Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich, Pseudo-Election 2016
By Andrew Bacevich
Posted on August 4, 2016, Printed on August 4, 2016
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176172/ ;
[Note for TomDispatch Readers: TD is taking this weekend off. Next post:
Tuesday, August 9th. Tom]
If youre of a certain age (as I am), theres something that should have
startled you recently and yet, as far as I know, no one has bothered to
mention it: anytime in the last seven decades, any American politician
running for any position from dogcatcher to president who had called on
Russias leaders for help in a domestic campaign (no less for them to
release the supposedly cyber-hacked emails of a former secretary of state)
would have been pilloried. His or her career would have instantly been
over; his or her reputation turned to ash; his or her future life, rubble.
No exceptions.
Yet the immortal Donald, the Incredible Hulk of present-day American
politics, did just that -- not once but twice. First, he said: By the way,
[the Russians] hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 [missing] emails. I
hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted
because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see." Then, assumedly just
in case anyone had missed what he was getting at, he put it even more
bluntly: Russia, if you're listening: I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by
our press. Let's see if that happens."
And he lived to tell the tale and threaten to hit not Russian President
Vladimir Putin, but former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who dissed him
at the Democratic convention) so hard his head would spin. Its true that
a little flurry of press accounts reported on the way Trump had inserted
himself into an already roiling scandal involving the possible Russian cyber
hacking of the Democratic National Committees computers. Its also true
that various national security state types leapt, in typical Cold War
fashion, to accuse him of engaging in acts that were tantamount to
treason, or of having committed an actual, prosecutable crime. But they,
not The Donald, were clearly the dinosaurs of our post-asteroid moment.
For the first time in 70-plus years, an American politician made mockery of
the knowns and givens of the American national security state's definition
of The Enemy and got away scot-free. So consider Trumps plea to Putin as
an announcement that weve all been thrust willy-nilly into a new age, a new
era so strange that we need TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich, author of
Americas War for the Greater Middle East, to begin to unravel it for us.
Tom
The Decay of American Politics
An Ode to Ike and Adlai
By Andrew J. Bacevich
My earliest recollection of national politics dates back exactly 60 years to
the moment, in the summer of 1956, when I watched the political conventions
in the company of that wondrous new addition to our family, television. My
parents were supporting President Dwight D. Eisenhower for a second term and
that was good enough for me. Even as a youngster, I sensed that Ike, the
former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe in World War II, was
someone of real stature. In a troubled time, he exuded authority and
self-confidence. By comparison, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson came
across as vaguely suspect. Next to the five-star incumbent, he seemed soft,
even foppish, and therefore not up to the job. So at least it appeared to a
nine-year-old living in Chicagoland.
Of the seamy underside of politics I knew nothing, of course. On the
surface, all seemed reassuring. As if by divine mandate, two parties vied
for power. The views they represented defined the allowable range of
opinion. The outcome of any election expressed the collective will of the
people and was to be accepted as such. That I was growing up in the best
democracy the world had ever known -- its very existence a daily rebuke to
the enemies of freedom -- was beyond question.
Naïve? Embarrassingly so. Yet how I wish that Election Day in November
2016 might present Americans with something even loosely approximating the
alternatives available to them in November 1956. Oh, to choose once more
between an Ike and an Adlai.
Dont for a second think that this is about nostalgia. Today, Stevenson
doesnt qualify for anyones list of Great Americans. If remembered at all,
its for his sterling performance as President John F. Kennedys U.N.
ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Interrogating his Soviet
counterpart with cameras rolling, Stevenson barked that he was prepared to
wait until hell freezes over to get his questions answered about Soviet
military activities in Cuba. When the chips were down, Adlai proved anything
but soft. Yet in aspiring to the highest office in the land, he had come up
well short. In 1952, he came nowhere close to winning and in 1956 he proved
no more successful. Stevenson was to the Democratic Party what Thomas Dewey
had been to the Republicans: a luckless two-time loser.
As for Eisenhower, although there is much in his presidency to admire, his
errors of omission and commission were legion. During his two terms, from
Guatemala to Iran, the CIA overthrew governments, plotted assassinations,
and embraced unsavory right-wing dictators -- in effect, planting a series
of IEDs destined eventually to blow up in the face of Ikes various
successors. Meanwhile, binging on nuclear weapons, the Pentagon accumulated
an arsenal far beyond what even Eisenhower as commander-in-chief considered
prudent or necessary.
