Review: Dennis Perrin's Savage Mules

As I have written here, here, and here, the Republicans do not possess a monopoly on nationalistic, imperialistic foreign policy. Quite to the contrary, Democrats have a long tradition of engaging in nation-building (read: nation destroying), propping up military juntas, and just plain old bombing in general. It was Truman who was responsible for the only use of atomic weapons in history and who oversaw the blood-drenched Korean Peninsula. It was LBJ who saw Kennedy's plans to fruition in Vietnam. Even Bill Clinton, that model of progressive idealism, saw to continuous bombing and destructive sanctions on Iraq, substituted one source of death for another in Kosovo, and from whose administration--not Bush's--sprang the extraordinary rendition program.

Dennis Perrin provides one of the few voices in America today not blinded by the false pragmatism of the Democratic Party and beholden to party loyalty above general ideals. In a political spectrum divided by blind homage to party above all else, and denigration of the only other politically-viable alternative, Perrin is a rare breed, indeed, not content to merely elect "better" Democrats, he sees the need for a real alternative. A tearing down of the system which pits citizens against each other merely to distract them from the fact that both parties are running away with the money and the country.

Although this could be extended to all facets of American political theater, Savage Mules deals with foreign policy, breezing through successive Democratic Presidents and candidates in a succinct 120 pages. He touches on all the things I mentioned above and more, detailing at each juncture how each was met will willful glee by liberals ostensibly opposed to war. The same Daily Kos bloggers now feigning abhorrence of Bush's foreign policy were just 10 years ago happily justifying Clinton's incursion into Kosovo, ignoring its clear intent of extending NATOs reach in Europe. Just the same, although they now raise alarms about Bush's assault on the Constitution, liberals have spent the last century accepting similar attacks on speech and democracy by Democratic Presidents in times of Democrat wars.

What makes Perrin an anomaly in today's arena is that his counter-point does not come under the umbrella of the false opposition party. All too often, brief moments of clarity, such as Sean Hannity decrying Clinton's use of Executive power, come only as a vehicle for arguing for the speaker's own party, rather than to advance a consistent idea. Once the Republicans took power, Hannity's tune changed, cementing his place as a Republican stooge.

Perrin, on the contrary, opposes America's interventionalist foreign policy without regard to party allegiance. That this comes off as a radical position is particularly infuriating, as clearly the country would be better off were it the norm. Democrats only become opposed to wars when it becomes politically expedient, but are more than happy to join in the next foray as if the last century never happened, as if there is no recorded history from which to cull opposition to such policy making.

Rather than seeing Democratic supporters of American hegemony and dwindling civil liberties as simply a defective version of a good product, Perrin sees them for what they are: predictable products of the corporate, two-party American political system. Democracy in America can only go so far, and at no time is it allowed to call the system itself into question.

In that regard, neither party is exempt from employing an army of useful idiots dedicated to upholding the system no matter how many times it kicks them in the teeth. Democrats in particular seem fond of blows to the jaw, as they have sat by approvingly as 'progressive' after 'progressive' has done their part to continue the long American tradition of imposing itself on the world's citizens, one administration at a time.

One need only look at Barack Obama's recent hard right turn, and the shocked liberals left in his wake, to see Perrin's thesis in full bloom. Be it his commitment to the status quo ante on FISA, his willingness to leave residual forces in Iraq, walking his timeline back, his pledge to bomb Pakistan, or his commitment to transferring the failed Iraq policies to its Eastern neighbor, Obama has shown himself to be the same product in a shinier package. And what is the Kossacks' response? Withholding a campaign donation for a few days until placated and assured all is well in the Matrix.

Here, we should all share Perrin's attitude. In American politics, the public is pitted against each other in a contest of faux poles while the corporate system continues unabated. When we dedicate ourselves blindly to Party above self, we all lose.

Related:

Obama's Hard Right Turn, July 2
Obama Would Keep Extra-judicial Contractors in Iraq, March 3
The False Bi-Polar Appearances of American Foreign Policy, June 25

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Predictable Posturing as Centrist and the Shocked Libs in His Wake

To hear the Kossacks tell it, you'd think Barack Obama's Centrist pose was something shocking and wholly unexpected, rather than the flagrantly predicable product of the typical American campaign season. What the Koskeyites forget is that Obama knows he's already got them in his pocket, and he won't spend a minute of his general election campaign tending to that particular flock. And why should he?

