I promised not a word about Don Imus, so let’s say this is a word or two about democracy. Because what’s most depressing about the latest ritual of public humiliation is how irrelevant and inconsequential it is; how it is conducted at a level of incomprehension and obfuscation that’s perfectly attuned to the new American social order. Is he racist, isn’t he? Should he be fired, shouldn’t he? Does he do good works, doesn’t he? Did he really apologize, didn’t he? None of that comes close to touching the basic question.
That question is, how can it be, in a so-called democracy, that one man or putting them all together a small group of men get paid millions of dollars to monopolize the airwaves with their own opinions and prevent 99+% of the population from expressing theirs? This incredibly closed system of public communications is perfectly designed for an authoritarian state, the state of Caesar, of Bonaparte, of Peron, of Berlusconi, of Putin. It is a system designed to prevent democracy from happening and–in combination with various other aspects of the American polity that we need not go into here–that is exactly what it does.
Whoever you are, reading this, there is not one articulable reason in the world why Don Imus should have five minutes more of access to public space than you should; some of you in fact deserve a good bit more (I won’t name names). Democracy is a political system in which public policies are adopted and public leaders chosen by a majority (with the usual qualifications for a constitutional democracy), after full and free public discussion of all the available options. No free discussion, no democracy. In the name of “the free market” we destroy public freedom.
Someone will say something about “the people.” Please don’t do that within my hearing. What’s that got to do with anything? We’re not choosing someone to sing the national anthem at half-time, or casting a movie. If your opinions are so wonderful, write a book and let Amazon sell it, and anyone who wants to can buy it. And anyone else can write their own to answer you. But not if Fox or Clear Channels or CBS or whoever gives you the right–that is, the arbitrary power–to take over public space that they are (or should be) allowed to own only because they are providing a “public service.” They provide rather a fundamental disservice, as they prevent public discourse from happening and so clear the way for authoritarianism and oligarchy.
As Marx might have said (I’m sure he did, I just can’t find the citation), “Don Imus is not an evil man;” he is just one minor personification in the vast panoply of monopolized public life that represents capital’s insatiable drive, and its unchecked power, to reproduce and increase itself, and above all, to reproduce the social conditions of its own reproduction. Somewhere the god of Capital is chuckling at the spectacle of Leslie Moonves, through whom it really works its will, self-righteously condemning Don Imus, about whose nonsense it couldn’t care less.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Conventional Lies: 2
By “conventional lies” I mean simply commonplace expressions in the media that follow manipulative political discourse uncritically and thereby pollute the field of public discourse.
1. There is a “war” in Iraq.
No, there isn’t a war in Iraq, at least not so far as the U.S. is concerned. Just look around you–where’s the war? Look at the daily newspapers–where’s the war? Take a look, say, at The New York Times for April 15, 1943; or April 15, 1951; or even April 15, 1967. There were wars on! You could follow them day by day, what ground was taken, lost, what were the casualties on each side, not to mention what was being done or not done to pay for the wars. What we have in Iraq, quite contrastingly, is an occupation. To say that the US is at war in Iraq in 2007 is like saying that Germany was at war in Denmark in 1943. Of course the Iraqi resistance is better armed than the Danish resistance was, so there are casualties among the occupying forces. Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. But that’s still not “war.” So everything that follows from the constant public lies about being “at war” is itself a lie. Call it “withholding funds from the occupation” and everything changes. Or try “losing the occupation is not an acceptable alternative.” What?
2. Afghanistan is a front in the “war on terror.”
No, actually Afghanistan is a “front,” the only front, in the war! The US is at war in Afghanistan, though nobody in public office or the media seems to notice this, and it’s not a “war on terror,” whatever that chimerical beast would be like. There’s a civil war in Afghanistan and the US is deeply involved in it–well, we started it when you come right down to it–as one of several contending parties. We are making war on the Taliban, and several tribal warlords and god knows who else, and in the usual way of modern warfare, especially anti-guerrilla warfare, we kill civilians right and left. What else is new?