In addition, during his tenure in office, the military-industrial complex
became a rapacious juggernaut, an entity unto itself as Ike himself
belatedly acknowledged. By no means least of all, Eisenhower fecklessly
committed the United States to an ill-fated project of nation-building in a
country that just about no American had heard of at the time: South Vietnam.
Ike did give the nation eight years of relative peace and prosperity, but at
a high price -- most of the bills coming due long after he left office.
The Pathology of American Politics
And yet, and yet...
To contrast the virtues and shortcomings of Stevenson and Eisenhower with
those of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump is both instructive and
profoundly depressing. Comparing the adversaries of 1956 with their 2016
counterparts reveals with startling clarity what the decades-long decay of
American politics has wrought.
In 1956, each of the major political parties nominated a grown-up for the
highest office in the land. In 2016, only one has.
In 1956, both parties nominated likeable individuals who conveyed a basic
sense of trustworthiness. In 2016, neither party has done so.
In 1956, Americans could count on the election to render a definitive
verdict, the vote count affirming the legitimacy of the system itself and
allowing the business of governance to resume. In 2016, that is unlikely to
be the case. Whether Trump or Clinton ultimately prevails, large numbers of
Americans will view the result as further proof of rigged and irredeemably
corrupt political arrangements. Rather than inducing some semblance of
reconciliation, the outcome is likely to deepen divisions.
How in the name of all that is holy did we get into such a mess?
How did the party of Eisenhower, an architect of victory in World War II,
choose as its nominee a narcissistic TV celebrity who, with each successive
Tweet and verbal outburst, offers further evidence that he is totally
unequipped for high office? Yes, the establishment media are ganging up on
Trump, blatantly displaying the sort of bias normally kept at least
nominally under wraps. Yet never have such expressions of journalistic
hostility toward a particular candidate been more justified. Trump is a
bozo of such monumental proportions as to tax the abilities of our most
talented satirists. Were he alive today, Mark Twain at his most scathing
would be hard-pressed to do justice to The Donalds blowhard pomposity.
Similarly, how did the party of Adlai Stevenson, but also of Stevensons
hero Franklin Roosevelt, select as its candidate someone so widely disliked
and mistrusted even by many of her fellow Democrats? True, antipathy
directed toward Hillary Clinton draws some of its energy from incorrigible
sexists along with the vast right wing conspiracy whose members thoroughly
loathe both Clintons. Yet the antipathy is not without basis in fact.
Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of
entitlement combined with a nearly complete absence of accountability. She
shrugs off her misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003,
while serving as senator from New York. She neither explains nor apologizes
for pressing to depose Libyas Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most notable
accomplishment as secretary of state. We came, we saw, he died, she
bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen
into anarchy and become a haven for ISIS.
She clings to the demonstrably false claim that her use of a private server
for State Department business compromised no classified information. Now
opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) that she once described as
the gold standard in trade agreements, Clinton rejects charges of
political opportunism. That her change of heart occurred when attacking the
TPP was helping Bernie Sanders win one Democratic primary after another is
merely coincidental. Oh, and the big money accepted from banks and Wall
Street as well as the tech sector for minimal work and the bigger money
still from leading figures in the Israel lobby? Rest assured that her
acceptance of such largesse wont reduce by one iota her support for
working class families or her commitment to a just peace settlement in the
Middle East.
Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald
Trump. Yet together they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply
flawed candidate, notably so in matters related to national security.
Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related to
war and peace would be the height of folly. Yet her record in that regard
does not exactly inspire confidence.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trumps preference for off-the-cuff
utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic
regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose his staggering ignorance.
By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she
recites with practiced ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in
establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily connote soundness.
Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized Washington
playbook that President Obama himself has disparaged -- a faith-based
belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how the world
may be changing and heedless of costs.
On the latter point, note that Clintons acceptance speech in Philadelphia
included not a single mention of Afghanistan. By Election Day, the war
there will have passed its 15th anniversary. One might think that a
prospective commander-in-chief would have something to say about the longest
conflict in American history, one that continues with no end in sight. Yet,
with the Washington playbook offering few answers, Mrs. Clinton chooses to
remain silent on the subject.
