Daily Kos

Book Review: Matt Taibbi's "The Great Derangement"

Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM PDT

The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire
By Matt Taibbi
Spiegel & Grau
New York, 2008

In the pointy-headed northeastern America of my experience there were no legends of wandering prophets, no dinner-table discussions about personal salvation. But in the rest of the country you had this weird dichotomy, and advanced industrial economy confidently riding the superconductor and the microchip into the space age while most of its population hurtled backward away from the Enlightenment, living out a Canterbury Tales-type quest for revelation in a culture dominated by superstition and mystery.

Reading Matt Taibbi always reminds me of the infamous scene in Dr. Strangelove in which Slim Pickens is riding the H-bomb to certain death: there's a certain bitter, wild, laughing-on-the-way-to-destruction bravado about the fireworks of the Rolling Stone contributor's biting observations and spectacular writing skills. Nowhere is this more on display than in his current offering, The Great Derangement.

In the introduction to the book, Taibbi explains his roundabout journey to the current version: first, he explains, he was going to pen a "survey of the worst people in American politics," but he feared being pigeon-holed as the left's answer to Anne Coulter, so he wiggled out of that one, pitching to the publisher a book about how the red/blue divide is a trumped-up, over-covered piece of faux divisiveness that is serving the powers-that-be. In his own words, he explains how that got off course: "I made it about eleven thousands words into that effort before realizing that even I had no idea what the fuck I was talking about." Granted, that hasn't stopped enough authors in the past, but it stopped this one. So he proposed a year-long diary of attending Congressional sessions, but realized after plunging into the project that his commitment to Rolling Stone meant he would have to travel and leave DC too much to do the job right, so this project was abandoned as well after it had begun. But during these assigned journeys as national affairs correspondent that took him away from the nation's bubbled capital, he began to tune in to the mirror images he saw in the left and right extremes in our political culture, which became the germ of the book we now have in hand:

The Great Derangement is about a stage of our history where politics has seemingly stopped being about ideology and instead turned into a problem of information. Are the right messages reaching our collective brain? Are the halves of that brain even connected? Do we know who we are anymore? Are we sane? It's a hell of a problem for a nuclear power.

  • ::

Now at the end of the long and amusing introduction, the reader is ready to embark on a journey about ... Well, something about American character and collective insanity, perhaps? But, no. It really is a book that blends his first three ideas into a not-so-cohesive whole: Congressional sessions, the 9/11 Truth movement and--in a stroke of serendipity both the author and publisher probably pinch themselves to believe--the church of Jim Hagee, the Christian right pastor enamored of the End Times, catapulted into the news cycle via John McCain's embrace of his endorsement. The book seems to be trying to pass itself off as having one theme, but it doesn't. And really, that's okay. Read as a jumbled series of essays around the three topics works just fine, since Taibbi's writing is so vibrant, rich and irreverent you'd be happy to read him list cereal ingredients if he was given permission to take the bit in his teeth.

Just as an example of his raucous, train wreck, full-speed-ahead writing, here's how he wiggles his way into making these incompatible subjects hang together:

The country, in other words, was losing its shit. Our national politics was doomed because voters were no longer debating one another using a commonly accepted set of facts. There was no commonly accepted set of facts, except in the imagination of a hopelessly daft political and media elite that long ago lost touch with the general public. What we had instead was a nation of reality shoppers, all shutting the blinds on the loathsome old common landscape to tinker with their own self-tailored and in some cases highly paranoid recipes for salvation and/or revolution. They voted in huge numbers, but they were voting out of loathing, against enemies and against the system in general, not really for anybody. The elections had basically become a forum for organizing the hatreds of the population.

I mean, really. Who cares if the specific subjects logically belong together? If the topic is derangement and you have a writer of this caliber ricocheting words around the corners of your brain, it works.

And to be sure, there is a weird kind of balancing of the scale of obsessive craziness in choosing to focus on the Hagee crowd and the 9/11 Truthers. The juxtaposition of the author's immersion in the two subcultures is interesting, although not mined quite as deeply as it could have been. It could be that as a liberal overexposed to the Truthers, I found their sections less compelling; with Hagee, though, Taibbi actually moved to Texas, joined the church, went on retreats, got a baptized in a tank and "witnessed" to suburbanites in a shopping mall. The Truther chapters found it hard to measure up. After all, it's pretty tough for a few meetings in delicatessens with fevered MIHOP's and taut, long, crazed email exchanges with them to live up to the full immersion chapters about the Texas church. Take this realization that hits Taibbi after he goes on a weekend retreat with fellow worshipers in Texas:

By the end of the weekend I realized how quaint was the mere suggestion that Christians of this type should learn to "be rational" or "set aside your religion" about such things as the Iraq war or other policy matters. Once you’ve made a journey like this--once you’ve gone this far--you are beyond suggestible. It’s not merely the informational indoctrination, the constant belittling of homosexuals and atheists and Muslims and pacifists, etc., that’s the issue. It’s that once you’ve gotten to this place, you’ve left behind the mental process that a person would need to form an independent opinion about such things. You make this journey precisely to experience the ecstasy of beating to the same big gristly heart with a roomful of like-minded folks. Once you reach that place with them,you’re thinking with muscles, not neurons.

When he tries to position this attitude against fanatics in the 9/11 Truth movement, there is a glaring failure; as anyone who's ever tried to discuss Building 7 of the World Trade Center knows, it is not exactly a matter of "thinking with muscles, not neurons." In fact, debating with them feels quite the opposite. You get worn down with a barrage of facts, twisted facts, possibilities based on facts, speculation posing as facts and a whole range of tidbits that are factoidish but that usually have mathematical formulas attached to them that make you want to melt into a puddle of pure exhausted surrender before such bludgeoning, fact-ish fervor.

