[Peace-discuss] Pander-Bear...Ack!

[David Green]

I think it is possible both that George Bush is stupid at the analytical level to which Vidal refers, but smart and consciously self-interested in pursuing the narrow ends of the permanent government at the extreme end of the spectrum, while still needing the help of some smarter people who use their intelligence to scare the public by lying to it.
   
  I more disagree with Vidal in his view that the public is also stupid, and in fact he contradicts himself in his reference to "amnesia." That word should apply to something that is known and then not remembered. But as Vidal comments, the public has never been taught the truth about our history in the first place, due to our educational system.
   
  DG

"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
  
  On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

  The Financial Times, to my mind the best general English-language newspaper today, points out that -- despite rhetorical divergences -- there are no major differences in general Mideast war policy among Obama, McCain, Clinton and Bush.  From the article cited above,

"...For all the difference in temperament and outlook between them, many analysts and insiders say there are important points of continuity between the three main presidential campaigns' policies on the Middle East, despite the many controversies in the region.

"...Even on Iraq, the great divisive issue in US politics, some observers caution that, in the end, there might be less difference between the candidates' approach than first meets the eye."

Two points seem clear:

[1] In the US, policy -- particularly foreign policy -- is largely insulated from politics.  The permanent government follows a consistent policy, however nefarious, and regularly scheduled elections function more as a distraction from it than as a process of decision about it: we think we're making public decisions (as in the elections of of 2006 and 2008), but in fact the possibilities are so carefully constructed that they will make no difference in the general policy.  But it gives the electorate something to do.

[2] The current wars in the Middle East, far from reflecting he peculiar ignorance or stupidity of George Bush (as Gore Vidal seemed to argue on Democracy Now! this morning) are well within the (narrow) policy spectrum discussed within the American government for generations, if at one end of that spectrum.  And -- as the House Democrats admit by funding the war well into the next administration -- the new president will intend no real change, whoever s/he is.  On war, the election of 2008 is like the election of 1968 -- regardless of its outcome, the new president will continue the war, with at best tactical changes.  --CGE

So why aren't we still fighting in Viet Nam?  What exactly caused the change in policy that resulted in Nixon pulling the troops out, rather precipitously, citing "peace with honor"?
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080514/1d4e09e0/attachment.htm