If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is good and constructive, say so and give him credit.
One looks at this and thinks: Why? Why would
you want to do that? Why would you want to make a special effort to commend the
leaders of the kind of system described above, one which has "fashioned its
entire social and economic structure around the preparation for [and ceaseless
practice of] war"?
Of course, there is an immediate logic to it. You
would do it to establish your credibility, your objectivity, to say, "I'm
neither a reflexive Obama-basher nor a swooning cheerleader; I call them as I
see them." This in turn would lend more weight to your criticisms of the
Administration; when you "hold Obama's feet to the fire" or "push him to better
solutions" on this or that issue, your principled dissent can't be dismissed out
of hand by the leadership as mere partisan opposition.
And if we were
dealing with a different political reality à ‚¬" on a smaller, more human scale,
say, with a more equitable distribution of power in society, and a vastly
reduced scope (and appetite) for violence, corruption and domination on the part
of an unassailable, lawless elite à ‚¬" then perhaps such an approach might do well.
But that, alas, is not our reality. We wrestle with a militarized regime whose
powers are, as I said in an earlier piece on
Thoreau, "so much greater, far more
pervasive, more invasive and much more implacable, more inhuman" than the
fledgling state our Walden forbear confronted all those years ago. We are
dealing with a government that is committing, at every moment à ‚¬" with every
breath we take à ‚¬" horrendous crimes against life and liberty, with its murderous
wars of aggression and domination, and its ever-spreading authoritarian
encroachments.
Again, should we give credit to such a regime, single it
out for praise, whenever it happens to behave in a rational manner on one issue
or another? After all, functioning governments of every kind do a multitude of
worthy things for their people every day. They build roads, lay electric lines
and sewer pipes, maintain the food supply, sponsor medical research, facilitate
technological developments, adjudicate civil disputes, provide disaster relief,
maintain parks and recreation areas, etc., etc. à ‚¬" the list is virtually endless.
And this was equally true of, say, Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, and
other regimes imbued with a crimeful essence. Would you have told a dissident
opposing the depredations of Hitler or Stalin or Franco or Tojo or the apartheid
regime in South Africa that he or she must always be sure to point out any
constructive thing these governments do, and give them credit for
it?
Second, and more importantly, we must
emphasize again that we are not dealing with an ordinary situation here, with a
system whose good and bad elements are roughly equal (or confined to the
historical past), allowing one to sit down and weigh this policy against that
one, and, then, upon careful reflection, coming to some judicious assessment.
No; we are now à ‚¬" and have been for decades à ‚¬" dealing with a situation of the
most frantic and dire moral urgency, the "all-day permanent red" of a system
whose purpose, structure, meaning and method have become war, with all the
hatred, corruption, degeneration and devolution that war brings.
In such
an extreme system, all balance is gone; a constructive act here or there cannot
offset those mountains of corpses. And its seems a terrible waste of time and
energy to divert one's attention from these horrors à ‚¬" and the urgent need to
stop them à ‚¬" just to give a few props for a stray good deed or reasonable move
here or there.
The latter approach also involves, consciously or
unconsciously, to one degree or another, an association with it, in Thoreau's
sense. You have, in effect, accepted power on its own terms. You engage deeply
with the system in order to "hold Obama's feet to the fire" (while being careful
to acknowledge his "constructive" measures) because you believe this will make
the system better. But if the system itself is structured to produce the
boundless evils of war and domination and injustice, you cannot make it better.
You can only, at the very most, mitigate a few of its pernicious effects, for a
time, and only at the margins.
This is by no means an unworthy goal;
extreme systems force that kind of triage upon us. Raoul Wallenberg could not
end the Holocaust; he could only save what was in relative terms a very small
number of people at the margins. But who would deny his heroism, and wish that
he had not sought such small but deeply meaningful mitigations? Conversely, who
among us would have suggested that Wallenberg, in the dire moral urgency of his
mission, take time out to give credit to the Nazis for, say, their "Strength
Through Joy" recreational programs for ordinary workers, or their remarkable
highway system? Or in our time, do we require Shirin Ebadi to praise the Tehran
regime for its social housing programs, or Aung San Suu Kyi to give credit to
the Burmese generals for building roads or installing storm
drains?
Everyone has to make their own accommodations with reality, of
course. And to quote the old song-and-dance man once again: "Life is sad, life
is a bust;/All you can do is do what you must." I'm not laying down
commandments or prescriptions for anybody. But I will say that Thoreau's stance
seems more and more to be the only honorable course for an American to take, in
whatever way and to whatever degree he or she finds possible.
And I will
also say that those who profess their adherence to "progressive" values such as
peace, justice, liberty, equality and truth would serve their cause better by
focusing on the essential nature of a system that eviscerates those values, and
on the actual operations of power, the crimes and atrocities being committed by
the actual wielders and servants of power, instead of mocking people for
"throwing fits" and being "puerile" when they denounce the system's leaders for
leading the nation deeper and deeper into evil.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).