So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving
off a cliff, a Clinton presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging
ones head against a brick wall without evident effect, wondering all the
while why it hurts so much.
Pseudo-Politics for an Ersatz Era
But lets not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the
product of circumstances that neither created. As candidates, they are
merely exploiting a situation -- one relying on intuition and vast stores of
brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent
studying how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in
securing the nominations of their parties is evidence of far more
fundamental forces at work.
In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something
pathological. Unless Americans identify the sources of this disease, it
will inevitably worsen, with dire consequences in the realm of national
security. After all, back in Eisenhowers day, the IEDs planted thanks to
reckless presidential decisions tended to blow up only years -- or even
decades -- later. For example, between the 1953 U.S.-engineered coup that
restored the Shah to his throne and the 1979 revolution that converted Iran
overnight from ally to adversary, more than a quarter of a century elapsed.
In our own day, however, detonation occurs so much more quickly -- witness
the almost instantaneous and explosively unhappy consequences of
Washingtons post-9/11 military interventions in the Greater Middle East.
So heres a matter worth pondering: How is it that all the months of
intensive fundraising, the debates and speeches, the caucuses and primaries,
the avalanche of TV ads and annoying robocalls have produced two
presidential candidates who tend to elicit from a surprisingly large number
of rank-and-file citizens disdain, indifference, or at best
hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever acquiescence?
Here, then, is a preliminary diagnosis of three of the factors contributing
to the erosion of American politics, offered from the conviction that, for
Americans to have better choices next time around, fundamental change must
occur -- and soon.
First, and most important, the evil effects of money: Need chapter and
verse? For a tutorial, see this essential 2015 book by Professor Lawrence
Lessig of Harvard: Republic Lost, Version 2.0. Those with no time for books
might spare 18 minutes for Lessigs brilliant and deeply disturbing TED
talk. Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States
radically changes the way it finances political campaigns, were pretty much
doomed to see our democracy wither and die.
Needless to say, moneyed interests and incumbents who benefit from existing
arrangements take a different view and collaborate to maintain the status
quo. As a result, political life has increasingly become a pursuit reserved
for those like Trump who possess vast personal wealth or for those like
Clinton who display an aptitude for persuading the well to do to open their
purses, with all that implies by way of compromise, accommodation, and the
subsequent repayment of favors.
Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy: Observers make
much of the fact that, in capturing the presidential nomination of a major
party, Hillary Clinton has shattered yet another glass ceiling. They are
right to do so. Yet the novelty of her candidacy starts and ends with
gender. When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer
than Clinton -- even if his version of fresh tends to be synonymous with
wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether hair-raising.
The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary
Clinton is utterly conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of
Americas role in the world) that originated during the Cold War, reached
its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the
planets sole superpower, and persists today remarkably unaffected by
actual events. On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by
routinely reaffirming her belief in American exceptionalism, paying fervent
tribute to the worlds greatest military, swearing that shell be
listening to our generals and admirals, and vowing to get tough on
Americas adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of the
contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived
need for the first female candidate for president to emphasize her
pugnacity.
A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same --
muscle-flexing and armed intervention to demonstrate American global
leadership -- albeit marketed with a garnish of diversity. Instead of
different policies, Clinton will offer an administration that has a
different look, touting this as evidence of positive change.
Yet while diversity may be a good thing, we should not confuse it with
effectiveness. A national security team that looks like America (to use
the phrase originally coined by Bill Clinton) does not necessarily govern
more effectively than one that looks like President Eisenhowers. What
matters is getting the job done.
Since the 1990s women have found plentiful opportunities to fill positions
in the upper echelons of the national security apparatus. Although we have
not yet had a female commander-in-chief, three women have served as
secretary of state and two as national security adviser. Several have
filled Adlai Stevensons old post at the United Nations. Undersecretaries,
deputy undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries of like gender abound,
along with a passel of female admirals and generals.
So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy
improved compared to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots?
Using as criteria the promotion of stability and the avoidance of armed
conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable),
the answer would, of course, have to be no. Although Madeleine Albright,
Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton herself might
entertain a different view, actually existing conditions in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and other countries across the
Greater Middle East and significant parts of Africa tell a different story.
