Our Never-Ending Search for the Easy Way Out

This week I’ve been thinking about sacrifice and what it means to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. Among the many ideals Americans have lost sight of during the past thirty years of conservative ideological hegemony is the idea of shared sacrifice. What has become of our willingness to sacrifice? Have we become so politically polarized that we cannot agree that anything is worthy of our collective sacrifice?

Our President would have us believe that we can invade and occupy a foreign country without a shred of national sacrifice – no draft, no rationing, no war bonds – nothing, except a mind-boggling bill that will be dropped on the doorstep of future generations.

The conservative, free-market mythology that has prevailed in our country for the past thirty years tells us that we can have low taxes – especially for the wealthiest among us – and still enjoy good roads and highways, well-tended parks, excellent schools, ready and able police and fire protection, and other services that government provides to make life better for all citizens.

Sacrifice entails effort and effort entails sweat, discomfort, even pain. Overweight? Don’t sweat on the treadmill, just swallow this magic diet pill, chock full of sacred herbs from Borneo. Bothered by love handles or cellulite or sagging eyelids? No problem, step right up and let your friendly cosmetic surgeon slice and dice your cares away. Yellow teeth? Thinning hair? Piece of cake, we can fix that. Will that be VISA or Mastercard?

Want to get in on the housing boom but find yourself short of cash? Don’t scrimp and save. Step right up and let me tell you about the magic of sub-prime loans and Collateralized Debt Obligations.

Yes, oil is a finite resource but you’re an American and that gives you the right to drive a behemoth SUV that takes up two parking spaces at the mall and burns more gas in a month than a Peruvian peasant uses in a year. Americans are special and Peruvians are just, well, Peruvians!

Corporations feel no responsibility to sacrifice a dime’s profit so that workers can share in the bounty they produce, just as the wealthiest Americans feel no responsibility to sacrifice some of their coin for the less fortunate. The rulebook has been re-written so that no such sacrifice is required of corporations or the wealthy.

After 9/11, when President Bush was talking like a whiskey-addled cowboy about bringing terrorists and evildoers to justice, the late Susan Sontag wrote that the Administration’s rhetoric was infantile. The mainstream press went after Sontag hammer and tongs, but the truth is that Sontag was right then -- and seven years later Americans are still being addressed like spoiled children. As every parent knows, children demand that the world conform to their whims and wishes, not the other way around.

Instead of accepting that idea that high gas prices are probably here to stay – and adjusting our driving habits, vehicle choices and lifestyles (making a sacrifice, in other words) – our politicians insist that all we need is more domestic exploration or a gas-tax “holiday.” Instead of accepting that Americans use more energy than any other people in the world, we are encouraged to continue consuming more than our share of resources, but to look for the “green” label or the most ecologically friendly packaging.

Like the spoiled child, we want what we want when we want it.

Many years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King said that when profit motives and property rights become more important than the needs of people, the triple-headed evil of racism, extreme materialism and militarism cannot be conquered. Look around and you’ll see that Dr. King was on to the truth.

My Laundry List of Hopes

The Obama Campaign machine sent me a letter the other day, appealing for a donation. That’s Ok, my name is on a lot of mailing lists, though if I receive even one solicitation from John McCain, I’ll be insulted.

So much hype, hoopla and trivial information has surrounded Barack Obama that it’s hard to get to what the man stands for. Is he a closet Muslim? Does he take policy direction from Jeremiah Wright? Will he find a place in an Obama administration for Hillary Clinton?

The Progressive community, small though it is, holds its breath and hopes that Obama will not drift further toward the bland, safe center, but the closer the general election gets the more Obama will be forced to move in that direction. Obama wants to get elected, so he’s not going to propose anything that might disturb the powers-that-be. He can speak eloquently about improving the lot of American workers, but not to the extent that he upsets Wall Street financiers; he can speak sensibly about talking with leaders from nations who oppose the United States, but in the next breath he’ll rattle the saber to ward off criticism that he’s soft on evil-doers; he can speak about a new brand of politics, but again, he can only go so far.

