"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." -- Henry David Thoreau

To me, this quote from Thoreau expresses the only rational, moral and humane stance that a citizen can take toward the vast and brutal machinery of the American imperial state in our time. The crimes of this state are monstrous, and mounting. But what is worse is that these crimes are not aberrations; they are the very essence of the system -- they are its goal, its product, its lifeblood.

And what is this crimeful essence? Matt Taibbi described it well in a recent article:

Our Western society quite openly embraces war as a means of solving problems, and for quite some time now has fashioned its entire social and economic structure around the preparation for war.

I believe this is an indisputable fact. Decades of historical evidence give it proof. The last three decades especially have seen the relentless acceleration of this systemic evolution. The quality of life for ordinary Americans, those outside the golden circle of the elite and their retainers, has decayed immeasurably – and measurably. Stagnant wages. Degraded infrastructure. A poisoned food chain. Whole communities -- with all their social, political, cultural and family networks -- gutted by the heedless flight of capital to cheap labor (and slave labor) markets abroad, and by the dissolution of an embodied economic life into the shadow-play of high finance, the ghostly manipulation of numbers that produces nothing of value except gargantuan profits for a very few. A bonfire of public amenities, making daily life harder, harsher, constricted, diminished. Ever-growing social and economic disparity, shrinking the circle of opportunity. Two million citizens behind bars, in prisons overflowing with non-violent drug cases – nightmarish institutions given over to gangs, neglect, punitive regimens and private profit.

Yet this long, grinding process of diminishment and degradation has been accompanied by a never-ending expansion of the war machine into a dominant position over almost every aspect of American life. Not even the ending of the Cold War slowed this excrescence; defense budgets grew, new enemies were found, there were new missions, new commands, new wars. The ruling elite of American society were – and are – obviously willing to let the welfare, prosperity, opportunities and liberties of the common people sink deeper and deeper into the mire, in order to finance a system structured around war, with all the attendant corruption, brutalization and accrual of authoritarian power that war brings.

This is the system we have. It’s right out in the open. There is a deep-rooted expectation – and not, alas, just among the elite -- that the world should jump to America’s tune, by force if necessary. And when, for whatever reason, some part of the world does not jump – or bump and grind – to the Potomac beat, then it becomes a “problem” that must be “solved,” by one means or another, with, of course, “all options on the table,” all the time. And whether these “problems” are approached with blunt, bullying talk or a degree of cajolery and pious rhetoric, the chosen stance is always backed up with the ever-present threat of military action, up to and including the last of those “options” that always decorate the table: utter annihilation.

This is not even questioned, must less debated or challenged. America’s right to intervene in the affairs other nations by violent force (along with a constant series of illegal covert activities) – and to impose an empire of military plantations across the length and breadth of the entire planet – is the basic assumption, the underlying principle, the fervently held faith shared by both national parties, and the entire elite Establishment. And if you want to have the necessary instruments to maintain such a state of hegemony, then you must indeed structure your society and economy around war.

Many nations – all vanished now – have done this. The Roman Empire was one. Nazi Germany was another. At great cost to the economic, social and political life of ordinary Germans, Adolf Hitler geared the state to produce the war machine necessary to assert the dominance in world affairs which he felt was Germany’s natural right. One of his chief aims was to procure enough “living space” and natural resources in Eastern Europe to compete with America’s growing economic might. The Holocaust of European Jews was, for all its horror, just a preliminary to the greater “ethnic cleansing” to come. As historian Adam Tooze reminds us in The Wages of Destruction, the Nazis had drawn up detailed plans for the extermination – by active mass murder and deliberate starvation – of up to 40 million East Europeans.

Today, we all recognize the inhuman madness behind this hegemonic ambition. We shake our heads and say, “Whatever evils we may be accused of, we have never and would never do such a thing.” Perhaps. But leaving aside for a moment the millions – millions – of African slaves and Native Americans who died in order to procure the living space and natural resources of North and South America for European peoples, it is clear that most Americans – the elite above all – can easily countenance the deaths of, say, more than one million innocent Iraqis, or upwards of three million Southeast Asians, without any disturbance in their sense of national righteousness, their bedrock belief that the United States has the natural right, even the duty, to assert its hegemony over world affairs.

The mass murder in Iraq, the horrible slaughter in Vietnam and Cambodia, the direct involvement in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia, Latin America, and the Iran-Iraq War – to name just a few such operations carried out within the last generation – are regarded as actions which, however "mistaken" some might feel them to have been, were undertaken in good faith, to "preserve our way of life" from this or that imminent, overwhelming threat to our very national existence. [Which was, of course, the same reasoning Hitler used to justify his militarism: the urgent need to protect the German people from maniacal, irrational, bloodsworn enemies bent on their total destruction.]