American campaigns have never been about ideas, and this year's product offers nothing contradictory to that nature, despite the presence of the Orator-in-Chief and Maverick himself. McCain has spent the campaign trying to prove he's just as crazy as Bush, and Obama will spend the rest of it proving to middle class, white America he's just like them. If the Joneses get a flag pin, he'll wear a bigger one. If McCain wears a flag tie on Independence Day, Obama and Hillary will wear a matching flag blazer and pantsuit.

You see, Americans don't really care about ideas. Most Americans don't even care enough to inform themselves about anything at all that can't be found by reading US, Star, or watching TMZ. What the liberal blog denizens forget is that the opposition to the Iraq occupation isn't so prevalent because of opposition to war in general, it exists because the war turned out to be more difficult than it was supposed to be. Americans don't like long wars, but that doesn't mean they don't support sending 18-year-old men into foreign nations to teach them the ways of being a better country.

Americans don't want to hear about Shia and Sunni. Americans don't want to know that there are different factions within those delineations. That's complicated. What Americans want is an enemy. An 'other.' And, Obama, in his quest to get elected is not about to break tradition in the rush to give them one.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything.

What the left generally forgets is that Americans have a short memory. While the boys and girls at Kos hold out hope that the country has learned the lessons of Vietnam, Americans demonstrate quite readily that they have already lost the lessons in Iraq that are still ongoing.

American foreign policy should serve American interests, but what American can't fathom is that every other country's foreign policy doesn't do the same. It's inconceivable that the Iranians would foster relationships they found beneficial to their own interests rather than seek America's guidance. It baffles the US that Russia would have the gall to support Russian interests.

That is why, with a prescient example of the likely outcome of an attack on Iran still happening in Iraq, the public is still hungry for candidates tripping over themselves to prove their willingness to do the same in Iran. That is why, despite all available evidence to the contrary, Iran can still be discussed as a nuclear power, and a blockade of Iranian trade can be considered without the slightest concern of its impact on the Iranian population.

But foreign policy isn't the only arena in which Obama has shown himself to be par-for-the-course. Timed well with the coming holiday, he has donned his best Super-Patriot cape and trotted out the dual symbols of flag and Cross.

I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

This statement seems innocuous enough, as some tend to see flaws in America without recognizing its positive qualities, but then it diverges into a Bushian worldview in which those ideals, instead of being admired, are thrust forcibly upon the rest of the world. Patriotism no longer means an appreciation of America, it means the militaristic imposition of that appreciation on the 'others.' In that regard, Obama proves himself no different than the current administration or the potential next administration of his rival.

Asking for America to back off dictating how Iraqis or Iranians should live is not unpatriotic. It's anti-imperialistic. Bushian rhetoric dictates that America has, rather than colonized, liberated Iraq, and that instead of forcing its view on Babylon it has merely presented them the opportunity to choose their own path. But looking beyond the rhetoric and into the reality paints an entirely different picture.

The status of forces agreement that infinitely-benevolent America planned to foist on the Iraqis was nothing more than a contract in which the Iraqis would sign over any potential sovereignty to the Americans. But a position which holds that the Iraqis should choose their own path is indeed very rare in America. When it does appear, it is is instantly denounced as anti-American, rather than pro Iraqi sovereignty.

Americans aren't tired of war. They're tired of wars that can't be won post haste. That makes them open to conjecture on Iran, and Obama proves he has the audacity to conform to that ideal in his quest for the Presidency. Encyclopedic knowledge of world affairs is cute, but it won't win the hearts and minds of Americans anytime soon. In the two-party buffoonery of American politics, he who wears the biggest lapel pin wins the race.

Watching the coverage of the Presidential campaign, it becomes clear that it is not about ideas, it's about building constituencies. That means pandering to the ones you don't have and ignoring the ones you do. Where the liberals blindsided by Barack's about-face are mistaken is in their belief that his posturing is somehow antithetical to the system we've built. It's not.

