack’s blog post. As someone born in 1953, it’s my observation that the US has been perpetually at war throughout my entire life. Whether that war was the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the covert wars in Latin America, the ‘anti-terrorism’ wars of the Middle East &/or the War Against Communism, the War Against Drugs, the War Against Terrorism, or the War Against COVID-19. I’m reminded of a statement credited to early 20th century American Social Behaviorist George Herbert Mead: “Without parties we could not get a fraction of the voters to come to the polls to express themselves on issues of great public importance, but we can enrol a considerable part of the community in a political party that is fighting some other party. It is the element of the fight that keeps up the interest.” (p 220, Mind, Self, & Society) In other words, the perpetual war not only supports the eternally greedy vested interests of oligarchies it also keeps the general public ‘engaged’. Alas, this ‘engagement’ is really just something that keeps the public sucked into the fear-mongering that makes them maximally susceptible to being on whatever page the powers-that-be want them to be on. It doesn’t matter that the New York Times reverses its position, it just matters that they continue to steer the masses in the appointed direction & keeps them from thinking for themselves. After all, as I recall it was revealed in the recent film (2020) about FBI surveillance & harrassment of Martin Luther King Jr, “MLK/FBI”, that the New York Times opposed MLK & presented him as a “traitor” because he opposed the Vietnam War. Would they dare do that now? Of course not. How can we forget that in George Orwell’s 1984 who was at war with whom changed from time-to-time without the public even noticing – their ferocious support continued irregardless. The problem for me is not so much that the government is ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ but that most people have long since lost their ability to think for themselves but are simply parroting whatever propaganda comes their way that’s approved by their subculture. If they’re a professor at a liberal university they’re no less susceptible to this process than a laborer who thinks that Rump represented the interests of the working class.
What matters about the NYT reversing itself is what it shows something about the press today, and I offer different options, not a blanket judgment. . After all, REALITY is what we want to trust, which depends ultimately on our ability to observe before we judge, with the door constantly open to pulling back from judgments to observe again and correct ourselves. Rationality, in this case, is the ability to correct our judgments, in which we can’t help but be emotionally invested. We do this when we’re confronted with something that doesn’t fit our worldview. Today that is happening to people on a massive scale, and they either rethink their loyalties or double down. That is the upheaval we’re in. You say “people have lost their ability to think for themselves,” a cliche that implies you have that ability, but we are social beings, and none of us have that ability in any absolute sense. What would it look like, anyway, how would you know if people are thinking for themselves, or if you are? And, I ask, who would say such a thing? Not someone who has ever reversed their thinking; that is a kind of suffering that goes unacknowledged but is crucial. It’s someone who sees themselves as an isolate (with a few friends), standing for the truth and surrounded by the enemy, who “will never understand.”.
My point about the NYT is that I don’t trust any mass media because I think they all have financial incentives that bias their ‘reporting’ – that includes those bastions of ‘liberal’ opinions such as NPR & the Atlantic (who also recently reversed their opinions). This, of course, applies to ‘conservative’ media as well so it includes Fox ‘News’. When I refer to people not thinking for themselves I’m generally thinking of people who I hear expressing themselves in sentences that I hear from multiple people. An example is this: shortly after the quarantine was initiated in PA it was pointed out that at the time there were very few deaths attributed to COVID-19 in PA but an enormous amount in New York. I heard people say: ‘That’s because our governor did the right thing’ referring to his quarantine timing. NY’s governor declared the quarantine a day or 2 later. That delay was said to’ve been fatal to tens of thousands of people. I didn’t believe that then & I don’t believe it now. The statement that PA’s governor had ‘done the right thing’ struck me then & strikes me now as a propaganda statement that people were astroturfed into believing originated with themselves. If my claim about people not thinking for themselves were, as you claim, “a cliche” I think I’d hear it stated more often, rather than almost never, since clichés are widespread. As for “that implies you have that ability, but we are social beings, and none of us have that ability in any absolute sense”. That’s a fair enough criticism but I think that there are degrees of individuality that’re demonstrable by what one says & how one forms one’s opinions. I have never said ‘The governor did the right thing’, e.g.. I stopped watching TV in 1969 or 1970 – as such I cut out one of the most pervasive propaganda sources from my life. Furthermore, I’m not a reader of mass-media ‘news’ sources of any kind. I form my opinions based on what I directly observe in my life & based on books. Books, of course, can be called mass media sources but they’re not as topical as a daily ‘news’ feed & in the process of reading them I take notes & write reviews so my consumption of them is critical. I review every book I read. I’ve also written two books addressing what I call the Medical Industry since the quarantine began: “Unconscious Suffocation – A Personal Journey through the PANDEMIC PANIC” (1,186pp) ( http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/Book2020.09PANDEMIC.html ) & “THE SCIENCE (volume 1)” (530 pp) ( http://idioideo.pleintekst.nl/Book2022SCIENCE.html ). Keep in mind that my comment is short & simple & for a more complex take on what I’m thinking about current societal conditions reading these two books would be more appropriate.