And let us not forget that American war planners also drew up detailed plans involving the extermination of tens of millions of East Europeans in "first strike" nuclear attacks – plans which they often urged national leaders to put into practice. And even today, the constantly asserted vow to keep the nuclear option "on the table" at all times means that every single action or policy toward a "problem" nation carries with it the explicit threat to kill millions of people – to outdo the Holocaust in a matter of minutes.

Can one really look at such plans and attitudes, and at the towering, Everest-like mountain of corpses produced by American polices – just in the last generation – and say that there is not also a form of inhuman madness behind this hegemonic ambition as well? Is this really a system that one can be associated with honorably in any way? What should we think about a person who wants to lead such a system, who wants to take hold of the driving wheel of the war machine, to use it, to expand it, to accept all of its premises, to keep all of its horrific "options" forever on the table, to feed it and gorge it and coddle it and appease it at every turn, while millions of their own people sink further into degradation and diminishment?

Shouldn't someone who knowingly, willingly, eagerly bent all of their energies toward taking power in such a system instantly and irretrievably forfeit our regard and support? Should we really give such a "leader" the benefit of the doubt, cut him some slack, be ready to praise him when he or his government momentarily behaves in a normal, rational or legal manner? Should we grimly insist that he is the only choice we have, that his heart is probably in the right place, and that all we can do is try and cajole him into being "better"? 

II.
In the light of these considerations, it is astonishing to see what has been the main reaction of many leading progressive writers to Barack Obama's murderous escalation of the imperial war in Afghanistan and the dirty war in Pakistan. While voicing their "disappointment" with the decision, they have reserved most of their scorn not for the man who has ordered this new tranche of mass death and inhuman suffering, but for those who have accused Obama of "betrayal."

No, that's not a joke. The new progressive line on the escalation seems to be this: "We knew all along he was going to do it, so what's the big deal?"

That has been the chief response from such high-profile progressives as Digby and Joan Walsh. They seem far more worked up about the fact that some people (such as Tom Hayden, Gary Wills, and others) are accusing Obama of "betrayal" than they are about the thousands of innocent people who will die from Obama's decision, and the long-reverberating evil, at home and abroad, this escalation will engender.

Both Digby and Walsh are at great pains to establish how savvy they have been about Obama from the very beginning. For example, Digby writes: "I never had any illusions about where he and most of the other Democrats were headed with the "Good War" narrative. It always ends up the same way." She ridicules Hayden for declaring, during the campaign, that "all American progressives should unite for Barack Obama," and for now being disappointed that the president is not "the second coming of Gandhi, Houdini and Jesus Christ," as Digby scornfully describes Hayden's earlier belief. 

Fair enough. It's true that Obama made no secret of his intent to escalate the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and anyone who didn't expect him to do so was being wilfully blind, or naive. On the other hand, what these savvy commentators fail to note is that Obama has already escalated the Af-Pak war, earlier in his term -- an escalation as large as Bush's "surge" in Iraq. And obviously, this effort didn't work; hence the latest "strategic review" that led to Obama's fateful West Point speech. So although Obama did promise to escalate the Af-Pak conflict during the campaign, he did not promise to keep doing it, over and over, even in the face of obvious failure. Thus it is not inherently "silly" or irrational for an Obama supporter like Hayden or Wills to feel betrayed by this second escalation, and by the transparently specious rationales that Obama offered for it.

But let's leave that aside. For the main issue regarding the escalation is not whether Tom Hayden is silly or if he was too gushing or naive in his earlier support of Obama; the main issue is the actual reality of this murderous course. And here, we come to the matter of the progressives' self-proclaimed savviness.

Digby and Walsh and other savvy progressives say they knew all along that Obama was going to embark on a horrific policy which would inevitably result in the needless death of innocent people, the further war-profiteering corruption of our own political system, and the exacerbation of extremism, hatred, strife and destabilization around the world. Yet they still stretched every nerve and sinew exhorting people to vote for him in the presidential election. Indeed, the entire campaign thrust of these savvy, realistic, pragmatic progressives could be summed up in one oddly familiar line: "All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama."

And even as she denigrates Tom Hayden – who at least put his actual body and liberty on the line to oppose an unjust war in Vietnam, taking to the streets in direct action against the state, which then put him on trial as part of the "Chicago Seven" – Digby herself wrings her hands and says we all had no choice but to vote for Obama. There was only him and Hillary, then only him and McCain; what else could we do? Even if we knew – as Digby and Walsh say they knew – that Obama was going to murder people, destabilize the world and continue the Empire's monstrous Terror War, we had no other choice but to vote for him.

No other choice. What else could we do? Aside from the third parties offering alternatives to what Digby calls "a moderate [Democrat] and a doddering right wing fool with his ignoramus running mate," one wonders if our progressives have ever heard of Thoreau -- who, like Hayden, put his actual body and liberty on the line to disassociate himself from a system he regarded as deeply immoral?

