Reflections on the state of the nation at this point in time, and on why I’m blogging
The United States has a history that has been revised to resemble myth: glory, goodness, and apple pie. Any events that don’t reflect the way we Americans want to think of ourselves get erased from our written records and collective memory, and are hotly denied whenever reality’s ugly head rears itself. Forgetfulness becomes a virtue in a time when the history upon which we rest our identity is too ugly to allow us to feel great about ourselves.
Before some starry-eyed historians attempt to sanitize this period of history and make it warm and fuzzy for future generations, I want to make a modern record of what it is really like to be here at this time, in this place, from the point of view I have, using the recently popularized media resources available to me.
The long history of dissent in this country has been stifled again and again, kept hidden from the mainstream by wishful thinkers and image peddlers controlling the flow of information. This blog is my small contribution to documenting what I’m seeing and hearing in one of the dark times in U.S. history: the voices and images that point out that the United States is not living up to its ideals.
*
There is a concept in the US called “moral relativism,” a circumstance decried by fundamentalists for depriving our culture of morality. They define this term as meaning that there is no ultimate, God-given right or wrong. Moral relativism is decried as a crime of modern western education. Ironically, those same fundamentalists judge the same actions as right or wrong depending on who is doing them, which I think provides a superior definition of moral relativism. Examples:
Opposing the President in public? Fine if it was Clinton, even during wartime; treason if it’s Bush, especially during wartime.
Adultery? A crime against the nation if it’s a Democrat; peachy keen if it’s a Republican. (A real life example of moral relativism among my acquaintances: a Republican friend explained that Clinton’s adultery was worse than his Republican predecessor’s merely because she had to hear about Clinton’s longer. It wasn’t the act itself that was a crime – just the publicity! And the publicity was Clinton’s fault, she insisted. Also, see the list of Republican adulterers and repeat divorcers who sponsored the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (buddybuddy.com and elsewhere) for examples of adulterers supported by fundamentalists.)
Terrorism? Fine against our enemies and the old USSR, Evil against us. (See: good shock and awe versus evil shock and awe.(infinitejest.org))
Chemical weapons? Fine against Iran; evil against the Kurds.
Violations of UN Resolutions? Fine if done by Israel or any other US ally; evil if done by Iraq, or anyone else we dislike who is small and relatively unarmed.
Lying to congress and the people of the United States? Evil when done by certain presidents, perfectly justified when done by others. (You know who I mean.)
THAT is real moral relativism, and the United States is currently up to its neck in it.
*
Today I read some hate mail generated by war supporters in opposition to an article criticizing both Bush and the war. Moral relativism is boldly apparent. According to these critics, it was fine to sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein for use against Iran, because Iran hated us. It was fine to sell weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein, because he was our friend. It was fine to arm Afghanistan’s warlords and Taliban-types, because they were using them against other people, not us. Only the people killed by Hussein in wars matter, not the people the United States killed in wars. It's okay for us to kill others, but not for others to get revenge upon us….
Do as we say, not as we do. That’s not moral leadership. That’s not what great countries do.
*
We want to believe we are good people, so US soldiers and government officials don’t admit to killing innocent civilians (only evil terrorists do that), don’t want to admit we’re engaging in undemocratic practices (domestic spying; invading sovereign nations; locking people up and throwing away the key without having a trial); don’t want to admit that our allies have substantive disagreements with us on just about everything we do (polluting, violating the Geneva Convention, using captured resources for private gain)… Because that would mean that we Americans are less than we want to be. Less great. Less true. Less fair.
People and institutions who point out that we are currently being less great, less true, and less fair are criticized for being “anti-American.” The oversimplified explanation for this is that all critics, internal or external, ‘hate our freedoms’ and/or ‘hate America.’ The actual explanation is that these critics want the US to actually live up to its ideals, so Americans don’t have to constantly pretend to be great when it's not true.
The United States is fully capable of being a great nation that truly promotes freedom and democracy around the world, but it is choosing not to. The US is choosing to support corrupt dictators, governments which use extra-judicial assassinations to control political opposition, nations with abysmal human rights and environmental records. The US CHOOSES this, and then gets defensive when it’s pointed out, blaming critics for the tarnish on its name.
It’s not the critics that are tarnishing the name.
*
If we really want to be a nation of peace, a nation of peace loving people, we need to change our ways. We need to give up the moral relativism, partisanship, and posturing used to justify immoral foreign and domestic policies. We need to listen to our allies. We need to be a good neighbor. And, of course, we need to stop bombing people, because choosing violence over the rule of law encourages others to do the same.