Indeed, Taibbi himself points to this when he recounts his experiences to a friend and gets the response: "Just give it up, man," he said. "This is an American controversy. No one ever gives up or admits they’re wrong. It keeps going until it’s time for the next argument."

Two great quotes--and insights that are painful if you're a liberal--leap off the page when the author reflects on the meaning of the 9/11 Truth movement. First, he observes:

Technically I was still what they would call a debunker or a "left gatekeeper," a defender of the "official story," but in a weird way I found myself in some of these gatherings getting legitimately impatient with the slow tactics of the movement. After all, I thought, if you really think that the government murdered three thousand Americans, shouldn’t you be doing more than holding sit-ins and organizing discussion groups?

Further, after he gives an account of an evening in which the group he was hanging out with watched Loose Change, he notes wryly, "If there’s one thing you can always count on, it’s that a lefty political activist will find a way to convince himself that he’s changing the world by watching a movie."

You can't scan four lines of this book without wanting to blockquote a chunk; it's quotable, pointed, painful, funny and true. Even the chapters about Congress--which end up coming across as intermissions most of the time as Taibbi bounces between Hagee and the Truthers--are riveting. If you'd told me a month ago I'd stay up past 2 AM to read 15,000 words about how the Energy Bill wound its way through various back rooms and committees in Congress, I would have told you you were nuts. But I did, and it was worth it. His head-shaking about the personalities on the left and the right in other portions of the book are nothing compared with his take on the U.S. Government and the power structure it preserves. In fact, it seems at times he approaches claiming the societal and political set-up is one of the causes of the individual madness.

Washington politicians basically view the People as a capricious and dangerous enemy, a dumb mob whose only interesting quality happens to be their power to take away politicians’ jobs. The driving motivation of all Washington politicians is to quell or deflect that power, and this is visible even in such a terrible, immediate emergency as the Iraq war, when one would think that some kind of civic instinct would kick in, for five minutes or so at least. But no: instead, a newly conquering congressional majority armed with a fresh mandate essentially spent its first year in office trying to stay on the right side of public anger while maintaining business as usual; it was very plain that the party viewed its end-the-war mandate as a burden, not a privilege.

When the government sees its people as the enemy, sooner or later that feeling gets to be mutual. And that’s when the real weirdness begins.

All I can say is, thank God we have Matt Taibbi around to document the real weirdness. The ride might be harrowing, but at least we can laugh as we go down.

Tags: book review, Matt Taibbi, The Great Derangement (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 150 comments

  •  the Twilight of American Empire.... (15+ / 0-)

    <sigh>  never thought it would happen in MY Lifetime.  How sad that it has come to this.  

    The CONSTITUTION is MY Flag pin

    by KnotIookin on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM PDT

    •  The demise of American democracy (20+ / 0-)

      is tragic. On the other hand, the twilight of American Empire seems like a healthy development. The world is better off when the blind accumulation doesn't dominate all other human activities.

      Greed makes a really shitty foundation for a civilization to build itself upon.

      by Red Bean on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It Would Seem the "Demise of American (4+ / 0-)

        democracy" went hand-in-hand with the rise of oil and Halliburton profit margins.

        "The Use of Unnecessary Violence Has Been Approved." Keith Olbermann

        by CityLightsLover on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It started long ago (9+ / 0-)

          Bush merely stepped on the gas pedal and pushed it to the floor.

          •  I heard Daniel Berrigan speak about the subject (16+ / 0-)

            5 months before 9/11.  Using "Revelations," he analogized the American Empire that he already saw in place to the Roman Empire that was the allegorical subject of "Revelations."

            Obviously, our country had imperial impulses before 9/11.  All shackles of restraint and rationality have been broken since then, however.  An empire and a truly representative govt affording basic civil liberties cannot coexist.  At least, before W/Cheney took power in 12/00, we still had something resembling representative govt, and we had basic civil liberties.

            The real issue before us this year is whether we will institutionalize the executive power grab of the last 8 years.  We have choices between someone who will fully institutionalize it, someone who will largely institutionalize it, and someone who will, hopefully, cut back on it signficantly.

            I shudder to contemplate the consequences of either of the first 2 choices.  While HRC was always my least favorite Dem candidate of this campaign, the degree to which she has espoused McCain's worldview has come to surprise me.  It's one thing to have a Dem who has never acknowledged that the IWR was a mistake--it's another thing entirely for her to blithely talk about expanding the war next door.

            Taibbi is H S Thompson w/o the drugs.  I'm glad that he's around.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Choices (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              jmart, RFK Lives, KnotIookin

              We have choices between someone who will fully institutionalize it, someone who will largely institutionalize it, and someone who will, hopefully, cut back on it signficantly.

              Good summary of our choices.

            •  So here again I want to point out (8+ / 0-)

              that the executive power grab has been well under way since long before Dumya entered the White House.

              For example, in 1998 Bill Clinton dropped a cruise missile on the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. The owner of the plant, Salah Idris, twice sued the US govt. First to get his assets unfrozen. That lawsuit was uncontested, with the government pleading that it could not show 'secret' evidence without compromising national security. (A typical Bush move, but in that case made by the Clinton admin)

              The second lawsuit, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company and Salah El Din Ahmed Mohammed Idris v. United States, was dismissed in favor of the United States. The courts ruled that the President's designation of "enemy property" was beyond review. Essentially a decision that says the President of the United States, even without there being an officially declared war, can simply designate a spot anywhere on the Earth for annihilation, and there is nothing anyone can do after the fact to seek justice about this, except to vote him or her out of office.