The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely
the fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive
difference. It turns out that identity does not necessarily signify wisdom
or assure insight. Allocating positions of influence in the State
Department or the Pentagon based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation -- as Clinton will assuredly do -- may well gratify previously
disenfranchised groups. Little evidence exists to suggest that doing so
will produce more enlightened approaches to statecraft, at least not so long
as adherence to the Washington playbook figures as a precondition to
employment. (Should Clinton win in November, dont expect the redoubtable
ladies of Code Pink to be tapped for jobs at the Pentagon and State
Department.)
In the end, its not identity that matters but ideas and their
implementation. To contemplate the ideas that might guide a President Trump
along with those he will recruit to act on them -- Ivanka as national
security adviser? -- is enough to elicit shudders from any sane person. Yet
the prospect of Madam President surrounding herself with an impeccably
diverse team of advisers who share her own outmoded views is hardly cause
for celebration.
Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself
amend the defects exhibited in recent years. For that, the obsolete
principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington remains
enamored will have to be jettisoned. In his own bizarre way (albeit without
a clue as to a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that;
Hillary Clinton does not.
Third, the substitution of reality for reality: Back in 1962, a young
historian by the name of Daniel Boorstin published The Image: A Guide to
Pseudo-Events in America. In an age in which Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton vie to determine the nations destiny, it should be mandatory
reading. The Image remains, as when it first appeared, a fire bell ringing
in the night.
According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were
already living in a thicket of unreality. By relentlessly indulging in
ever more extravagant expectations, they were forfeiting their capacity to
distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin
wrote, We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them
for reality.
While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of
illusions, Americans themselves had become willing accomplices in the
process.
The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than
reality, where the image has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare
to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly
iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly
real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age.
These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves.
This, of course, was decades before the nation succumbed to the iridescent
allure of Facebook, Google, fantasy football, Real Housewives of
_________, selfies, smartphone apps, Game of Thrones, Pokémon GO -- and,
yes, the vehicle that vaulted Donald Trump to stardom, The Apprentice.
The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the
business of America, wrote Boorstin. Its also become the essence of
American politics, long since transformed into theater, or rather into some
sort of (un)reality show.
Presidential campaigns today are themselves, to use Boorstins famous term,
pseudo-events that stretch from months into years. By now, most Americans
know better than to take at face value anything candidates say or promise
along the way. Were in on the joke -- or at least we think we are.
Reinforcing that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have
abandoned mere reporting in favor of enhancing the spectacle of the moment.
This is especially true of the cable news networks, where talking heads
serve up a snide and cynical complement to the smarmy fakery that is the
office-seekers stock in trade. And we lap it up. It matters little that
we know its all staged and contrived, as long as -- a preening Megyn Kelly
getting under Trumps skin, Trump himself denouncing lyin Ted Cruz, etc.,
etc. -- its entertaining.
This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever
substance it still had back when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It
hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated an extraordinary
knack -- a sort of post-modern genius -- for turning this phenomenon to his
advantage. Yet in her own way Clinton plays the same game. How else to
explain a national convention organized around the idea of reintroducing to
the American people someone who served eight years as First Lady, was
elected to the Senate, failed in a previous high-profile run for the
presidency, and completed a term as secretary of state? The just-ended
conclave in Philadelphia was, like the Republican one that preceded it, a
pseudo-event par excellence, the object of the exercise being to fashion a
new image for the Democratic candidate.
The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become
all-enveloping. The problem is not Trump and Clinton, per se. Its an
identifiable set of arrangements -- laws, habits, cultural predispositions
-- that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades
American politics. As a direct consequence, the very concept of
self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly few
Americans seem to mind.
At an earlier juncture back in 1956, out of a population of 168 million, we
got Ike and Adlai. Today, with almost double the population, we get --
well, we get what weve got. This does not represent progress. And dont
kid yourself that things really cant get much worse. Unless Americans
rouse themselves to act, count on it, they will.
Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author most recently of
Americas War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest
Dispatch Book, Nick Turses Next Time Theyll Come to Count the Dead, and
Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars,
and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.