In any case, according to our progressives, not only was there no choice but voting for Obama, there is no justification now for criticizing him for doing what we savvy people knew he was going to do. Anyone who, like Hayden and Wills, is now breaking ranks with Obama over Afghanistan is just "having a fit," and being "silly" and "puerile."

No, it seems that the only thing that responsible, savvy progressives can do now is keep faith with the president – keep up our contacts with the Administration, keep our feet "inside the tent," keep our savvy listservs going -- and "push [Obama] to better solutions," as Walsh tells us.

I find all of this remarkable. Again, it's not that Digby, Walsh and others are uncritical of Obama's decision. Walsh declares herself "deeply disappointed, saddened even" by the escalation, and Digby thunders, or rather, sighs, that she wishes "Obama had changed his mind on Afghanistan, and argued for him to do it." She will even "continue to do so" – that is, argue for Obama to change his imperial mind. To argue, appeal, petition, and encourage the leader to better solutions. But obviously there will be none of that civil disobedience stuff that silly-billy Tom Hayden and his ilk pulled in their time.

In fact, Digby seems to slam Hayden directly for the "silliness" of his "behavior" in "his heyday" – that is, when he was taking direct action to try to stop an immoral war. She says of his denunciation of Obama's betrayal: "It's this kind of behavior that has given liberals a bad name since Hayden was in his heyday."

Well, we all need to mind our behavior, of course, just as our parents sternly admonished us. So by all means, let us not be indecorous in our opposition to murder and corruption. Let us not be intemperate in our resistance to evil. And for god's sake, let us not be silly or "have fits" in our dissent against atrocity, deceit and destruction.

I hold no special brief for Tom Hayden, who over the years turned into a standard hack politician, nor do I endorse every point of his new dissent. But if he is using what is left of his notoriety to speak out against this monstrous war and its escalation – for whatever reason, even a baseless sense of "betrayal" – then I say more power to him. What on God's green earth does it matter if someone says they feel "betrayed" by Obama's decision or not? In the light of the death and destruction to come, how could that possibly be important? And how could defending Obama against this charge of betrayal be such a major concern – for people who say they oppose the decision and decry its consequences?

But this is the kind of schizophrenic reaction -- "the president is a murderer/we must vote for the president" -- that is bred by the acceptance of an inhuman system. Thus we see these strange diversions among our leading dissidents ("Silly old Hayden!"), these partisan splittings of infinitesimal hairs ("our guy is 2% less evil than their guy, so we have no choice but to vote for him").

We also see the strange phenomenon, among almost all leading progressives, of leavening criticism of the system with praise for any "constructive" actions or decisions its leaders might produce. For example, Glenn Greenwald recently set out some recommendations on how rational citizens can avoid "the behaviors that turned the Right into a dissent-stifling cult of personality erected around George W. Bush."

Greenwald noted several ways in which right-wing activists muted any ideological or philosophical objections they might have had to a specific Bush policy – his vast expansion of the federal government, for example, which should have been anathema to movement conservatives – and instead rallied blindly around the Leader, no matter what. He then detailed – and rightly condemned – some of the many, many instances when progressive activists have done the same with Obama, and makes the unassailable argument that the justice of a particular cause (public health care, gay rights, torture, civil liberties, etc.) should far outweigh any partisan worries about Obama's political standing.

Most of his recommendations were common sense; their general thrust is somewhat along the lines of an approach examined here on the day after the 2008 election: "WIBDI (What If Bush Did It?): A Prism for the New Paradigm." Or you can even boil it down further, as Bob Dylan did more than 40 years ago in a single memorable phrase: "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."

But at the head of these suggestions, Greenwald puts this:

If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is good and constructive, say so and give him credit.

One looks at this and thinks: Why? Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to make a special effort to commend the leaders of the kind of system described above, one which has "fashioned its entire social and economic structure around the preparation for [and ceaseless practice of] war"?

Of course, there is an immediate logic to it. You would do it to establish your credibility, your objectivity, to say, "I'm neither a reflexive Obama-basher nor a swooning cheerleader; I call them as I see them." This in turn would lend more weight to your criticisms of the Administration; when you "hold Obama's feet to the fire" or "push him to better solutions" on this or that issue, your principled dissent can't be dismissed out of hand by the leadership as mere partisan opposition.

And if we were dealing with a different political reality – on a smaller, more human scale, say, with a more equitable distribution of power in society, and a vastly reduced scope (and appetite) for violence, corruption and domination on the part of an unassailable, lawless elite – then perhaps such an approach might do well. But that, alas, is not our reality. We wrestle with a militarized regime whose powers are, as I said in an earlier piece on Thoreau, "so much greater, far more pervasive, more invasive and much more implacable, more inhuman" than the fledgling state our Walden forbear confronted all those years ago. We are dealing with a government that is committing, at every moment – with every breath we take – horrendous crimes against life and liberty, with its murderous wars of aggression and domination, and its ever-spreading authoritarian encroachments.