Obama has tapped into the desire of Americans for something different from the disastrous Bush-Cheney regime. I share that desire but my expectations for meaningful change are low. I hope the concerns of people who struggle every day to feed their families and gain a modicum of economic security will be raised to at least equal status with the aims of investors for maximum profits. I hope for a national realization that our current energy policy is a failure; we can punch holes in the crust of the planet under American control until the cows come home, but we’ll never bring enough oil on line to make a difference, and the sooner we realize that the better off we’ll be. I hope for a sensible policy on immigration, a removal of legal and physical barriers that have no chance of working. Most of all, I hope for a return of respect for law and a balance of power between our three branches of government.

That’s a lot to hope for. Obama claims he can deliver if enough people send his campaign a check. I haven’t taken that step yet, though I probably will. A McCain presidency is inconceivable to me, though I never thought American voters would re-elect George W. Bush in 2004 and won’t be surprised if McCain’s fear-based politics carry the day this November. That’s a depressing thought, not to mention a dark commentary on the American electorate.

Nutcases

Full disclosure: I’ve never watched more than a snippet of Bill O’Reilly’s cable news program, The O’Reilly Factor. Fox is a channel I skip past on those rare occasions when I have sovereignty over the remote control. I’m one of those people who believe that Fox epitomizes all that is wrong with the corporate-dominated American news media.

Last weekend in Minneapolis, 3,500 other folks who share my belief gathered at the National Conference for Media Reform, a group spurred into being a few years ago by Robert McChesney and John Nichols – names most Americans have never heard of – a fact which illustrates one problem with the American media.

Conference attendees heard from Amy Goodman, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and keynote speaker, Bill Moyers. That’s a fairly impressive line-up of people, particularly Bill Moyers, who has been one of the most thoughtful voices in American television for almost half a century. While it’s true that all these folks lean left politically, they share in common the belief that a free, independent news media is essential for a healthy Democracy, and a deep concern that the American media has moved in the opposite direction as a result of corporate consolidation and Federal Communications Commission policy.

Along comes the O’Reilly Factor in the person of the show’s producer, Porter Barry, who ambushed Bill Moyers in a corridor and badgered him to appear on Mr. O’Reilly’s show. An onlooker had the presence of mind to record this verbal mugging. I heard it on KPFK. The piece was introduced with a clip from the O’Reilly Factor in which Mr. O’Reilly ridiculed the Media Reform Conference in general and its participants in particular, calling them all “far-left nutcases” or words to that effect.

Think about that for a minute: nutcases for believing that a Democracy cannot flourish without a free, independent media that challenges the powers-that-be and the status quo? nutcases for asserting that the American people were ill-served in the run-up to the Iraq invasion by a media machine that echoed power rather than confronting power? nutcases for advocating for reform of a system of ownership and control that can no longer be said to serve the people?

If so, count me among the nuts.

Does Bill O’Reilly honestly believe that the American news media does a good job of informing the people, or of using the publicly owned airwaves in the best interests of the people? When O’Reilly looks across the media landscape does he see diversity of opinion? Does he hear reasoned debate that elevates people’s understanding of the critical issues we face?

I wonder what he sees and hears.

The American news media is remarkable, not for the information it illuminates but for the stories and events it keeps in the dark, for the stories it highlights and those it downplays. You can bet the American Occupation of Iraq looks different in Britain or France or Spain than it does here.

Unlike Bill Moyers, Bill O’Reilly is not a journalist – he’s a propagandist for a point of view that has made him wealthy, powerful and largely untouchable. The powerful and privileged never give up their perquisites without a fight, so it’s understandable that O’Reilly would dismiss any movement for reform as “Liberal” or “Leftist” nonsense rather than confronting the issue with intellectual rigor or honesty.

And Bill Moyers never resorted to ridiculing his guests. Moyers even lets his guests speak.

The Graveyard of Empires

Why is the U.S. in Iraq? Most thinking citizens realize that the Bush Administration misled the nation into a pre-emptive war based on bogus information and an aggressive PR campaign that used ex-military officers and a compliant, negligent news media to push the case for invasion.