On the contrary, it is the very essence of American politics. Pick out a demographic, tell 'em what they want to hear, then move on to the next. Those that see that aspect of politics as the sham it is are still lost on how to resolve it. The solution never hinges on making significant changes to the system, but always on finding better politicians. But politics is a capitalistic exchange, and as long as there's a market for bullshit, there'll be rich lawyers willing to exploit it.

The system won't be changed by better politicians, and they certainly won't come from the current bi-polar universe. No, change will come when Americans take away the market for hollow rhetoric and empty platitudes.

I'm not holding my breath.

Related:

American Foreign Policy, June 25
Obama Would Retain Contractors, March 3
The Folly of Iranian Policy, May 19

Sphere: Related Content

Gun Bans and Slaying a Liberal Sacred Cow

Gun control has always gained the support of the same people who most zealously defend every other Constitutional right. Inexplicably, those decrying the death of the Fourth Amendment, rightfully in my opinion, over the new FISA bill do not see any logical dissonance by simultaneously opposing the upholding of the Second.

Sure, they'll quote a lot of statistics showing that guns are dangerous, and no one could honestly disagree, but they hold no such reservations about potential pitfalls of other Constitutional rights, so why on this particular issue? Either you support the Bill of Rights or you don't.

The usual sticking point is the "militia" clause in the Amendment, but, again, they cease to be such sticklers on the topic of abortion, a right which never makes an appearance in the founding document. This isn't a post about abortion, but if you can pull a "right to privacy" argument from the text of the Constitution, you can't then demand that full weight be given to a single, outdated word.

From a practical perspective, the gun ban had absolutely no effect on the murder rate in the District of Columbia during its lifetime. It would seem that someone willing to murder another human being may not have many scruples about defying a ban. Who knew?

The Second Amendment battle provides a nice capsule of our beloved two-party nightmare, as neither party allows for the support of all of the Constitution. The be a true Democrat, you must support the document in all instances save for gun ownership, despite the clear language. If you're Republican, you have to defend to the death the Second while dedicating your life to preventing the application of nearly every other right within.

Is there a rational party? Sign me up.

Sphere: Related Content

David Vitter and Larry Craig: Adventures in Irony

Proving that truth always trumps fiction, Senators David Vitter, frequenter of prostitutes, and Larry Craig, denizen of men's rooms, are leading the charge to insert regressive clauses into any and all legislation involving reproduction or STDs. Their efforts prove once again that the letter next to the name means more than actions, allowing the poster children of sexual decadence to thrust their sexual mores on the rest of the world without a hint of self-awareness or irony.

Before, both Senators have been at the fore on the attack on PEPFAR, which provides AIDS relief to poor Africans. Not content merely to help others, Vitter and Craig have pushed for the inclusion of several clauses which inhibit the disbursement of aid. Vitter shows his cahones by voting in favor of a "prostitution pledge," which seeks to prohibit aid from reaching sex workers, a trade with which Vitter is intimately familiar.

Both Senators are also champions of the abstinence-only rule which designates a third of the PEPFAR aid for abstinence-only education and aims at treatment rather than prevention. In the hypocritical worldview of Craig and Vitter, it is more desirable that Africans acquire AIDS than admit of the existence of a society in which their regressive Christian values are not the norm.

More recently, Vitter has emerged as the only Senator opposing the removal of the HIV travel ban, which prohibits HIV-positive non-citizens from entering the US. For perspective, the US is now one of only 12 nations with such a ban, placing it in the company of Sudan, Russia, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Common sense would dictate that a law hatch in the 80s under a climate of fear would be erased once the spread of the disease became more clear, but common sense isn't necessary when you have convictions. HIV is the only disease upon which such a restriction exists, but it is not even a airborne disease, making it more than clear that Vitter's opposition to removing the ban is based purely in his contrived morality and has nothing to do with the biological traits of the disease. One should be cautioned, however, against expecting the application of such a morality to Vitter's own actions.

Finally, both Craig and Vitter have signed on to co-sponsor a same-sex marriage ban (SJ Res. 43), again placing the two Senators most destructive to their own marriages in a position to dictate to the rest of the country what does or does not constitute a sacred contracts. The hypocrisy is blinding. Craig, of all people, is in no position to fight against same-sex relations of any kind, having been caught not only soliciting prostitution, but with another man.