              A similar conclusion was reached in the case of SCHNEIDER v KISSINGER (a lawsuit that was filed on Sept 11, 2001). The court ruled that Henry Kissinger's having aided and abetted the assassination of Chilean General Rene Schneider was "not justiciable", as it was Kissinger's job as a political appointee to decide which enemies needed assassinating. So here again we find our courts acknowledging that in the case of foreign affairs, our public officials may commit murder with impunity.

              This stuff was well under way before Bush. And it will continue after he's gone, unless a miracle happens.

            •  asdf (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Subterranean

              The real issue before us this year is whether we will institutionalize the executive power grab of the last 8 years.

              But the fundamental failing which led to that was Congress letting it happen and even pushing it along.

              Then the next failing was the citizens letting Congress and the President do it, and the press cheering it on.

              Best of all worlds would be for the citizens to assert their power and force Congress to reassert its power.  Not likely, though.

              Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

              by Simplify on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:44:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  your gas pedal analogy doesn't address (0+ / 0-)

            malevolent intenet or incompetence of unprecedented scale.

            At times it seems likely that the "Grover Norquist mind-set of antipathy to government" breeds ideological twits like George W Bush who .... ....who...who... accidentally, deliberately, gleefully, ignorantly... deconstructs a super-power?

            What has happened over the last 7 years is of such a massive order of self-destruction that it simply could not have been better done if carried out by a conspiracy of external and internal enemies.

            That doesn't mean the Bush regime has been a conspiracy of external and internal enemies of the American state, constituiton and body politic.

            It remains, however worthy to note the stunning efficiency and completeness of the effort to dethrone American hegemony in the disguise of projecting it further afield.

            •  malevolent INTENT..not internets..shheesh sorry. (0+ / 0-)

            •  I sort of disagree (7+ / 0-)

              You could say that there has been a massive over-reach which we take to be incompetence, but it is a classic symptom of empires in general.

              Alexander Cockburn wrote this little bit comparing the USA to the UK and Rome, and I think it describes things pretty well:

              But can they call it all off? I mean, at what point did a Roman emperor say, "Screw it, give them goddamn Dacia. We don't need it. Parthia too." No, never. It was surge surge surge until finally the overtaxed citizenry of the Roman Empire hung out signs saying "Goths Welcome!  15 per cent off for Parthians!" The Brits were still battling for south Yemen in the 1960s when they hadn't a dime in the bank. In those days Aden was a "crucial entrepot", now days, it's a "backwater", just like Grenada which, when the New Jewel movement briefly gleamed, was "athwart our vital sea lanes".  

              Of course in Cockburn's view -- a view I largely agree with on this particular point -- with Democrats you get a more "competent" manager of Empire. Meaning the Empire lasts a little longer, but not fundamentally altering the course. So that's why I tend to think of Democrats as not "flooring it" as Imperial Drivers, and occasionally even applying brakes. But one must also recall the "best and brightest" Democrats of the 1960s, and how they kept up the killing in Vietnam just in time for Nixon and Kissinger to take over and do more killing.

              •  Actually, LBJ was not of the "Best and Brightest" (0+ / 0-)

                That was the Kennedy crowd.  But it did include McNamara, who was as wrong about Vietnam as Rumsfeld was about Iraq.  McNamara realized the error of his ways later on, which I guess makes him the "best and brightest" out of a gang of delusional fools.  Reportedly, Rumsfeld had to go because he, too, realized Iraq was a lost cause and wanted it pull out.

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:14:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Demise of American democracy (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        boofdah

        started when voters realized they could vote for people who would give them stuff in return.

        Life is not about joy and happiness. It is about duty and responsibility.

        by Void Indigo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I might be inclined... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        gogol, RFK Lives

        ...to view it as a "good" thing, were it not for the fact that I think we stand a good chance of seeing the Chinese eventually step into the power vacum that we leave.

        At that point, our best hope is that the Indians, perhaps, can gain enough power to balance them out on the world scene.

        •  Unfortunately, India (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          jmart, WayneNight, BWildered

          is "free" largely by virtue of its ungovernability, and unlikely to present a serious challenge to China.  We're approaching an age of "equalization" (in a bad way) where no society or government is especially better, more honest, or more capable than any other, and the incentives to excel are marginal.  The only difference becomes wealth, which is then fought over by selfish, narcissistic, paranoid cultures with equally nonexistent right to it.  Like the Dark Ages.

          Freedom is in the fight.

          by Troubadour on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Canada is another possibility... (0+ / 0-)

            ...for the emerging super power category.  Plenty of natural resources, including oil. Plus a large reserve of fresh water, going into a time where fresh water is going to become an increasingly scarce resource.

            What makes me discount Canada, though, is that I honestly not sure they'd want to be a super power, or have that much influnce over the world.

            Also, Canadians are for making fun of, not for positions of power. ;-)

            •  Too stable, and too close to the US. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              WayneNight

              Superpowers emerge from more or less content isolation, after radical changes brought about externally: Canada, however, is not isolated in any way, shape, or form, and unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future.  Given the right far-future conditions, I would say Australia has a lot more of the essential ingredients  than Canada - geographically isolated, a good balance of environmental challenge and potential, etc.  I don't, however, think either India or Brazil will ever be a superpower, regardless of their resources and populations: They're very much organic, complex societies, and you can't achieve rapid progress starting from a foundation of complexity - it's like trying to build a house from a pile of randomly sized beams.  Superpower is a relative position, not an absolute status, so to get there you have to rocket past everyone else - comfortable (e.g., Canada) or highly complex (e.g., India) societies can't or won't do that.