Copyright 2016 Andrew J. Bacevich
© 2016 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176172
Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich, Pseudo-Election 2016
By Andrew Bacevich
Posted on August 4, 2016, Printed on August 4, 2016
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176172/ ;
[Note for TomDispatch Readers: TD is taking this weekend off. Next post:
Tuesday, August 9th. Tom]
If youre of a certain age (as I am), theres something that should have
startled you recently and yet, as far as I know, no one has bothered to
mention it: anytime in the last seven decades, any American politician
running for any position from dogcatcher to president who had called on
Russias leaders for help in a domestic campaign (no less for them to
release the supposedly cyber-hacked emails of a former secretary of state)
would have been pilloried. His or her career would have instantly been over;
his or her reputation turned to ash; his or her future life, rubble. No
exceptions.
Yet the immortal Donald, the Incredible Hulk of present-day American
politics, did just that -- not once but twice. First, he said: By the way,
[the Russians] hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 [missing] emails. I
hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted
because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see." Then, assumedly just
in case anyone had missed what he was getting at, he put it even more
bluntly: Russia, if you're listening: I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by
our press. Let's see if that happens."
And he lived to tell the tale and threaten to hit not Russian President
Vladimir Putin, but former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (who dissed him
at the Democratic convention) so hard his head would spin. Its true that
a little flurry of press accounts reported on the way Trump had inserted
himself into an already roiling scandal involving the possible Russian cyber
hacking of the Democratic National Committees computers. Its also true
that various national security state types leapt, in typical Cold War
fashion, to accuse him of engaging in acts that were tantamount to
treason, or of having committed an actual, prosecutable crime. But they,
not The Donald, were clearly the dinosaurs of our post-asteroid moment.
For the first time in 70-plus years, an American politician made mockery of
the knowns and givens of the American national security state's definition
of The Enemy and got away scot-free. So consider Trumps plea to Putin as an
announcement that weve all been thrust willy-nilly into a new age, a new
era so strange that we need TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich, author of
Americas War for the Greater Middle East, to begin to unravel it for us.
Tom
The Decay of American Politics
An Ode to Ike and Adlai
By Andrew J. Bacevich
My earliest recollection of national politics dates back exactly 60 years to
the moment, in the summer of 1956, when I watched the political conventions
in the company of that wondrous new addition to our family, television. My
parents were supporting President Dwight D. Eisenhower for a second term and
that was good enough for me. Even as a youngster, I sensed that Ike, the
former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe in World War II, was
someone of real stature. In a troubled time, he exuded authority and
self-confidence. By comparison, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson came
across as vaguely suspect. Next to the five-star incumbent, he seemed soft,
even foppish, and therefore not up to the job. So at least it appeared to a
nine-year-old living in Chicagoland.
Of the seamy underside of politics I knew nothing, of course. On the
surface, all seemed reassuring. As if by divine mandate, two parties vied
for power. The views they represented defined the allowable range of
opinion. The outcome of any election expressed the collective will of the
people and was to be accepted as such. That I was growing up in the best
democracy the world had ever known -- its very existence a daily rebuke to
the enemies of freedom -- was beyond question.
Naïve? Embarrassingly so. Yet how I wish that Election Day in November 2016
might present Americans with something even loosely approximating the
alternatives available to them in November 1956. Oh, to choose once more
between an Ike and an Adlai.
Dont for a second think that this is about nostalgia. Today, Stevenson
doesnt qualify for anyones list of Great Americans. If remembered at all,
its for his sterling performance as President John F. Kennedys U.N.
ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Interrogating his Soviet
counterpart with cameras rolling, Stevenson barked that he was prepared to
wait until hell freezes over to get his questions answered about Soviet
military activities in Cuba. When the chips were down, Adlai proved anything
but soft. Yet in aspiring to the highest office in the land, he had come up
well short. In 1952, he came nowhere close to winning and in 1956 he proved
no more successful. Stevenson was to the Democratic Party what Thomas Dewey
had been to the Republicans: a luckless two-time loser.
As for Eisenhower, although there is much in his presidency to admire, his
errors of omission and commission were legion. During his two terms, from
Guatemala to Iran, the CIA overthrew governments, plotted assassinations,
and embraced unsavory right-wing dictators -- in effect, planting a series
of IEDs destined eventually to blow up in the face of Ikes various
successors. Meanwhile, binging on nuclear weapons, the Pentagon accumulated
an arsenal far beyond what even Eisenhower as commander-in-chief considered
prudent or necessary.