Again, should we give credit to such a regime, single it out for praise, whenever it happens to behave in a rational manner on one issue or another? After all, functioning governments of every kind do a multitude of worthy things for their people every day. They build roads, lay electric lines and sewer pipes, maintain the food supply, sponsor medical research, facilitate technological developments, adjudicate civil disputes, provide disaster relief, maintain parks and recreation areas, etc., etc. – the list is virtually endless. And this was equally true of, say, Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, and other regimes imbued with a crimeful essence. Would you have told a dissident opposing the depredations of Hitler or Stalin or Franco or Tojo or the apartheid regime in South Africa that he or she must always be sure to point out any constructive thing these governments do, and give them credit for it?

This is not a call to ignore reality. The constructive things that governments do are part of their record. But it's important to note two points here. First, we're not talking about making a casual observation when you glance at the paper – "Glad they're not going to prosecute Grandma for that medical marijuana now" – and factoring that into your general knowledge base. Instead, we're talking about the specific context of Greenwald's recommendations, which deal with those who are trying to make active political and moral judgments about government policy, with the ultimate aim of bringing about a reality that is more just, more humane.

Second, and more importantly,  we must emphasize again that we are not dealing with an ordinary situation here, with a system whose good and bad elements are roughly equal (or confined to the historical past), allowing one to sit down and weigh this policy against that one, and, then, upon careful reflection, coming to some judicious assessment. No; we are now – and have been for decades – dealing with a situation of the most frantic and dire moral urgency, the "all-day permanent red" of a system whose purpose, structure, meaning and method have become war, with all the hatred, corruption, degeneration and devolution that war brings.

In such an extreme system, all balance is gone; a constructive act here or there cannot offset those mountains of corpses. And its seems a terrible waste of time and energy to divert one's attention from these horrors – and the urgent need to stop them – just to give a few props for a stray good deed or reasonable move here or there.

The latter approach also involves, consciously or unconsciously, to one degree or another, an association with it, in Thoreau's sense. You have, in effect, accepted power on its own terms. You engage deeply with the system in order to "hold Obama's feet to the fire" (while being careful to acknowledge his "constructive" measures) because you believe this will make the system better. But if the system itself is structured to produce the boundless evils of war and domination and injustice, you cannot make it better. You can only, at the very most, mitigate a few of its pernicious effects, for a time, and only at the margins.

This is by no means an unworthy goal; extreme systems force that kind of triage upon us. Raoul Wallenberg could not end the Holocaust; he could only save what was in relative terms a very small number of people at the margins. But who would deny his heroism, and wish that he had not sought such small but deeply meaningful mitigations? Conversely, who among us would have suggested that Wallenberg, in the dire moral urgency of his mission, take time out to give credit to the Nazis for, say, their "Strength Through Joy" recreational programs for ordinary workers, or their remarkable highway system? Or in our time, do we require Shirin Ebadi to praise the Tehran regime for its social housing programs, or Aung San Suu Kyi to give credit to the Burmese generals for building roads or installing storm drains?
 
Everyone has to make their own accommodations with reality, of course. And to quote the old song-and-dance man once again: "Life is sad, life is a bust;/All you can do is do what you must."  I'm not laying down commandments or prescriptions for anybody. But I will say that Thoreau's stance seems more and more to be the only honorable course for an American to take, in whatever way and to whatever degree he or she finds possible.

And I will also say that those who profess their adherence to "progressive" values such as peace, justice, liberty, equality and truth would serve their cause better by focusing on the essential nature of a system that eviscerates those values, and on the actual operations of power, the crimes and atrocities being committed by the actual wielders and servants of power, instead of mocking people for "throwing fits" and being "puerile" when they denounce the system's leaders for leading the nation deeper and deeper into evil.

| More...

Comments (25)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Elisabeth Kubler-Ross had a lot to say about denial as a first stage of coping with death. I'd say that a lot of "progressives" are in deep denial about the irreconcilable nature of being in favor of peace, justice, equality while demanding that someone must support the American Federal Government's current drift and its leaders' choices. ............ Excellent essay, Mr Floyd
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 03, 2009
Votes: +5

john kelley said:

... Thoreau's question was already a rhetorical one in the mid 1800's. "By August 8, 1945, newspapers in the U.S. were reporting that broadcasts from Radio Tokyo had described the destruction observed in Hiroshima. "Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death," Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast received by Allied sources."(Wikipedia) "...Thoreau's stance seems more and more to be the only honorable course for an American to take, in whatever way and to whatever degree he or she finds possible." I concur.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 03, 2009
Votes: +6

Michael B said:

Chris Floyd is a great writer I hope people get that single point. People who post here do and many others urgently need to read the articles he writes so I also hope folks here send his material all around. As for "progressives": "Progressive"- It's just another weasel word. "Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history, sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal, by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal." That's basically it, plain and simple. The problem is, that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers, the original Progressives,were a bunch of Bolsheviks, compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today. While some of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism, most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals", and The Democratic Party in particular, into the socialists they might want them to be. A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the one, based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature. All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what. A progressive is someone who believes in the system. Progressives and liberals are as ready as conservatives to support government interventions in our lives and on the world stage. The country in question may be Sudan, Afghanistan or perhaps Iran. The clarion call is the same. "We must do something” because “we” are superior, all knowing, and chosen by a divine force to make the world in whatever image we choose. No one asks how “we” is defined, or if the presence of the United States is needed or wanted. No one asks about the history of past interventions and their usually negative outcomes. It is assumed that Americans are good and know what is best for the world, despite a long history of numerous brutalities carried out across the globe.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +12

scott douglas said:

... My reading this morning took me to the NY Times to check out Krugman. As I scanned the Professors page, I was aware of a wisp of a thought on the periphery of my mind. It was a feeling, really. The prose and the reasoning seemed to evoke the notion that I was actually viewing an animated cartoon, and not engaging a serious argument. Krugman was shilling for the passage of the current health care 'reform' bill in the Senate...laughable; really, absurd. Does anyone with a serious mind believe that there is any 'less-worse' solution at hand, given the First Premise -- that which may not be challenged -- the Corporate-mandated rejection of all the successful models in place in so many other European and Western societies? Does Paul Krugman? Does he, really? "We have no choice!" When I reached Chris' site and realized he was going to plumb the depths once more, I was soon reminded of the answer... The group-think tribal insanity, the apocalyptic press of collapsed roadways in some slow motion earthquake, the terror of being buried alive by the stupidity and wickedness that has kept this monstrous war machine growing, decade after decade, does so sicken me. Driving to work this week, glaring at the mile upon mile of cement in every direction, the living things penned into what amounted to large flower boxes here and there, watching the gasoline gauge and listening to the inhuman sounds of the engine, I felt I was mad, barking mad to have allowed myself to become trapped by Amerika. A prisoner - a slave, really - to the War Machine. On the strength of my labour, and that of millions like myself, It destroys. It is destroying me. "Why not bring the fleets and the armies home?" Because. That's why.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +13

Sean O'Neil said:

... Michael B -- EXCELLENT analysis. This part rings especially true for me: A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Scott -- it's destroying me too. It's a soul-crusher.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +3

jo6pac said:

	Yep I voted for him but never believed for a second that I was going to get change I could believed in but I'm amazed but not suprised by those that still believe. Thanks Chris jo6pac Everything is on schedule, please move along.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +2

Gabe Gabriel said:

... Many thoughtful comments here. Chris is a great writer and again has shown his grasp of the reality on the ground. It is a shame that if millions of Americans went into the streets and stayed there until change came, then change would come without a doubt, but it seems that there is no fight in the American people that is the part that amazes me time and time again. The complete castration of Americas sense of outrage is something to behold. The programmers of this countries culture have done their job well. The brainwashing cannot be denied by anyone that is more than 50 years old and can remember the "good old days" of the simpler times of the late forties and fifties, although I know all of our present shit was working quite well then also but it was not so in your face as it is now. There seems to be no answer to our political dilemma of "forever war". The vote cannot be trusted and we as citizens have no useful avenue of "redress of grievances". It seems like a lost cause at best to find a way to change things and it is this that like many others here, makes me crazy and seems to makes me feel like a blind man stumbling around in the dark. A personal decision I made 30 years ago to seek first, spiritual things, is the only thing I personally have to hold onto that at least gives me hope for the future while at the same time has helped me a great deal in understanding all of the shit we are currently finding ourselves in. Nevertheless the country I love still crumbles before my eyes, the government I hate still gets stronger in its size, but my faith and hope transcends all I realize, that truth is stranger than fiction in this comedy of lies.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +7

Denver Fletcher said:

... Chris You wrote: "But if the system itself is structured to produce the boundless evils of war and domination and injustice, you cannot make it better. You can only, at the very most, mitigate a few of its pernicious effects, for a time, and only at the margins." The thing is, Glenn Greenwald hasn't come to the same conclusion. He explicitly believes that he CAN make the system better. That more and better Democrats can make it better. As Sean O'Neil observes above, he still retains a fundamental loyalty to the social system. I dont know if that is wrong, yet. But I do know it is getting "wronger" every day. I also know that people will continue to support the system we live in, and perpetuate its institutions and foster their social legitimacy, for as long as they fear the disruption of revolution more than they fear what those same institutions are doing to them. Thus, given that I agree with your characterisation of those institutions in your article above, it is only a matter of time until a majority begins to fear them more than their absence. I assume you would, like me, wish that day were already here, but it isn't. Nevertheless, it is coming. I am (again) not sure that this is cause for celebration, despair, fatalism, or what ...

report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +3

Mike Smith said:

	... Brilliant essay, but painful, Chris.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 04, 2009
Votes: +2

derekmann said:

it takes all kinds to make the world my grandma had a saying, "it takes all kinds to make the world, said the old lady who kissed the cow" what she meant by this, is open to anyones interpretation. problem is, the social conditioning is so complete, that it is just near impossible to get through to people. seems like the human race has advanced in everything but human relations. it is hard to maintain that violence is not just the norm, when there is so much of it around. technology has magnified the power of nations and individuals, but society has yet to collectively come to terms with the effects of the modern machine age. simply getting an understanding of the nature of corporations is a step, here we have an entity that is potentially immortal, this in itself gives it an inherent advantage over mere humans; add mass production to the mix, and you have a guaranteed recipe for the comcentration of power. as Agent Smith put it "only human" so yeah, welcome to the Simulacrum Republic.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: +0

derekmann said:

	correction "concentration of power"
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Grandma Jefferson said:

And So It Goes.... ...as our late National Treasure, Vonnegut, summed things up. Chris, as ever and always, nails the bitter truth in this peerless essay, and gives a remedy: stop cooperating, stop the shuffling excuses for the vilest crimes, stop buying shit, stop supporting the backstabbing traitors who dupe you every second they live, stop enabling the madness, stand up and fight back. But few will have the will or courage to dissassociate themselves from the bottomless evil of the blood-soaked barbarous abomination called, with a straight face, "The American Way". Millions in the street on a daily basis could indeed change things, at least a little. Where are they? And why aren't they there? We all know why, really. It takes selfless courage to risk everything one has, including one's life and family, by taking on the monstrous police state that flourishes here now, with its new weaponry star chamber "justice", torture of anyone they please, and of course, the gulags. I often think, like Vonnegut, that "...our country... might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been." The "system", as in "Predatory Capitalism", is crushing the lives and hearts of the people, which is why we sometimes feel we've gone totally crazy, watching its atrocities, as mouthed by the Propaganda Whores of Congress and the MSM, play out before us every day. Everything we're told, every vile "reform" enacted, every politician or talking head's comments and opinions, the entire screaming maelstrom of talk and genocide and pillage, is totally INSANE now, so utterly unhinged that sane minds simply cannot accept this new reality, this madhouse we find ourselves in. But this blog keeps me anchored in the horrific nightmare the world has become, and reassured that I haven't gone insane myself. I'm eternally grateful for that.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: +11

Jimmy Montague said:

Chris ain't no Lewis Lapham -- -- and he ain't no Gore Vidal -- but if he keeps working, he could get there one day. I'm pullin' for ya, Chris! Michael B is spot on today. Scott needs to mainline a quart of Prozac. Krugman and the rest are barking up their own backsides. If these Democrats pass this healthcare legislation and this legislation increases the price of healthcare for millions of people, these Democrats are toast. If they can't come up with a solution that makes healthcare more affordable and more effective, they'd do better not to pass anything at all.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: +0

Michael Drew said:

... This is an extremely important essay that all those "progressives" who see this escalation as an abomination of their humanist values should read. There is no critique of modern American government or society that is consistent with an acceptance of its essential elements. The only consistent critique of American society is a fundamental one -- perhaps even a radical (eg Marxist) one. Short of that, the only consistent way to engage modern debate is on face-value, modernist/rationalist terms. There is no coherent middle ground, which is to say there is no potent critique of modern American society and the government it produces that relies on traditional American values for its lever. That Thoreau in the earliest days of the Republic apprehended that fact is conclusive of its truth.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: +4

Jimmy Montague said:

They are pigs -- Tom Hayden and his peers had it right in the Sixties. They didn't divide the opposition into Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives. They just called 'em all "pigs" -- didn't even bother to capitalize the "p". It was an apt label. Pigs is what they were then; pigs is what they are now. For my own part, I've never stopped referring to them as "pigs" in conversation. I think it would be a good thing if what remains of the Left went back to using "pigs" to define their enemies. Speaking of them as "pigs" helps one to think of them as "pigs," and thinking of them as "pigs" both defines who we are and where we stand while it clarifies what we are up against. I don't even wanna hear any of that slop about how we shouldn't use labels to dehumanize our enemies. You can rest assured that our enemies rhetorically dehumanized us long since. Of course, if you're really the sort of idjit who comforts himself with the idea that being referred to as a "goddam stoopid librul" is better than being called a "commie fag," it doesn't make much difference what you call your enemies because they ran over the top of you a long time ago. Your problem is that you're already dead and don't even know it. Focus on "pigs". Think "pork". Buy a gun and learn to use it. Learn aikido. When the wraps come off, the cops won't lift a finger to help you. They're on the other side, and they already know who you are. Look around. Grow up. Get real.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 06, 2009
Votes: +4

Gabe Gabriel said:

	... The term pig is a good one to describe these people that are in the establishment today.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 06, 2009
Votes: +2

mjosef said:

Considerations Fine, and well-said. But let's go back, to 1965, to the March on Washington, when Paul Potter, president of the SDS, gave a speech about "the system," about America and its murderous foreign policy. The tone and the thrust and the command of that speech, 45 years ago, is identical to that of Mr. Floyd's post here. And that war was not to end for millions of soon-to-die Vietnamese and Cambodians. Some of the loudest "clarion calls" against our supersystem come from those deep within the comforts of said supersystem. The fundamental problem comes in demanding guilt, martyrdom, ascetic renunciation, ideological fealty from those whose minds may be open, but whose social situation places them on the road, at the cubicle, in the stands, at the family sit-downs. All that matters is what the supersystem does as a whole, and now five decades of futility from the Thoreauvian marginalists are as dust against the mighty corporate winds currently inflating the pretensions the next generation of predator drone designers. Even if we are anti-war, we are as those 1930's German burghers, privately resisting the "inhuman madness" of their power-grabbing leaders, privately stumbling after pockets of happiness, but functionally allied with the political workings of an inherited society. Whatever minute acts of rebellion against this inhumane, shameful supersystem may occur, we have had five decades of refinement of these counter-reformational systems of high-tech policing, blase schooling, mass-media propagandizing, wage stagnation, family disintegration, and yet still the speeches and words come, all implying the individual nobody's global role as pilot of the supersystem. Now, I can be told to go pound sand, "mainline a quart of Prozac," but instead, I'll rely on my instinctual capacity for self-protection, and congratulate myself for my little disassociations and minor rebellions, and without the aid of licit or illicit pharmaceuticals, have a fucking nice day. Did I pay taxes this year? Yes. Did I stop one bomber's run? No. Will I ever see a political system that reflects my values? No. Do we live in a system that is for us, Americans, "friendly fascism"? Yes. Of course it is murderous fascism for many, many others, so come on, let's bring back those heady days of 1965, that brief moment when an antiwar culture actually grabbed some headlines. Of course, there have been 45 years of subsequent refutation of their soft, pro-corporate liberalism, so better not to expect too much.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 06, 2009
Votes: +8

john kelley said:

	... "Did I pay taxes this year?" No. "Did I stop one bomber's run?" No. Should I get cozy in the subversive, mouse-clicking cults? Hey, maybe someday I'll make it onto the no-fly list.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 06, 2009
Votes: +1

Sean O'Neil said:

	to Jimmy -- your post reminded me of Roger Waters' lyrics on Pink Floyd's "Animals"
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 07, 2009
Votes: +0

Fredric Dennis Williams said:

Light in December Golly, Gee Whiz. You guys are sure a bunch of bummers. War is part of human nature. While you are reviling the American government for killing people, Americans are busy shooting each other on the streets or shooting themselves at home. It is true that America invaded Grenada in the 80s and bombed the Iraqis in the 90s and armed the Afghanis when Carter was in office and sent troops to Kosovo. We didn't do anything about the Palestinians, who are regularly shot or bombed or starved or crushed by the Israelis. We didn't do anything about the 800,000 or so killed, mainly by machete, in Rwanda. We don't send our army to intervene in Darfur or elsewhere in the decades of Sudanese civil war. We didn't do anything about the starvation of a million Igbo who were victims of a struggle for power in Nigeria or the slaughter of Cambodians. I could go on. War is hell. It is also the health of the state. Government is force. Everything is does is force. Those who obey receive the benefits given to the conquered -- a kind of slavery. Slavery is freedom -- you are given health care (if you are old or maybe if you are poor), you are given an education (suitable to your station), highways, water and electricity delivered to your home, a home (if you don't get caught in the downdraft), etc. Your unwilling servitude requires that you perform services for the government, which is your master. You must serve a corporation or a non-profit or a government agency in order to be treated as a worthy slave. Those who don't work may eat, but not regularly. They may live, but perhaps under a bridge. Blaming the slaves -- including those in the corporate bureaucracy or those who own stock in defense contractors through their pension funds or mutual funds or even directly -- is ignorant. For an intelligent person, it is willful ignorance. This is the real world. What the American government does, using its force, it has been doing for a very, very long time. Thoreau was complaining about the real imperialism -- taking 2/3rds of the territory of Mexico and driving the Indians into concentration camps and later into inhospitable reservations. Look back at progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and his genocidal imperialism in the Philippines, or Woodrow Wilson, or FDR. When you rise to power, the temptation to use it is overwhelming. Perhaps Dwight Eisenhower, who knew war, was the least tempted by it. Surely JFK and LBJ saw it as a road to peace and freedom. In the end, we should all lighten up. We go through periods of war. They are almost always ill-advised, because our leaders have more ambition than they have ability. Yes, they do pay off their friends -- that is human nature, and it is the nature of our democratic system. Most of the money doesn't go to war profiteering, it goes to charitable profiteering, e.g. educational profiteering, health profiteering, etc. In the end, it goes to people who play along. So, as an ex-patriate, I have sided with Thoreau in believing we cannot willingly act to assist evil. Korea has a very long history of non-aggression, and has had only a limited involvement in the conflicts o others. No nation is perfect. America, having more power, shows its imperfections on a bigger screen. But lighten up. If you really want to change things, get off your holier-than-thou high horse, roll up your sleeves, and set out to elect candidates who serve with some reluctance and exercise the power of government with great caution and the most severe limitations. In 1968, I took time to campaign for Gene McCarthy in Iowa -- and LBJ decided not to run for re-election. Mr. Obama should be cast aside -- and for those who think that the Republicans are likely to offer a reasonable alternative . . . well, convince me. Those who think -- and do not act -- do not think well.