              Freedom is in the fight.

              by Troubadour on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately when empires collapse (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Jagger

        they frequently bury their citizens in the rubble.  Also, a sudden power vacuum can lead to conflicts between the other powers on the borders of the die empire, making for an even bumpier ride.

        •  England and Russia (0+ / 0-)

          England and Russia were the last two collapses of empires.  Which example is more applicable to the US?

          •  neither, although England is closer (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Jagger

            England overlooked the growth of the two new economic powers, the US and Germany; if you look at the World Wars they were to a large degree Germany and the US fighting for control.

            England also failed to educate enough of its youth in the needed skills to maintain its position. I believe no less light than William Henry Perkin bemoaned the state of chemical instruction in England; chemistry being the Victorian equivalent of the semiconductor and computer industries, complete with promoting products that didn't yet exist, and companies burning through capital while not turning out a bit of product.

            But England's collapse was slow, a loosening of the bonds on their colonies over many decades.  Canada wasn't considered independent until the end of WW-I, and didn't complete that for another half Century.

            The colonies of the British Empire were for the most part shaped to some degree or other into the form of England, the Commonwealth leaned a little in the direction of a federation.  The Russian/Soviet empire was mostly internal, within their official boarders, plus countries immediately adjacent too the USSR (Cuba being a noticeable exception, but it's pretty minor)

            The US empire is military bases and cultural domination.  We're loosing the lead in learning and technology, our media & entertainment dominance is showing sings of slipping. As the US influence wanes, those regions are not likely to consider themselves kin to the US,  and may even see the US as a foe.

            •  Empires Ignore their real Strengths (0+ / 0-)

              It seems the fate of most if not all empires is to not understand the true foundations of their success and power. Or if they do in part it is too late or still places too much emphasis on some of the trappings and froth and secondary strengths and thus allow the really vital underpinnings to weaken.

              It might be an egalitarianism or education or freedom of expression or any number of things. When fewer and fewer Romans benefited (less trickle down??) the recurring fights for dominance between the most powerful meant that ordinary people had less and less incentive to prop up the powers that were.

              The more the strongest succeed they destroy their ultimate base of support. More for them and immediate aiders and abetters and less for everyone else. And crucial to this process is less freer flow of information and feedback. Short term windfall gains are hampered if everyone's bitches and moans are taken into account.....

              In the Navy there is a saying that "a Bitching crew is a happy crew." They still care, they still believe that they can be heard, they still have a stake in active participation. The Captain Blighs of the world who tolerate little and listen even less have a quiet crew for the time being who no longer buy into the mission.....

              Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie

              by IreGyre on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:00:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not the Twilight (0+ / 0-)

      We are just catching our breath for the next round. Maybe the world would rather have China or Russia replace America?

      Life is not about joy and happiness. It is about duty and responsibility.

      by Void Indigo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  matters not what "the world wants" (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Jagger, ailanthus, Youffraita

        but who is there with the capabilities.  China and India have significantly expanding economies, Russia has real wealth for the first time in a century.

        The offshoring of signification sectors of the US industrial base, combined with the selling off of strategic reserves and outsourcing of potions of the military support system, have left the US somewhat vulnerable and less likely to be able to sustain a conflict or standoff against China.  Tough to have a technological based conflict when your opponent manufactures that technology for you.

        •  China (0+ / 0-)

          is a growing power but they are still years behind us militarially. They have a costal navy and no lift capability to project military power. Tacticly they are based on numbers as opposed to quality of units. Russia has similar problems with their military. We are the only nation who can project military power to anywhere in the world. We still maintain at least one generation ahead of the rest of the world in military equipment technology.

          Life is not about joy and happiness. It is about duty and responsibility.

          by Void Indigo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In case you didn't notice (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            jmart, esquimaux

            We are a bankrupt nation, if we decide to "project" our power, how will it be paid? And since we don't seem to educate our young, I wonder if we do have such a lead in military equipment technology? Never mind that is a waste of our intellectual talent. Besides I wonder if China wants to take it's turn in being the new version of the Kipling poem The White Man's Burden?

            America, They were yours, Honor Them, Do Not forget them-IGTNT.

            by Mr Stagger Lee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:26:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If you can't get the parts to build the tech (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            jmart, gogol, Subterranean, BWildered

            it doesn't matter how far ahead you are.  And much of the nut & bolts, and jelly-bean integrated circuits, come from SE Asia, India, and increasingly China.  The Chinese can project power far enough to shut the feed of materials down, as the factories were sold to overseas companies the US couldn't even do a crash effort to bring them back on line.

            The Pentagon was expecting a fair chance of the US and China getting into headbutting around 2030-2050, back at the end of the 20th.  That date has been moved forwards by a decade or even more.

            The US military is stating that they're close to not being able to project more power than a cub scout troop sent on a tramp steamer.  Without significant increases in taxes, the military is in trouble, so long as they are tied up in Iraq and scattered over bases all over the world.  They can't even house the troops in buildings that don't kill them, drip sewage on them, and whatnot. In the mean time they're paying contractors to run empty trucks back and forth - something that I'm sure would help in any real conflict.