In addition, during his tenure in office, the military-industrial complex
became a rapacious juggernaut, an entity unto itself as Ike himself
belatedly acknowledged. By no means least of all, Eisenhower fecklessly
committed the United States to an ill-fated project of nation-building in a
country that just about no American had heard of at the time: South Vietnam.
Ike did give the nation eight years of relative peace and prosperity, but at
a high price -- most of the bills coming due long after he left office.
The Pathology of American Politics
And yet, and yet...
To contrast the virtues and shortcomings of Stevenson and Eisenhower with
those of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump is both instructive and
profoundly depressing. Comparing the adversaries of 1956 with their 2016
counterparts reveals with startling clarity what the decades-long decay of
American politics has wrought.
In 1956, each of the major political parties nominated a grown-up for the
highest office in the land. In 2016, only one has.
In 1956, both parties nominated likeable individuals who conveyed a basic
sense of trustworthiness. In 2016, neither party has done so.
In 1956, Americans could count on the election to render a definitive
verdict, the vote count affirming the legitimacy of the system itself and
allowing the business of governance to resume. In 2016, that is unlikely to
be the case. Whether Trump or Clinton ultimately prevails, large numbers of
Americans will view the result as further proof of rigged and irredeemably
corrupt political arrangements. Rather than inducing some semblance of
reconciliation, the outcome is likely to deepen divisions.
How in the name of all that is holy did we get into such a mess?
How did the party of Eisenhower, an architect of victory in World War II,
choose as its nominee a narcissistic TV celebrity who, with each successive
Tweet and verbal outburst, offers further evidence that he is totally
unequipped for high office? Yes, the establishment media are ganging up on
Trump, blatantly displaying the sort of bias normally kept at least
nominally under wraps. Yet never have such expressions of journalistic
hostility toward a particular candidate been more justified. Trump is a bozo
of such monumental proportions as to tax the abilities of our most talented
satirists. Were he alive today, Mark Twain at his most scathing would be
hard-pressed to do justice to The Donalds blowhard pomposity.
Similarly, how did the party of Adlai Stevenson, but also of Stevensons
hero Franklin Roosevelt, select as its candidate someone so widely disliked
and mistrusted even by many of her fellow Democrats? True, antipathy
directed toward Hillary Clinton draws some of its energy from incorrigible
sexists along with the vast right wing conspiracy whose members thoroughly
loathe both Clintons. Yet the antipathy is not without basis in fact.
Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of
entitlement combined with a nearly complete absence of accountability. She
shrugs off her misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003,
while serving as senator from New York. She neither explains nor apologizes
for pressing to depose Libyas Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most notable
accomplishment as secretary of state. We came, we saw, he died, she
bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen
into anarchy and become a haven for ISIS.
She clings to the demonstrably false claim that her use of a private server
for State Department business compromised no classified information. Now
opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) that she once described as
the gold standard in trade agreements, Clinton rejects charges of
political opportunism. That her change of heart occurred when attacking the
TPP was helping Bernie Sanders win one Democratic primary after another is
merely coincidental. Oh, and the big money accepted from banks and Wall
Street as well as the tech sector for minimal work and the bigger money
still from leading figures in the Israel lobby? Rest assured that her
acceptance of such largesse wont reduce by one iota her support for
working class families or her commitment to a just peace settlement in the
Middle East.
Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald
Trump. Yet together they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply
flawed candidate, notably so in matters related to national security.
Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related to
war and peace would be the height of folly. Yet her record in that regard
does not exactly inspire confidence.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trumps preference for off-the-cuff
utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic
regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose his staggering ignorance.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553393936/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553393936/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20By
comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she
recites with practiced ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in
establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily connote soundness.
Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized Washington
playbook that President Obama himself has disparaged -- a faith-based
belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how the world
may be changing and heedless of costs.
On the latter point, note that Clintons acceptance speech in Philadelphia
included not a single mention of Afghanistan. By Election Day, the war there
will have passed its 15th anniversary. One might think that a prospective
commander-in-chief would have something to say about the longest conflict in
American history, one that continues with no end in sight. Yet, with the
Washington playbook offering few answers, Mrs. Clinton chooses to remain
silent on the subject.
