ACK-ACK FLAK

The last couple of weeks have most reminded me of that famous treatment method, Catch-22.  Catch-22 insures that no one gets there from here.  Anyone entrapped by Catch-22 is under the control of all-knowing, all-powerful captors who have all the conscience of young boys who enjoy ripping the wings off butterflies, one by one.

Catch-22 has been mercilessly applied to Dr. Dean, his campaign and his supporters.  Those who've caught Dr Dean believe they have higher purposes - there's a war to win - or they take delight in torturing Presidential candidates to make sure they're tough enough.

So, Dr Dean has been put in the position of flying missions and passing through enemy fire over and over.  Until finally, the little boys hope, they will have their malicious way,  and destroy the man entirely.  The miracle is,  so far it has not happened.

Who wins Catch-22 wars?  That depends on your point of view:  what is winning?  Or, what is losing?

Opting Out

There is another view about the situation;  a view implied in Catch-22 and One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest: ultimate oppression frees the oppressed ultimately.  Our moral responsibility to oppressors is diminished to the extent of our oppression.

When the news media and pundits criticize Dr Dean for not wearing suits and ties,  and then pronounce him boring or subdued when he dons the uniform,  in reality this leaves the good Doctor free to dress however he pleases.  There is no reward for "good behavior."

If leaving one's family at home is impolitic, and bringing his wife into the public is either shameless or too politic,  that leaves the Deans free to present themselves however they like.

As the Johann Strauss piece,  Perpetual Motion, verbally concludes, "And so on."

The answer to oppressors of whatever ilk is simply to do whatever one likes, regardless of the consequences.  If they are going to kill you, then let them;  even beg them to do it quickly ('and thereby relieve the surplus population').  Otherwise,  what can they do?  If they won't kill you,  you are a living memorial to their oppression.  In the final moral and legal analysis,  it is always oppressors who are lawless and destructive.

Since for the last few months, it has been the clear purpose of some of the media, pundits and the Democratic Establishment to destroy the Dean campaign,  I suggest it is time for Dean supporters to do anything in their cause.  We are free to fight back at least as much as we have been oppressed.  Why not be unruly, scary rebels,  when that's how you're labeled, anyway?

It does take a different mentality to understand what may happen from now on.

Upsetting

On the one hand,  maybe most Americans believe the Presidency should be held by someone who is steadfast, discerning, energetic, intelligent, moral, healthy, fashionable, monogamous, and religious.

On the other hand,  they also believe the President should be prepared to abandon family and friends for the good of the country.  The President should be willing to ignore principles, religion and strong feelings when making deals for higher purposes (including re-election).  Americans don't like Presidents who are too energetic, because they might change things too fast.  A really smart President might be able to pull the wool over the people's eyes,  and steal them blind.  They don't like too much steadfastness, either, as that is being bull-headed.

So, you see, for every quality Americans say they admire in a President, they also find fault in anyone who actually demonstrates that or another alleged virtue. These contraries justify any feeling whatsoever about the President and Presidential candidates. In case you don't recognize the theme, we're back to Catch-22,  this time in the political/emotional realm.

With Presidents,  people either like them or not. It's not common to lack feelings one way or the other.  Those who don't have feelings soon acquire them, because an election is imminent,  the mailman delivered too much mail or "they" didn't fill and pave the pothole in front of the house.  Or, feelings develop for millions of other (idiosyncratic) reasons; after all, Presidents are responsible for things.

The gut, chemistry, or whatever it is  decides about the President;  after that, it is all rationalizations.  Gee, the President is great becuz ...  The Prez is no good becuz ...  People just draw from lists, such as the one I started a few paragraphs ago.  The best (worst) part is,  once decided upon, very little can be done to change minds; even less, hearts.  People become very bull-headed in defense of their feelings,  just as they would about a loved one.

That is what happened in the Clinton scandals a few years ago.  Shortly after "I did not have sex with that woman ...,"  hearts and minds were made up.  These judgements, if that's what they are, are non-negotiable.  When contested,  it's off to the wars,  or, in a somewhat more civilized society, the Judges and Courts.  One way or another, people are going to have it out about these feelings.  For most,  they aren't to be left alone.

Every so often, despite this human foible, there are conversions "on the road to Damascus."  Then,  everything which was black becomes white, or vice versa, or something entirely different.  Those who've had this sort of experience,  including myself several times, will tell you about the clarity of the aftermath.  There is nothing like conversion to make everything very clear.  Interestingly,  it makes it possible to see both sides, the flip and the flop, with equal clarity.  Once you've had that experience,  it's just a simple choice which way to be.  Good and Evil are embossed on the same coin,  sometimes the same side.

Puppy Love-Hate

Many Americans are suffering cognitive dissonance about Dr Dean's Presidential campaign, for the reasons I just explained.  What they see and hear conflicts with what they think they are supposed to hear and see.  They don't know which attributes to assign the good Doctor.

Americans believe the President is a "suit," but they don't want a stuffed shirt.  When Dr Dean doesn't wear a suit (see Diane Sawyers' interview 1/22/04),  in what category is Dr Dean?

When Gen Clark's suit was too flashy, he put on sweaters.  Then, we had the fashion flap over sweaters.  Did the sweater increase his sex appeal with women?

On CNN's "Crossfire" 1/23/2004,  Paul Begala (a well known Clinton Democrat and operative) was outraged that the DEANS DO NOT HAVE CABLE IN THEIR HOME.  Judy Dean told Diane Sawyer that she didn't want TV around,  because her son would be "attracted" to it.  The Deans,  like many other busy professionals, don't spend much time watching TV.  Begala asked, why would anyone want to replace a President who doesn't read anything with one who doesn't watch anything?  [I guess it's un-American not to watch TV.]