            Nor does the US have the financial capacity to engage in a major showdown in the near future, the Iraq invasion and occupation will end up costing several trillion, some of that could be shaved off by continuing to dust-bin injured service people.  Getting out now would also reduce that, but of the candidates that have any more chance than a fart in a hurricane of winning in November, getting out in "a few years" is the best to be expected; the "cut-taxes-and-increase-spending conservatives will do their best to make that decades or longer.

          •  All China has to do is to cash in (0+ / 0-)

            their chips, to do what our own banks are doing to us on a daily basis, that is. The illusion that the US has some innate ability that is somehow unconnected to purchasing power is a dangerous one, one that unfortunately is all too common. We are like the road runner running through the tunnel portal that the coyote painted. I hope he painted an exit portal, too.

          •  if air craft carriers made (0+ / 0-)

            battleships oboslete, ICBMs make navies obsolete?

            We are the only nation who can project military power to anywhere in the world. We still maintain at least one generation ahead of the rest of the world in military equipment technology.

             

            When spending more than all other militaries on the planet combined one might expect some measureable advantage or unique capability.

            I wonder how long "a generation" is in hi-tech weapons technology.  How much can a generation be shortened by espionage?

            Those who would sell America's most important strategic weaponry secrets to China would be prosecuted I presume.

          •  Technology can give us an edge (0+ / 0-)

            but it is no guarantee of superiority, as both Vietnam and Iraq demonstrate.  In both wars, our civilian and military leaders grossly overestimated the limits of military technology, while failing to account for the power of a people fighting for their own territory and way of life.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Elan can over come the people (0+ / 0-)

              "our civilian and military leaders grossly overestimated the limits of military technology, while failing to account for the power of a people fighting for their own territory and way of life."

              Our civilians maybe. The Waffen SS proved in Czech that with proper incentives, the people will come around.  Reinhard Heydrich proved that the carrot and stick method can work. Why do you think the British killed him.

              Life is not about joy and happiness. It is about duty and responsibility.

              by Void Indigo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:06:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  China and US are too interdependent (0+ / 0-)

          Their economy relies on US consumers, and vice versa.  We need each other, and so it is not likely that the oligarchy of either country truly wants to compete militarily.  But economically?  Absolutely.  China wants to be independent of the US far more than we care to be independent of China.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:35:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Collectivism is catching up to us (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jagger

      Even with GWB, spending on entitlements is through the roof.  Let's start thinking and acting as individuals instead of trusting Washington and our state capitals to do for us.

      By the way, why do superdelegates votes count more than ordinary people.  Sort of reminds me of the old Soviet Politburo.  (people don't know what they are doing, lets get it right for the masses)

      •  Yeah right (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        melo, Philoguy, EastCoastShock, justCal

        the problem is "collectivism" and entitlements and not contempt for the rule of law, policies that favor giant corporations and manipulation of mass media.

        Greed makes a really shitty foundation for a civilization to build itself upon.

        by Red Bean on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Power (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        melo, gogol

        By the way, why do superdelegates votes count more than ordinary people.  Sort of reminds me of the old Soviet Politburo.  (people don't know what they are doing, lets get it right for the masses)

        Elitists grabbing a bit more power.  Just another bit of chipping away at democracy. It all adds up with time and suddenly we are where we are today.

        The masses don't even notice the foxes guarding the henhouse grabbing another hen.

        It is too easy.

      •  Ahem, the ideology of (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        chimpwatch

        the primacy of the individualism is what underlies all these political obscenities.  

      •  some wag pointed out.. (0+ / 0-)

        Robert Mugabe thrived on superdelegatism.

      •  what a load of crap (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        AbsurdEyes, priceman, Econaut

        look at the federal budget.  Social Security doesn't worry me - it's still taking in more money than goes out.  Raise the wage caps slightly, and it's solvent 'till the sun burns out.  The numbers that bother me are half a trillion on defense (and that doesn't count the Iraq War, which Bush leaves out because fudging the numbers is kind of his thing), a quarter trillion on interest on the debt, but a mere 33 billion on natural resources and the environment, $25B on science and technology, and $23.5B on energy.  And you wonder why we're falling behind?

        Why are we spending billions keeping troops in Germany, Japan and Italy 60 years after WWII ended?  Why are we spending billions on destroyers designed to defeat the Soviet navy, or worse, space lasers that don't work, designed to protect us from a nonexistent threat?  Those are the "entitlements" that are bleeding us dry - not making sure my grandparents can get to the doctor okay.

        And back to Social Security for a second - I don't know how many thousands of times this has to be said: It isn't an "entitlement" if you pay into it your whole life.  Could a bank manager say, "you know, we lose a lot of money when people withdraw from ATMs.  What if we made them deposit-only?"

        McCain/Graham 08: It Takes a Nation of Whiners To Hold us Back

        by schroeder on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:56:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well put (0+ / 0-)

          The military spending is way out of control, and as long as both sides of the isle prefix every statement they're about to make on the military with "our brave men and women in the uniform" or some other such fluff phrase, this isn't going to change.

          We definitely aren't getting enough back for what we pay into the military. Ah, if only there was a president to propose drastically cutting back the military budget. Like to 1/10th the amount in 10 years.

          Every freaking branch of the military has its airplane fleet. In other countries, that's simple called the airforce. Singular.

          •  the military-industrial complex (0+ / 0-)

            The problem is, military spending is so ingrained into several aspects of our way of life.  First, is that if Social Security is the third rail of politics, cutting military spending is an erupting volcano - don't go anywhere near it.  John Kerry was attacked for cutting military spending six hundred thousand times, or whatever it was.  Most of those times were imaginary, and of what remained, most came in a "peace dividend" reduction after the Cold War ended, approved by then-Defense Secretary... Dick Cheney.  And Kerry still paid for it.