So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving
off a cliff, a Clinton presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging
ones head against a brick wall without evident effect, wondering all the
while why it hurts so much.
Pseudo-Politics for an Ersatz Era
But lets not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the
product of circumstances that neither created. As candidates, they are
merely exploiting a situation -- one relying on intuition and vast stores of
brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent
studying how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in
securing the nominations of their parties is evidence of far more
fundamental forces at work.
In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something
pathological. Unless Americans identify the sources of this disease, it will
inevitably worsen, with dire consequences in the realm of national security.
After all, back in Eisenhowers day, the IEDs planted thanks to reckless
presidential decisions tended to blow up only years -- or even decades --
later. For example, between the 1953 U.S.-engineered coup that restored the
Shah to his throne and the 1979 revolution that converted Iran overnight
from ally to adversary, more than a quarter of a century elapsed. In our own
day, however, detonation occurs so much more quickly -- witness the almost
instantaneous and explosively unhappy consequences of Washingtons post-9/11
military interventions in the Greater Middle East.
So heres a matter worth pondering: How is it that all the months of
intensive fundraising, the debates and speeches, the caucuses and primaries,
the avalanche of TV ads and annoying robocalls have produced two
presidential candidates who tend to elicit from a surprisingly large number
of rank-and-file citizens disdain, indifference, or at best
hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever acquiescence?
Here, then, is a preliminary diagnosis of three of the factors contributing
to the erosion of American politics, offered from the conviction that, for
Americans to have better choices next time around, fundamental change must
occur -- and soon.
First, and most important, the evil effects of money: Need chapter and
verse? For a tutorial, see this essential 2015 book by Professor Lawrence
Lessig of Harvard: Republic Lost, Version 2.0. Those with no time for books
might spare 18 minutes for Lessigs brilliant and deeply disturbing TED
talk. Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States
radically changes the way it finances political campaigns, were pretty much
doomed to see our democracy wither and die.
Needless to say, moneyed interests and incumbents who benefit from existing
arrangements take a different view and collaborate to maintain the status
quo. As a result, political life has increasingly become a pursuit reserved
for those like Trump who possess vast personal wealth or for those like
Clinton who display an aptitude for persuading the well to do to open their
purses, with all that implies by way of compromise, accommodation, and the
subsequent repayment of favors.
Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy: Observers make
much of the fact that, in capturing the presidential nomination of a major
party, Hillary Clinton has shattered yet another glass ceiling. They are
right to do so. Yet the novelty of her candidacy starts and ends with
gender. When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer
than Clinton -- even if his version of fresh tends to be synonymous with
wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether hair-raising.
The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary
Clinton is utterly conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of
Americas role in the world) that originated during the Cold War, reached
its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the
planets sole superpower, and persists today remarkably unaffected by
actual events. On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by
routinely reaffirming her belief in American exceptionalism, paying fervent
tribute to the worlds greatest military, swearing that shell be
listening to our generals and admirals, and vowing to get tough on
Americas adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of the
contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived
need for the first female candidate for president to emphasize her
pugnacity.
A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same --
muscle-flexing and armed intervention to demonstrate American global
leadership -- albeit marketed with a garnish of diversity. Instead of
different policies, Clinton will offer an administration that has a
different look, touting this as evidence of positive change.
Yet while diversity may be a good thing, we should not confuse it with
effectiveness. A national security team that looks like America (to use
the phrase originally coined by Bill Clinton) does not necessarily govern
more effectively than one that looks like President Eisenhowers. What
matters is getting the job done.
Since the 1990s women have found plentiful opportunities to fill positions
in the upper echelons of the national security apparatus. Although we have
not yet had a female commander-in-chief, three women have served as
secretary of state and two as national security adviser. Several have filled
Adlai Stevensons old post at the United Nations. Undersecretaries, deputy
undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries of like gender abound, along
with a passel of female admirals and generals.
So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy
improved compared to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots?
Using as criteria the promotion of stability and the avoidance of armed
conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable),
the answer would, of course, have to be no. Although Madeleine Albright,
Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton herself might
entertain a different view, actually existing conditions in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and other countries across the
Greater Middle East and significant parts of Africa tell a different story.