All this points once again to the tragedy of the two-party system, which vaults the letter next to the name above that of conscience, honesty, or logical consistency. To prove your worth to the followers of Falwell and Dobson, one need not practice what you preach, as the mere preaching has become enough.

Related:

Vitter Chastises Spitzer, March 18

Sphere: Related Content

Foreign Policy Redux

Earlier, I questioned the traditional narrative on national security, but there is more I'd like to delve into on the subject. Namely, the false diversity provided by the decrepit, doddering two-party political system of the United States.

One need only look at Barack Obama's suckling at the AIPAC teat to see the fallacy in full bloom.

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel always faced these threats on the front lines.

And I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage.

[...]

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything.

Here we see false dichotomy in all its imperialist glory. There are only two acceptable positions in American foreign policy discussion: one, promise the obliteration of all who dare question the moral authority of the US, or, two, promise cursory discussions, concurrent sanctions which harm the innocent population more than the leaders, and then obliteration of said parties.

Any position which questions America's moral authority to dictate to the world what its obligations to America are, what its rights to pursue energy programs are, and with whom they may ally themselves is off the table entirely. Not only is any utterance of such thoughts quickly portrayed as radical, but aside from the occasional peep, the very existence of such a kooky theory is ignored entirely.

Only in this atmosphere could two parties which differ only on the specifics of America's right of dictatorial powers over the globe be presented as the opposite extremes of the rational thought spectrum. Even the Democrats' cursory nods to diplomacy are treated as cowardice, though any examination of Clinton's foreign policy would reveal that he was no stranger to bombing the rest of the world back into its rightful place.

We scoff at Robert Mugabe's claims to be divinely anointed to continue running Zimbabwe into the ground, but we cannot question in polite company the United States' right to allow some Middle Eastern nations to build nuclear arsenals, supplying them the technology and know-how along the way, while promising destruction to others. The only lesson that can be gleaned from the choice of which countries are worthy is that only friends of the US are allowed such transgressions. Consider Saudi Arabia, one of the most regressive, tyrannical regimes in contemporary times, yet provided by the US the tools to build a nuclear arsenal.

Iran, on the other hand, is no friend of the US, and it thus becomes implied with nary a second thought that they will be wiped out before even a hint of their developing weapons becomes available. Bear in mind that for all the bluster of Bush, McCain, and Presidential-candidate-version Obama, there has not been one inspection or intelligence paper which suggests that Iran is capable of weaponizing uranium. It is this unquestioned moral authority which allows the discussion over attacking Iran to proceed with the proof of its errant nature only five years in the rear-view mirror to proceed without guttural laughter.

The case of Saudi Arabia has more parallels to that of Iran than it may seem at first glance. Before the revolution in 1979, the US was in the process of a similar agreement with the US-allied Shah. Given more time, the possibility remains that the change of power could have occurred after the acquisition of a working nuclear program in Iran which would have then been in the hands of the ayatollahs. Yet 30 years later, the US is prepared again to assume that the current regime in Saudi Arabia will always be in power and a friend of the US, and it is not the least bit concerned that the nuclear program it denies others as if it has the right but provides to the Eden of terrorism will never change hands to an overt enemy. McCain has spoken of a League of Democracies, but one imagines his commitment to that ideal would not extend to the House of Saud.

The November election, then, provides the voters with the false choice of just how many months down the road they want an unprovoked attack on Iran to happen. The question of 'if' will not be addressed, only the duration of the run-up to zero hour. What voters will not see on the ballot is a checkbox which offers a foreign policy that allows the citizens of other countries which have not attacked us, and do not currently possess the capability to do so, to live free from the fear of US humanitarianism. Americans love the idea of humanitarian intervention, which is why the invasion of Iraq was portrayed as such, but to the denizens of the Middle East, bombs dropped in the name of goodwill explode just the same.

Related:

The Fallacious Nature of Conventional Wisdom on National Security, June 25
Changing the Rules of the Game, April 1

Sphere: Related Content