What you might say is that the United States invaded two countries with which it was not at war, and one of the invasions turned into an occupation, and the other turned into...a war. And neither one is discussed, debated, funded, or whatever, as what it is. The Ministry of Truth is well at work. It’s true that Bonaparte managed to eke out only 51% of his referendum in his last election. But he still holds on to about 90% of the mass media, which are happy to allow their coverage of “debate” to proceed entirely on Bonaparte’s terms. That the people have turned against the murderous charade is a testament to our mass disgust with such obvious and expensively fruitless lie-telling, not to any general public understanding of the issues. Still, any port in a storm. But if we don’t wonder about the supposed foundations of “democracy” in free public discourse, we aren’t wondering about anything.
1. There is a “war” in Iraq.
No, there isn’t a war in Iraq, at least not so far as the U.S. is concerned. Just look around you–where’s the war? Look at the daily newspapers–where’s the war? Take a look, say, at The New York Times for April 15, 1943; or April 15, 1951; or even April 15, 1967. There were wars on! You could follow them day by day, what ground was taken, lost, what were the casualties on each side, not to mention what was being done or not done to pay for the wars. What we have in Iraq, quite contrastingly, is an occupation. To say that the US is at war in Iraq in 2007 is like saying that Germany was at war in Denmark in 1943. Of course the Iraqi resistance is better armed than the Danish resistance was, so there are casualties among the occupying forces. Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. But that’s still not “war.” So everything that follows from the constant public lies about being “at war” is itself a lie. Call it “withholding funds from the occupation” and everything changes. Or try “losing the occupation is not an acceptable alternative.” What?
2. Afghanistan is a front in the “war on terror.”
No, actually Afghanistan is a “front,” the only front, in the war! The US is at war in Afghanistan, though nobody in public office or the media seems to notice this, and it’s not a “war on terror,” whatever that chimerical beast would be like. There’s a civil war in Afghanistan and the US is deeply involved in it–well, we started it when you come right down to it–as one of several contending parties. We are making war on the Taliban, and several tribal warlords and god knows who else, and in the usual way of modern warfare, especially anti-guerrilla warfare, we kill civilians right and left. What else is new?
What you might say is that the United States invaded two countries with which it was not at war, and one of the invasions turned into an occupation, and the other turned into...a war. And neither one is discussed, debated, funded, or whatever, as what it is. The Ministry of Truth is well at work. It’s true that Bonaparte managed to eke out only 51% of his referendum in his last election. But he still holds on to about 90% of the mass media, which are happy to allow their coverage of “debate” to proceed entirely on Bonaparte’s terms. That the people have turned against the murderous charade is a testament to our mass disgust with such obvious and expensively fruitless lie-telling, not to any general public understanding of the issues. Still, any port in a storm. But if we don’t wonder about the supposed foundations of “democracy” in free public discourse, we aren’t wondering about anything.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Index
Since the blog index that's provided (by whom or what?) only archives by dates, I'm interjecting my own index here for anyone who's read something and wonders what else there is:
(All 2007)
January 11, "Second Thoughts on Intervention"
January 17, "Conventional Lies"
January 24, "Three Great Lyric Poems"
January 30, "American Caesar"
February 4, "Killing Dragons and Torturing Terrorists"
February 6, "50 Great Detective Novels"
February 13, more on "Humanitarian Intervention"
February 28, Letter to the Nation on Impeachment
March 8, on Tom Friedman
March 12, "The Impeachment of Dick Cheney"
March 14, on the Justice Department
March 21, "Tom Friedman Redux"--let's hope for the last time
April 4, "Exchange on Race and Justice" with Lenny Quart
April 11fffff--not a single word on Don Imus
(All 2007)
January 11, "Second Thoughts on Intervention"
January 17, "Conventional Lies"
January 24, "Three Great Lyric Poems"
January 30, "American Caesar"
February 4, "Killing Dragons and Torturing Terrorists"
February 6, "50 Great Detective Novels"
February 13, more on "Humanitarian Intervention"
February 28, Letter to the Nation on Impeachment
March 8, on Tom Friedman
March 12, "The Impeachment of Dick Cheney"
March 14, on the Justice Department
March 21, "Tom Friedman Redux"--let's hope for the last time
April 4, "Exchange on Race and Justice" with Lenny Quart
April 11fffff--not a single word on Don Imus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)