As the situation on the ground in Iraq changed, when it became clear that the Iraqis did not want us in their country, our rationale for the invasion changed from finding WMD to spreading Democracy to rooting out terrorists.

For the record: we found no WMD; discovered that freedom and Democracy cannot be imposed on another country, particularly one lacking a tradition of political freedom; and created chaotic conditions that will undoubtedly produce more terrorists, not less.

Yet, like empires before us, we persist in thinking that our will can be imposed on Iraq, that we can coerce a weak, fragmented Iraqi government to sign a security pact with the U.S. that will allow U.S. bases in the country in perpetuity, and secure the grandest prize of all – exclusive access to Iraqi oil for multinational energy companies.

I was listening to a lecture by a professor of classics a few days ago and perked up when he said that through the ages the Middle East has been the crucible of conflict and the graveyard of empires. Americans don’t like to think of their country as an imperial power with an empire; we shy from linking the freedom and Democracy-loving US of A with the Romans, the Ottomans or the British, but the fact is that America often imposes its will, its culture and its values on other nations by force – economic, political and military. We need to believe that America only wages war when it’s absolutely necessary, and that other, less enlightened nations, choose to start wars.

But we made the choice for the world to witness, and no matter how President Bush or John McCain or the mouthpieces on Fox News spin the truth, the consequences have been disastrous. The Occupation of Iraq is a military, political and moral failure, and a humanitarian nightmare. When American politicians or generals talk about “Victory” in Iraq it’s obvious they have little idea what victory looks like. The corporate-controlled U.S. news media may ignore what’s happening in Iraq in favor of the latest celebrity gossip, but ignoring what we have wrought will not make it go away.

I read somewhere that the U.S. seeks as many as 50 permanent military facilities in Iraq. I wonder about the proximity of those military bases to oil fields or distribution facilities and major highways. When we slice through the rhetoric and the distortions and the bluster, one fact stands clear and alone: multi-national energy companies want to use the taxpayer-supported U.S. military as a security force for their private investments.

Access to Iraqi oil was, and remains, the ultimate objective of this war-of-choice.  

Bring on the Rabbi

Just when you think the Presidential primary season can’t get any sillier, along comes another story about a holy friend of Barack Obama, this time a Catholic priest who mocked Hillary Clinton while speaking at a church Obama frequents. Who’s next, a deranged rabbi or a Hare Krishna?

The Clinton camp took offense, of course, and Obama issued the standard apology (and then went so far as to quit the church altogether) while the mainstream media speculated breathlessly about what this latest flap might do to Obama’s chances to clinch the Democratic nomination.

Sweet Jesus, have all the nitwits at ABC and NBC swallowed stupid pills? Why is Barack Obama constantly being held accountable for statements made by other people? People not connected to his campaign? With all the critical issues in play in this election, why is the media so concerned with what people around Barack Obama say? Those folks are not running for president. If we’re going to lower the bar to ground level, why not interview Obama’s barber, his dentist, and his auto mechanic? Let’s find out if Obama has ever stiffed a waitress or left the toilet seat up. Let’s interview Obama’s trash hauler and find out if the Senator separates his recyclable trash from his kitchen waste.

Barack Obama can’t control what comes from the mouths of friends and associates, and in any case those folks are entitled to their opinion – no matter how inaccurate, indecent, or inappropriate. If the priest had called for Hillary Clinton to be strapped behind a Chevy Suburban and dragged through the streets of Chicago, OK, then all this teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing would be appropriate. But what’s wrong with saying that Hillary feels entitled to the Democratic nomination and her old bedroom in the White House? Entitlement oozes from the woman.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have some questionable acquaintances and a well-documented history of ethical two-stepping. John McCain’s inner circle includes a number of high-powered DC lobbyists with ties to dictators. If we’re going to judge our political candidates by the company they keep, let’s at least judge them all by the same criteria. And then let’s seal them all in a plastic bubble – for their own good, and ours.