            Second, military spending represents a significant chunk of our economy.  I imagine it's a smaller chunk than it used to be, as so much manufacturing is outsourced.  Still, you're eliminating jobs.

            Third, besides a cozy relationship with the actual military, defense contractors have a lot of sway with politicians who they contribute to, and, of course, within the media, half of which is owned by... defense contractors!  NBC/Universal/Sheinhardt Wig Company is owned by GE, and CBS/Viacom is owned by Westinghouse.  Both companies make washer/dryers, fluffy little kittens, and lots and lots of military hardware.  Throw in the warmongering lunatics at Fox, and who out there isn't going to attack cuts to the military?

            The worst part is, on the rare instances when people find out where their money does go, they're generally horrified.  Remember the $10,000 toilet seat?  And your point about competing Air Forces is a great one.  Every branch of the service has a fleet of airplanes, yet none of them could give air cover to Washington on 9/11, in the 90 minutes between WTC and the Pentagon being hit?  I want my money back.

            Likewise, the "party of small government's" massive Homeland Security bureaucracy, which has accomplished not a heck of a lot, apart from that handy color-coded "Bush's approval ratings are slipping" chart.  Do we really need the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, DHS, DoI, JLA, SD6, X-Files, Dharma Initiative, and however many other agencies are out there essentially covering the same beat?  All of which operate with virtually no accountability?

            There needs to be one intelligence agency, so we don't have the "miscommunications" and turf wars that led to 9/11, not to mention the redundant overspending.  And we need to seriously examine our military, and  spend money wisely - on keeping our troops safe, not just buying expensive toys; and for dealing with the threats we currently face, not the ones from 20 (or 60) years ago.

            McCain/Graham 08: It Takes a Nation of Whiners To Hold us Back

            by schroeder on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The "twilight of American empire" may be (0+ / 0-)

      prematurely optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on one's vantage point and proclivities). One does not need to be a semiotician to read the signs amidst the extant posturing and belligerence of Cheney, Gates , Rice, Petraeus , Bush, and their concomitant neocon think-tanks and priapic military (and, our Middle Eastern pit bull, Israel) preparing for an imminent attack on Iran. The American citizenry is as ignorant of the facts and as susceptible to the Bush propaganda machine on Iran as it was with Iraq; more so it would appear. Despite the fact that we actually will be in a perpetual war after that – at least one that will last into the next century - and despite the blatant hypocrisy of arming to the hilt with nuclear technology and fissile material one strategically located nation that already has  nuclear weapons (although not a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty), while threatening "dire consequences" if Iran, who does not possess nuclear weapons, continues to enrich uranium for what ever their purposes may be. If the media had an ounce of responsibility (or sovereignty or courage) and laid out the facts, including who has nukes and who doesn’t, who is likely to use them and who isn’t, and attempted to reveal the true nature of the Persian culture to Americans before we vaporize them, perhaps the inevitable march to war would run into some obstacles.

      As RFK Lives says below (or above, depending on where this mouse dropping resides),

      The real issue before us this year is whether we will institutionalize the executive power grab of the last 8 years.

      With one very determined Democrat ready to "obliterate" 70 million people to protect this "American Empire" - one who will use every resource to steal the nomination - and the Republican nominee, who thinks that America's manifest destiny is to rule the planet, the odds are not in favor of an imminent crepuscular denouement.

    •  The demise of the Empire should be celebrated (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Red Bean

      It is indeed an evil Empire.

      "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

      by chimpwatch on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:05:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting... (3+ / 0-)

    ...this same train of thought has led me to abandoning the "cargo cult" view of religious belief and becoming atheist.

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM PDT

  •  That last block quote (5+ / 0-)

    could just as easily be about the mainstream/traditional media.  I've picked up on this during this campaign season big time.  I feel attacked by the pundits.  They are defining us, all of us, in horrible, horrible ways...and sadly, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  Sometimes it seems as if American people are starting to act like parodied versions of themselves.  

    •  You're right. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      melo, Arabiflora

      I hadn't thought of it. It's like they (the pundits) are the grown-ups having their big serious conversation and we're the children supposed to be seen not heard and their egos and phony laughter and lame self-satisfaction fill the room and we can feel it with our child souls but lack the standing to get a word in edgewise. They are totally full of shit, the lot of them. Their ignorance and herd mentality and hypocrisy are plain as day but there is no way to get through to them because they've fallen into the grown-up spell of first pretending, then believing that they have all the answers. Ignorant, insensitive, wooden adults who have forgotten how to hear and to honor the breath of truth that we kids are entirely intimate with.

      "Your point. Their village." --Zhivago to Strelnikov

      by ailanthus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good description (0+ / 0-)

        I alternate between thinking about what you just said, and wondering if these pundits are so mentally unfit that they believe they are in the midst of severely profound debates that the average American can barely follow.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:40:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The misuse of the Chaucer reference (12+ / 0-)

    has turned me off.  Odd how several of the Canterbury Tales concern DE-mystification, were one to read them.  If he's referring to the fact that the Tales are told in a pilgrimage to Thomas a Becket's shrine, okay.  But the text is much more complicated than to be used as a simple throwaway example of dead medievals.  It's actually quite racy and modern in parts.  /end medievalist Ph.D. student rant

    •  Chaucer/Taibbi (5+ / 0-)

      Now that you mention it, Chaucer may be closer to Taibbi than the latter realizes.  Chaucer was an over-educated son of the middle class whose skills brought him within the inner circles of the power structures of his time.  He saw the folly, excesses, and hypocrisies of the powerful and influential and he detailed them in a sophisticated and often devastating manner.  Of course this kind of critique is only one small part of his total output, but it's what most students of literature experience in school.

      Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

      by Fatherflot on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the information. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Much of the Middle Ages was in fact far less (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Fatherflot, dirkster42

      medieval than has been made out to be the case since the Enlightenment - Voltaire and his ilk were great wits, but very poor historians.

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Medieval era is in fact two eras: (0+ / 0-)

        The "Dark Ages" (as I arbitrarily define them) were dominated by Constantinople, and were truly what modern people think of when they hear the term: Ugly, ignorant, chaotic, brutal, and the few islands of order were slavishly despotic.  Then there was the "High Middle Ages," with the action mainly in France, Italy, and Spain, which gave rise to the children's fable version of the time - knights in shining plate armor, the concept of chivalry, courtly love, the rise of the troubadours and mendicant storytellers, Gothic architecture, Scholasticism, and much more organized  versions of religious fanaticism.

        Freedom is in the fight.

        by Troubadour on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dark Ages (0+ / 0-)

          I think "slavishly despotic" is rather unfair to the balanced, well-reasoned legal system of Ireland at the time. Ugly and ignorant hardly applies to the 9-10th century court poetry of western Britain. I suspect that just as Enlightenment partisans devalued the scholarship of the Middle Ages (e.g., the roots of chemistry and natural history), Anglophone and Francophone nationalists viewed the "Dark Ages" through the lens of their own brutal feudalism. This ignores the vibrant trading culture of the western fringe--from Islamic Iberia to Aquitaine and Erie.

          •  Nitpicking. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Subterranean

            The fact that a civilization existed at all means you can find some mildly functional (i.e., "vibrant" relative to its peers) aspect to praise, but if the best of the half-millennium from the fall of Rome to the beginning of the European ancien regime was the legal system of a Celtic backwater on the far fringes of civilization and some trade routes in the Caliphate, it's just not even worth mentioning.  It was the Dark Ages, and it was bad.  Very, very bad.

            Freedom is in the fight.

            by Troubadour on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:14:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  My favorite Taibbi (17+ / 0-)

    This is my favorite piece by Matt Taibbi.

    Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It’s not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It’s that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it’s absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that’s guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.

    I tried to read Friedman once and couldn't get through a single chapter, not because of any political disagreement which I surely would have if I could follow his gawdawful writing, but because I couldn't.

    Every time I read comments about the "brilliant writing" of Friedman (or Hitchens) I want to scream.

  •  If Obama wins, it's the 2nd American Century (6+ / 0-)

    It's only the "twilight of the American Empire" if McCain wins and US sets an "Imperial" course to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years.

    If Obama wins and US fixes its triple by pass problems of energy, health care and deficit/debt, the US could easily be in the beginning of the Second American Century.

    A century where the US leads in being energy efficient with sustainable wind, solar, geothermal, fusion and hydrogen power, leading the world in science and technology, dealing with pollution and global warming.

    Where the US provides health care for all at half the current cost freeing up huge amounts of capital for US jobs and industry, many in new energy industries.

    Where US no longer needs to invade and occupy countries, overthrow democracies to try and secure oil supplies from oppressive, theocratic dictatorship which spawn terrorism against the US.

    Where the US can be a force for democracy and economic and social justice around the world, no longer forced to play the imperial role to secure oil supplies to feed an inefficient economy.

    •  No, even if (10+ / 0-)

      Obama wins we haven't righted the ship, if righting the ship is even an appropriate metaphor.  Obama is clearly the best choice and the least beltway of the candidates, but he still won't get rid of signing statements, which are a genie out of the bottle as much as anything is.

      No, the US is evolving, like any organism or structure made of living organisms.  You cannot go back or devolve.  This nation has always been in the process of evolving, but within the confines of the Constitution.  But after decades of chipping away at the Constitution, those walls are effectively gone, and the US is free to evolve into something that it was never meant to become.

      "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell

      by HamilcarBarca on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:29:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The wheels of this evolution (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        gogol, justCal

        were actually in place before any of us were born.

        Here's a quote from The Nation magazine that refers to the annexation of Hawai'i:

        The history of this Hawaiian affair offers a good illustration of the danger to us of colonies and dependencies under our present form of government and with our present class of public men. Rome fell under the weight of her provinces, with a constitution ten times better fitted than ours for the management of distant conquests, for the Senate was filled with the ablest and most experienced men of the empire. But the Senate was gradually broken down by the intrigues and bribes of the generals and proconsuls. We, at the very outset of our career of annexation, in the very first case of it, start an intrigue in our own State Department for the overthrow of a friendly power, allow our minister on the spot to land troops to assist in what was really his personal conquest, annex the Islands without hearing the ruler in her own defence, and denounce everybody who objects to these proceedings as an enemy of the United States. If these things are done in the green tree, what would be done in the dry? Suppose we had half-a-dozen islands like Hawaii, and half-a-dozen States like Cuba, San Domingo, Costa Rica, and Guatemala to administer, with our Senators intriguing for proconsulships and the members of the House casting anchors to windward and seeking out channels of usefulness: how long would the government of Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln last?
        --The Nation, November 23, 1893

        Genghis Khan's position was, in fact, far more defensible than ours [Americans], as an expander. He was in favor of expansion because, as he openly avowed, he liked the fun of expanding. He enjoyed killing people who resisted annexation and piling their heads up in pyramidal form. He indulged in no hypocritical pretences about their wanting to be annexed, or about the good annexation would do them.
        --The Nation, January 27, 1898

        We now have military bases in over 100 countries. The government of Washington and Jefferson was gone long ago.