The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely
the fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive
difference. It turns out that identity does not necessarily signify wisdom
or assure insight. Allocating positions of influence in the State Department
or the Pentagon based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation --
as Clinton will assuredly do -- may well gratify previously disenfranchised
groups. Little evidence exists to suggest that doing so will produce more
enlightened approaches to statecraft, at least not so long as adherence to
the Washington playbook figures as a precondition to employment. (Should
Clinton win in November, dont expect the redoubtable ladies of Code Pink to
be tapped for jobs at the Pentagon and State Department.)
In the end, its not identity that matters but ideas and their
implementation. To contemplate the ideas that might guide a President Trump
along with those he will recruit to act on them -- Ivanka as national
security adviser? -- is enough to elicit shudders from any sane person. Yet
the prospect of Madam President surrounding herself with an impeccably
diverse team of advisers who share her own outmoded views is hardly cause
for celebration.
Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself
amend the defects exhibited in recent years. For that, the obsolete
principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington remains
enamored will have to be jettisoned. In his own bizarre way (albeit without
a clue as to a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that;
Hillary Clinton does not.
Third, the substitution of reality for reality: Back in 1962, a young
historian by the name of Daniel Boorstin published The Image: A Guide to
Pseudo-Events in America. In an age in which Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton vie to determine the nations destiny, it should be mandatory
reading. The Image remains, as when it first appeared, a fire bell ringing
in the night.
According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were
already living in a thicket of unreality. By relentlessly indulging in
ever more extravagant expectations, they were forfeiting their capacity to
distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin
wrote, We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them
for reality.
While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of
illusions, Americans themselves had become willing accomplices in the
process.
The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than
reality, where the image has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare
to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly
iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly
real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These
are the hoaxes we play on ourselves.
This, of course, was decades before the nation succumbed to the iridescent
allure of Facebook, Google, fantasy football, Real Housewives of
_________, selfies, smartphone apps, Game of Thrones, Pokémon GO -- and,
yes, the vehicle that vaulted Donald Trump to stardom, The Apprentice.
The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the
business of America, wrote Boorstin. Its also become the essence of
American politics, long since transformed into theater, or rather into some
sort of (un)reality show.
Presidential campaigns today are themselves, to use Boorstins famous term,
pseudo-events that stretch from months into years. By now, most Americans
know better than to take at face value anything candidates say or promise
along the way. Were in on the joke -- or at least we think we are.
Reinforcing that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have
abandoned mere reporting in favor of enhancing the spectacle of the moment.
This is especially true of the cable news networks, where talking heads
serve up a snide and cynical complement to the smarmy fakery that is the
office-seekers stock in trade. And we lap it up. It matters little that we
know its all staged and contrived, as long as -- a preening Megyn Kelly
getting under Trumps skin, Trump himself denouncing lyin Ted Cruz, etc.,
etc. -- its entertaining.
This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever
substance it still had back when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It
hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated an extraordinary
knack -- a sort of post-modern genius -- for turning this phenomenon to his
advantage. Yet in her own way Clinton plays the same game. How else to
explain a national convention organized around the idea of reintroducing to
the American people someone who served eight years as First Lady, was
elected to the Senate, failed in a previous high-profile run for the
presidency, and completed a term as secretary of state? The just-ended
conclave in Philadelphia was, like the Republican one that preceded it, a
pseudo-event par excellence, the object of the exercise being to fashion a
new image for the Democratic candidate.
The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become
all-enveloping. The problem is not Trump and Clinton, per se. Its an
identifiable set of arrangements -- laws, habits, cultural predispositions
-- that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades
American politics. As a direct consequence, the very concept of
self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly few
Americans seem to mind.
At an earlier juncture back in 1956, out of a population of 168 million, we
got Ike and Adlai. Today, with almost double the population, we get -- well,
we get what weve got. This does not represent progress. And dont kid
yourself that things really cant get much worse. Unless Americans rouse
themselves to act, count on it, they will.
Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author most recently of
Americas War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest
Dispatch Book, Nick Turses Next Time Theyll Come to Count the Dead, and
Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars,
and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.
Copyright 2016 Andrew J. Bacevich
© 2016 TomDispatch. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176172