In the movie version of BRAVE NEW WORLD, the press were insatiably curious about the sex life and times of the Barbarian.  Every apartment was equipped with a REALLY BIG SCREEN TV, and soma dispenser.  Connect your own dots.

American voters treat candidates like teenage girls treat suitors:  they are either gushy perfect or despicable beasts.  Once a decision has been made,  it's nearly impossible to change it.  (I've thought for many years this is literally the result of (bio-)chemistry.)  The only thing a rejected suitor can do is proceed to NEXT.  (Thus, young female behavior reinforces the undesired male gigolo behavior.)

Confused?  It's simple:  eventually,  people either love or hate the candidate,  the would-be President. After that,  it is either all good or all bad.  Candidates that don't fit the mold,  that have mixed "chemistry," induce confusion because people want to love or hate.

That's really Dr Dean's problem in the last few weeks:  he breaks the mold.  He's a non-conformist.  He's a rebel.  That's both sexy and exciting, and scary.  Love, hate.  Touch, don't touch.  Approach, run.  E.T.

I Love The Guy

Now, in the beginning, I didn't have a problem with Dr Dean for long.  I decided about him in a couple of weeks very early on.  I was skeptical at first - who the hell is he? - and Dr Dean was not forthcoming when I first inquired about his campaign.  Nonetheless, I was convinced by the enthusiasm of this supporters.  I felt here, at last, was the movement of the 1960s reincarnated.  My youth was redeemed.

Since then,  Dr Dean hasn't done much to offend me. He has done a lot to get my concerns on the American agenda.  That doesn't mean I agree with him about everything,  although I think we agree on more than 75% of everything. It does mean, for the first time in a very long time, political views similar to mine are being heard.

The Deans seem to live the way I live.  The Deans planted a rhododendron for a 50th birthday.  They are not extravagant.  They dress informally.  They are professional workers, interested in their work, their families and their friends.  I feel comfortable with them,  and think I'd like to have lunch or dinner sometime with them (but not the Bushes).

Dr Dean represents a point of view about government and society,  a view generally held by "liberals."  There's about 20% of the population that lives and thinks very much like the Deans,  and another 10-15% that is fairly similar.  I'm clearly in the 20%.  The last time one of us was significant in national politics was the 1960s and early 70s.  Those were the days of LBJ, RFK, MLK, McCarthy and McGovern.  Even Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual income.

This or That

The kind of society I/we (the 20%) want is described in Will Hutton's recent book, Declaration of Interdependence,  which as all about the growing differences between Europe and America.  What we want is Europe;  Europe which is civilized and, at its core, believes in liberté, fraternité, equalité.  In the liberal lexicon, that translates as Constitutional rights, community (neighbors and labor unions), and  the Welfare State. Conservative America only believes in liberté,  classical British liberalism ca 1800, and not the rest.

There's a whole way of life hidden in this Presidential campaign.  The stated Republican goal (per Karl Rove) is to wipe out American liberalism, permanently and forever.  A basic point of conservative propaganda, for as long as I can remember, is:  America is a conservative country.  They know, if enough people believe that,  then it will be so.  Conservatives believe their goal is in sight.  Re-electing George W Bush will clinch the deal,  FOREVER.

The only candidate or campaign in this election stating a philosophically different view is Dean and his supporters, including me.  Most of the others are willing to give up on liberalism (Lieberman) or compromise it to varying degrees (Kerry, Edwards, Clark). Others (Kucinich, Sharpton) have been ineffective or dropped out.

My plea is as follows:

You cannot "see" another way to organize the world if you fundamentally believe in all or most of George W Bush's premises. For example,  you must subscribe to American "exceptionalism" to support Bush's views on Iraq.  American exceptionalism is the doctrine that Americans are a special people,  with a special role in the world, in history. The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny are versions of American exceptionalism.  Are we really the chosen people?  Is God only on our side?

I won't push this further right now.  I must ask those of you who don't understand what I am talking about to go to the LIBRARY (see my reading list).  I hope you do "get it" by next November.  These very deep issues are what you are going to be voting on in the next few months.

I won't do to push the button for the "safe" candidate,  the orthodox man, the glib tongue or the anointed pretender.  Unless you don't care about what happens to you and yours.

My high school history teacher, Mr Chapman (thank you, thank you, wherever you are), made a big point about watersheds,  and how rare they are.  Well,  America is at a "historical watershed,"  right in front of you, right now.

Clark Campaign Reply

The following letter is dated Jan 18, 2004, apparently in reply to my 5 Big Promises.  I had asked for responses to be received no later than Jan 17.

Despite its reaching me January 23, 2004,  and despite its looking suspiciously like a form letter,  herewith the contents:

Dear Mr. Battaglia,

Thank you for your thoughtful input on some of the most important issues facing our country today.  We recently developed formal policy positions on many key issues.  These position papers are posted on our official campaign web site at http://www.clark04.com/issues.

If you have not already done so,  I would be delighted if you signed up formally as a supporter.  Please visit our website at www.clark04.com, where you can sign up for campaign news updates, learn more about policy positions, and find tools you can use to hold events in your home and community.

Today, America faces serious challenges. Our country has endured the deadliest external attack in its history.  We feel our security threatened here at home for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.  America has lost over three million jobs for the first time since Herbert Hoover.  As President, I will work to increase the affordability of health care and expand coverage to the 3.8 million Americans who lost their health insurance during the past four years.  Meeting these challenges demands new leadership.

I am running for President of the United States because I want to return to the values and principles that have always made us great – democracy, opportunity, responsibility, and shared sacrifice for our country.  I deeply appreciate your support, and I thank you for helping to bring about the positive changes that will move our country forward.

Sincerely,

Wesley K. Clark

General (ret.), US Army

January 23, 2004

Last update: 11/02/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.