        •  This is why (3+ / 0-)

          history should be the most important subject after reading in school.  There were too many founding fathers who stressed the importance of civic duty and learning from the mistakes of the past in forming our nation.  We have bred a race of Americans who are not only averse to history, but embrace a counterfactual myth which has been constructed carefully over decades--by we the people and those who govern us.

          "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell

          by HamilcarBarca on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think I'm ever going to make up (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            gogol, Janet Strange

            my mind on whether the fault lies with them or with (loosely speaking) "us".

            How much is it that the powers want to maintain "Necessary Illusions" (in Chomsky-speak) and how much is it that people have a "will to ignorance" (in Zizek-speak)?

            There's kind of an interplay between the two. Right now our political system pretends we got attacked on 9/11 only because of the irrational hatred that our enemies have for our angelic freedom-lovin and freedom-spreadin selves. Largely, "we the people" seem to prefer this fairy tale to actively addressing the wrongs that our government has done and will continue to do in our names. That is why it was important for Obama to denounce Reverend Wright (he noticed all the evil shit the government has done and is continuing to do). And it is why support for the killing we're doing in Iraq is only falling due to its cost, instead of people recognizing it for the terrible crime against humanity that an unprovoked war always is.

      •  Let's not set limits on Obama's potential (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        pacplate, Econaut

        until his actions discover them.  It's true you can't reverse entropy in an absolute sense, but the United States is not an optimized system running into inherent limits - it has been deliberately sabotaged, and still contains an awesome level of neglected energy.  We have a choice about how that energy is realized - soon, by a great President who infuses new life into our republic, or later by a charismatic and competent Emperor who brings stability and prosperity while euthanizing freedom.  

        Freedom is in the fight.

        by Troubadour on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:00:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are three things that need to be done (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      keirdubois, FishBiscuit, Youffraita

      In my humble opinion, that is.

      1. Repudiate the Conservative Movement
      1. Reform the Media
      1. Give the Democratic Party a Spine

      Sadly, I don't know that electing Barack Obama accomplishes any of the 3. Barack is a conciliatory figure at a time that I believe warrants a fierce populist reformer.

      I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.  Barack is an inspirational figure, and I can always hope.

      The times, they are a-changin'

      by Malacandra on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:44:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Question: (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Youffraita

        What power does a president - or the government - have to "reform the media."

        I can think of a few things.  Namely:

        ~Paid time for candidates

        ~Restoring the equal time rule

        ~Preventing media consolidation

        Beyond that, however, I should think it would be tough for any president to engage in "media reform" on his own.  Much of it can only be done by the media itself, when it realizes just how low it has gone.  And, sadly, that realization may take some time, if it ever comes at all.

    •  I find this sentence disturbs the force (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      gogol, Jagger, Econaut

      Where US no longer needs to invade and occupy countries, overthrow democracies to try and secure oil supplies from oppressive, theocratic dictatorship which spawn terrorism against the US.

      What spawns terrorism against the US is all the shit we did, including aiding and abetting the theocratic dictatorships whenever it suits Big Oil.

      But "need" is a strange word to attach to the act of invading and occupying countries and causing the deaths of millions of people...

      •  For "needs," read "feels the need" (0+ / 0-)

        Better?

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  US goes down without Middle East oil (0+ / 0-)

        US needed to prevent Russia from controlling Iranian oil fields.  That need for oil lead to US overthrowing Iranian democracy.

        The US supported Saddam. The US supported Bin Laden. The US has opposed any democratic reforms in the Middle East in order to gain the false security of oppressive dictatorships that promise to sell us oil or "keep the peace" (the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt).

        War and terrorism are the result of US need for Middle East oil.

        The key is Obama's ability to actually build a political coalition to give the US a sane energy policy that reduces US oil use.

        Obama's opposition to the Clinton/McCain gas tax "holiday" shows he has the political courage and good judgment needed to get the US to that goal.

        Once the US no longer imports oil, it will not feel threatened by the "messy" democracies that will spring up in the Middle East...democracies we need to support to be true to our values.

    •  Is it really a good idea... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      keirdubois

      ...to build Senator Obama up that much?

      He's only one man.  And I already fear that he's giong to let us down, both because he's not nearly as instinctively progressive as he's often made out to be, and because, frankly, he has such an image that it's going to be damn near impossible for him to live up to everyone's expectations.

      He's just a man, not a God.  I expect him to do well, but I don't expect him to preform miracles, or solve every problem facing the country.

      •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        high uintas, WayneNight

        He WILL let us down, even those of us who are his most enthusiastic supporters. How much that matters seems to involve how much we take that particular insult personally.

        •  Doonesburry (4+ / 0-)

          I remember back in the misty dawn of time a Doonesburry panel with one character looking at Bill Clinton and saying, "You're going to break our hearts, aren't you?"

          Of course Obama will let us down, no human can carry the expectations that have been put on him. I fully expect to be throwing something at the TV at some point in his time in office.

          I'm no cynic, just a realist. I do have hope that he can do at least some of what he wants, a quarter of his policy changes would be like Everest compared to Bush and his ant hill.

          Edwards Democrat voting for Obama would like to remind you, "Concentration Moon, over the camp in the valley" Frank Zappa knew.

          by high uintas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What bothers me... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            keirdubois

            ...is that I think what the country needs - and what the Democratic Party, especially, needs - right now is a president who will offer an unapologetic defense of what it