report abuse vote down vote up

December 07, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Heather Milam said:

... First, used to read Chris Floyd at Moscow Times all the time and didn't know about Empire Burlesque until this week. Have missed his insight. Second, don't know Digby so no comment there but Joan Walsh presented America with no options other than Barack Obama. (I voted for Nader.) By contrast, other websites like The Third Estate Sunday Review (where I learned about Floyd's site) endorsed Ralph Nader and covered him, covered Cynthia McKinney, covered McCain and Obama. Covered them as equals competing for the same office. Joan Walsh and Salon didn't do that. So her criticism of Tom Hayden is a bit questionable. Third, Tom Hayden's an embarrassment. His 'answer' today is to take off a bumper sticker. Excuse me but he lied for Barack Obama. March 7, 2008, the BBC began airing their interview with Samantha Power where she explained Obama's promises on Iraq were empty. Tom Hayden didn't say a word. The Common Ills' Iraq snapshot called it out immediately: http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/03/iraq-snapshot_07.html Tom Hayden waited until July 4, 2008 to call out the remarks and then falsely claimed that no news media covered it in March (Washington Post, Boston Globe and others covered it) and that no campaign called it out (Hillary Clinton's campaign did repeatedly so much so that David Corn ridiculed them for it at Mother Jones and claimed Power's statement was no big deal). I don't trust Tom Hadyen, I don't care for Tom Hayden. In the midst of pushing for violence (his Rocky Mountain News 2008 interview -- with videotape) in Denver if Barack Obama was not the nominee, he stopped his female assistant who walked past the camera and ordered her to spin around for the camera. I find Tom Hayden disgusting, weak and ineffectual. And I have no sympathy for him. In the same RMN interview, he ridicules Chris Hedges for supporting Ralph Nader. Few worked harder (and disgraced themselves more) than Tom Hayden to get Obama elected. His war on Ralph Nader, his attacks on women (even Katha Pollitt was forced to call him out in 2008 at The Nation) and everything else makes me stand on the sidelines while he and Joan Walsh have their dust-up. Fourth, Barack Obama announced his surge last week. Bush did the same in January 2007. How did Democracy Now cover both? At The Third Estate Sunday Review, Ava and C.I. analyzed it and noted the passive nature of 'protest' and 'outrage' today: http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/tv-oh-what-difference-name-change-makes.html Fifth, great to be able to read Mr. Floyd again!!!!

report abuse vote down vote up

December 07, 2009
Votes: +1

scott douglas said:

	Just kick my sniveling butt! I am somewhat sincerely nominating Monty for official Morale Officer here at EB. However, Jimmy, I will leave the weapons-training to you, the Marine -- at least for now...
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 07, 2009
Votes: +0

Jimmy Montague said:

I never meant to insult you, Scott -- I never meant to insult you, Scott. I just thought you sounded REAL bummed out. I sure don't blame you for that. That's pretty much the way I feel myself. We just understand things differently. And maybe that has something to do with having my nose buried in Glenn Beck's Common Sense for the last couple of weeks. It's awful. It's depressing. It's insane. It's mealy-mouthed, white-trash baiting garbage. Worst of all, it's bad writing. The sumbitch never met a metaphor he couldn't misapply, and that's the absolute least of it. Now I gotta write a review. Have you read it yet?

report abuse vote down vote up

December 08, 2009
Votes: +0

scott douglas said:

... Jimmy, Absolutely no offense taken! I actually agree that a more pro-active stance is needed. Despite my deep disaffection from the society, and occaissional fits of despair that have begun to trigger dissoriented fugue-like panic attacks such as the one I sought to describe above, I AM finding ways to change tac. I have accepted growing conditions of impoverishment - including the loss of my music studio - with a cetain fatalism, recognizing the alternate opportunities certain losses reveal. Composing on computer, for example, may actually better suit my current interests and abilities than the albatross of the physical rock-combo equipment did. And, while Ninja training is not on the agenda, I HAVE started working out again; and don't worry, I won't go down without a good fight!

report abuse vote down vote up

December 08, 2009
Votes: +0