Posts
To be fair, this post is really not entirely about labels, but that is what I am starting out with. We have all had experience with labels, right? Maybe you're the jock, or the academic, the molly mormon or the jack mormon. You're frugal or freespending, democratic or republican, liberal or conservative. Although these labels have a place, they are widely overused. For, the reality is, none of us human beings are that simple or tidy. I may be considered a liberal in some contexts, and yet identify strongly with the occasional conservative. I have leaned towards both the Democratic and the Republican parties at different times in my life, depending on their state at the time, as well as mine.
John and I had the privilege of learning of a fascinating 'academic' the other day. His name is Andrew Bacevich and he was interviewed by Bill Moyers in Mid-August. They showed the interview last Friday and John and I were sucked in, and subsequently fell completely for this man and his opinions. It felt like he was articulating everything I feel to be wrong with our nation and economy and politics, in a way that I have not been quite cognizant enough to do (I'll blame it on all of these babies ( : ). Bacevich is is considered a conservative historian and political scientist, but has been published in both conservative and liberal venues. He is faculty at Boston University. He seems to draw interest and respect from others across the political spectrum. He is a retired Army Col, graduated from West point, and spent 23 years in during the Vietnam era. Just last year, he lost his son, a 1st Lt, in Iraq. So, if anybody is in a place to say what he says, he is.
His most recent publication is titled: Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. In his discussion with Moyers he talks about the book and his perspective. He ties in our crazy consumer-driven culture with our foreign policy, a connection that I had never really made before, but it makes perfect sense. I am still sickened by the fact that shortly following 9/11 the President didn't say "Let's join together and make the nation stronger, let's volunteer, sacrifice, be better citizens" but instead said something along the lines of "Do your part, go to Disney World, go shopping, be good American consumers." Bacevich stated in the interview:
Our foreign policy is something that is concocted in Washington, DC, but it reflects the perceptions of our political elite about what we the people want," he told Moyers. "And what we want, by and large is ... this continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods. We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be. And we want to be able to do these things without having to think about whether or not the books are balanced at the end of the month, or the end of the fiscal year.
One of the ways we avoid confronting our refusal to balance the books is to rely increasingly on the projection of American military power around the world to try to maintain this dysfunctional system or set of arrangements that have evolved over the last 30 or 40 years.
He also discusses all the talk of supporting our troops, helping the nation, but the truth that the nation as a whole is not invested in the war. It has not affected their lives, they are not sending THEIR sons/husbands/sisters, etc. They are not scrimping and saving in order to spare more resources for the MONUMENTAL bill that we are footing. Here is an excerpt from his interview:There are many people who say they support the troops, and they really mean it. But when it comes, really, down to understanding what does it mean to support the troops? It needs to mean more than putting a sticker on the back of your car. I don't think we actually support the troops. We the people. What we the people do is we contract out the business of national security to approximately 0.5 percent of the population. About a million and a half people that are on active duty. And then we really turn away. We don't want to look when they go back for two or three or four or five combat tours. That's not supporting the troops. That's an abdication of civic responsibility. And I do think it - there's something fundamentally immoral about that.
Amen Brother. Amen.
He continues in the interview to discuss how we developed such grand imperial illusions, why we undertook what he termed "a fool's errand" to reshape the world in our image. At the end of the interview he states:
How did we come to be a nation in which we really thought that we could transform the greater Middle East with our army?
What have been the costs that have been imposed on this country? Hundreds of billions of dollars. Some projections, two to three trillion dollars. Where is that money coming from? How else could it have been spent? For what? Who bears the burden?
Who died? Who suffered loss? Who's in hospitals? Who's suffering from PTSD? And was it worth it? Now, there will be plenty of people who are going to say, "Absolutely, it was worth it. We overthrew this dictator." But I hope and pray that there will be many others who will make the argument that it wasn't worth it.
It was a fundamental mistake. It never should have been undertaking. And we're never going to do this kind of thing again. And that might be the moment when we look ourselves in the mirror. And we see what we have become. And perhaps undertake an effort to make those changes in the American way of life that will enable us to preserve for future generations that which we value most about the American way of life.
Perhaps there is hope. Perhaps we will wake up to our predicament before the economy or the nation collapses around us. Perhaps we can make a better world for our children. I encourage each of you, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative to read this book. John and I certainly will be. And perhaps then, we can make a difference.
