Conflicted and confounded

April 12, 2004

The strange assumption gathering behind the 9/11 Commission is that the government ought to be omniscient and omnipotent. And, oddly, those who seem most disappointed with the government's failure to know absolutely everything about everybody, and to control what they do, are the very faction who would most object to a government that actually tried to do so -- namely, Democratic progressives. This is one of many palpable ironies in our conflicted national mood these days.

The scene in Iraq has grown exceedingly dark lately as Shia, Sunni, Baathists, and freelance jihadistas join to kick America's ass. US troops appear to have lost the ability to control large chunks of territory, and are drawn into exactly the kind of urban combat that strategists at the Pentagon feared most when this operation started a year ago. US casualties have ratcheted up from three or four a week to more like thirty a week. The American public grows restive and anxious and, as befits an actual democracy, we wring our hands very openly in public forums such as the 9/11 Commission. How and why did we ever get into this mess?

We're in it because we have entered a new era of international politics. The Democratic Progressives are most confused because the nature of the struggle goes against their most cherished idea of the past quarter-century: diversity. All cultures are equally okay and ought to co-exist peacefully. Radical Islam doesn't believe this silly shit at all. Radical Islam thinks that western culture, in particular its American branch, should be wiped off the face of the earth. They have the money and the personnel to try to accomplish this and they are going for it by any means necessary.

A big part of the American public, meanwhile, still wants to celebrate diversity while motoring in air conditioned comfort with the cup-holders full of iced drinks and old Beatles hits on the stereo -- give peace a chance! These are the people who complain because the Iraq war is "all about oil."

Okay, then, fine. Give up your big cars and air conditioning and iced sport beverages and walk to work from Cherokee County, Ga, to Dekalb, if you still have a job in a post-oil economy.

The news is that defending the way of life we've grown accustomed to is going to be very costly. We're in Iraq because we need desperately to maintain a police station in the Middle East, especially next door to Saudi Arabia, so the whole region doesn't fall under the sway of jihad, taking the stability of the global oil markets with it. That was the reason from the start, whatever the window-dressing of politics might have been.

If the Democratic Progressives want to grow up and act like a respectable and responsible opposition, they might quit being crybabies about the war and commence some public reflection on the insanity of our current way of life, which has no future under any circumstances. I'd like to hear the Democratic Progressives talk about restoring passenger railroad service and public transit. I'd like to see one Democratic politician stand up against WalMart and the forces that destroy local economies. I'd like to see one of them talk about stopping subsidies to suburban sprawl. I'd like to hear one define a new national purpose beyond bargain shopping and trips to Las Vegas for "excitement."

Until that happens, I'll stick with Condeleeza Rice.

Comments

[Evan]

Hi there! I love your books, enjoy your website, and think this post is crap.

What in the world gave you the idea that progressives opposed the war because of their belief in *diversity*?! We mostly opposed it because it was a rock stupid idea: Iraq was not a serious problem at the time; Saddam was a dick, but he was a secular dick who kept his radical religious elements under control, his pretentions of regional domination had been effectively neutralized a decade earlier, and whatever weapons of mass destruction he might still have were unlikely to be effective against America (and, in the event, turned out not to exist at all).

I can assure you, liberals who think other cultures should be free to do their own thing even if it involves blowing up skyscrapers exist only in your imagination. Diversity ain't the deal. We just don't want (if you'll pardon the slightly on-the-nose metaphor) to pour gasoline on the fire.

I share your disappointment in the democrats' failure to make the tough decisions we actually are going to need to make to reduce our dependence on oil. The democrats have been running scared: Republicans tell voters that they can have absolutely anything they want, and democrats are convinced (and are probably right, more's the pity) that they'll always lose elections if they argue the point too forcefully. Yes, this is a bad thing.

But "stick with Condoleezza Rice"?! Are you nuts? Man, the democrats may be ineffective at addressing the problems you care about, but at least they're in general agreement with you that they're *problems*. The republicans are on the *other side*.

[Justin Henderson]

Wrong, Evan. The Doonesbury-caricature Republicans you hear about/from may be the "other side." The ones I know are in complete agreement with JHK. They just think that the solutions involve serious work by *individuals* committed to making their communities better. (And the stuff about destroying Isamlic fascism, rather than writing off one of its principal financial sources as "a secular dick.")

[orionoir]

lately i've wondered whether terrorism really matters much at all. 9/11 was in many ways an extremely unlucky break for america... not just a confluence of incompetence (hi condi) but also plain bad luck (eg, fireproofing blowing off wtc steel, confused evacuation, planes running on schedule). and yet, as huge a disaster as it was, 3k people out of however many hundred millions, $6b insured loss out of a $t economy... wall st barely hiccupped.

terrorism is the stuff of personal tragedies. to the extent that it commands public attention, it undermines such intangibles as morale, confidence, a feeling of security. but look at how the uk was, or how israel is now: their institutions were/are more impervious (less pervious?) to change than those of nations not subject to terrorist acts.

put another way, terrorism doesn't threaten the status quo, it augments it. 9/11 did not herald a new international politics, it pushed that rennaissance a whole lot further into the future. my prediction is that when the 9/11 sequel (osama in pajamas!) transpires, suv sales will jump by at least as much as they did in 2002.

[Vinceleta]

"Jim Kunstler For President" Dear Jim, I'm all over this internet trying to find a voice of reason, all I can find is sites with bias left or right. I am not a Democrat or Republican, just an American. I hate the rhetoric and disingenuous chatter on most blogs. I presonally beleive that you hit the nail on the head with what I just read in 7 short paragraphs. Thank you, I will be a constant visitor to this most informative sight.Your insight needs to get out to the masses!