Following up on this post, it appears indeed that some 70% of Americans wish to reduce or defund the war entirely (Question #15). If the poll is accurate (and it does seem that most recent polls corroborate these figures to a great extent), then we have a real synaptic disconnect at work here. How can 2/3 of a nation claim to be in opposition to an enormously major issue, and yet do absolutely nothing significant about it?
You want to defund the war, then defund the system, delegitimize the institutions, the spokesweasels, the mealy-mouthed punditocracy and their corporate running-dog factoid-reading sidekicks. And then vote with your dollars and your patronage, reflect it in what you drive and where your food comes from. If 200 million people are on board just to that small extent, it will make a much greater dent than any undercounted march on the National Mall.
Money is the only thing these fuckers understand. Clearly the Democrats are not going to gather the collective spine to do anything about this, and I am starting to wonder about what kind of monkey-wrench a focused, disciplined, well-funded third-party candidacy could throw in all this.
This is not a plea for Ralph Nader to jump back in, anything but. But I'm old enough to remember John Anderson, and before Reagan toddled up and became everyone's favorite grampa, Anderson had a real shot at giving voice to disaffected Democrats who had been skewered with stagflation and a flailing foreign policy. I wouldn't have guessed it at the beginning of this summer, when change still seemed not only possible but likely, but continuing in the current direction of gutless incrementalism and puling ineffectuality, the early primary season opens up some possibilities. And a cynical pseudo-populist appeal from a Bloomberg-Hagel or some such ticket come April, when the major-party nominees are settled, would give a lot of people a chance to say "fuck you" to Democratic listlessness.
I don't say that out of hope, but rather fear, because the Perot factor cuts both ways, and another six months of calculated pussyfooting will likely cause more Dems to stray from the reservation than on the GOP side, no matter what James Dobson is threatening. And even gutless incrementalism is better than sociopathic aggression and toxic ignorance.
But in the end, people vote for how they see themselves, and nobody sees themselves as a capitulating pantywaist. Aside from that, the only thing we can control is how we spend our money. If we actually care as much as we tell the pollsters we do, we'll start there. Anything less is just self-serving bullshit people tell themselves to avoid the truth.
How can 2/3 of a nation claim to be in opposition to an enormously major issue, and yet do absolutely nothing significant about it?
ReplyDeleteCuz that nation is AMURKA!
Seriously, though, it doesn't seem that strange to me. Getting into a war, getting out of one; it doesn't matter, because someone else will do it for us while we go shopping. As long as nothing threatens the daily bread and circuses, nothing's ever going to change. And we sure as shit aren't going to voluntarily put a stop to that!
I recently read Andrew Bacevich, and he spent a little time exploring Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech of July 15, '79:
"In July 1979, Carter already anticipated that a continuing and unchecked thirst for imported oil was sure to distort U.S. strategic priorities, with unforeseen but adverse consequences. He feared the impact of that distortion on an American democracy still reeling from the effects of the 1960s. So he summoned his fellow citizens to change course, to choose self-sufficiency and self-reliance and therefore true independence - but at a cost of collective sacrifice and lowered expectations."
Of course, we know how well that went over: we elected a Hollywood cowboy who promised us a cultural Fountain of Youth while giving our collective narcissistic ego a big ol' handjob. I don't see any reason to believe we've grown up any since then, or that a similar message would meet with any greater approval today. Imagine if, say, one of our Democratic candidates called for this year's Black Friday to be, instead of a consumerist orgy, a day of mourning for all the Iraqi citizens that went to early graves because of us, anywhere from half a million to a full million. Imagine they invite us to spend the day somberly reflecting on the repercussions of our actions while trying to envision how we can prevent such a moral catastrophe from ever occuring again. Yes, imagine they actually call it a moral catastrophe, not merely a strategic mistake, and suggest that we should actually feel very ashamed of ourselves. And no, I'm not high right now.
I think we could safely write that person off from ever holding office again.