The Cultural Kryptonite Of The American Right
Before U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles began to rain down on Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses, the only conversation that President Obama had to have was with his senior advisers.
They, and they alone would decide whether a country founded as a democratic republic would engage in what George Washington would have likely viewed as a "foreign entanglement" – using 21st-century ordinance against a sociopath with a history of violence and a worse hat fetish than Sammy Davis Jr.
Obviously, in 200 years the United States has evolved from a rebel-with-a-cause into a world power, and additional involvement in world affairs has become part of the cost of doing business.
There is also a good argument to be made that after the terrible mistake of the Iraq invasion, the US can do some good by putting an end to the murderous Gaddafi in Libya, as part of an international coalition made up of Arab and African countries, blessed by the United Nations.
Yet, that does not change the fact that congressional support for this operation was as important as an appendix or a Newt Gingrich marriage vow.
Obama and his people simply knew they could ignore the people's representatives and safely rely upon a militarized culture primed to support an attack on an Arab nation. Particularly one the US had already thrown down with only a generation ago.
It is this fact that makes author, syndicated columnist and talk radio host David Sirota's new book, Back To Our Future, not only a fascinating read about the culture of the 1980s, but a manifestly important work in helping explain why the United States does the things it does today.
From involvement in a civil war in Libya to allowing a madman sans background check to saunter into his local arms bazaar and purchase a high-powered firearm for an attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
The latter being easier than say, finding plutonium for your DeLorean in 1955.
'Outlaw with morals'
As Sirota explains it, the '80s were the age of cross-marketing, when concepts that had a place in American history suddenly became commonplace. The anti-government language of president Ronald Reagan adorned films such as Ghostbusters and E.T.
These "political messages in non-political settings indoctrinated the young, when their filter for political propaganda was turned off." As a result, these framed narratives became part of the conventional wisdom, continuing to this day.
In much the way E.T. heightened suspicions about our government, Libyan terrorists in Back To The Future and a bad-guy professional wrestling star named The Iron Sheik helped prepare the American people for the role we've played in the Arab world over the past decade.
Meanwhile, the "outlaw with morals", or rogue who had to work against the system to get things done, was a key message that reached the masses.
The bromide of "government being the problem, not the solution", was not only contained in Reagan's philosophy, but Wall Street's ethic, the frontier mythology of many regions of the country, and films, music, and television series, but perhaps most importantly promoted using athletes by one of the most powerful marketing machines ever seen – Nike.
As Sirota offers about Nike's effect, "they took this narrative to the level of societal saturation".
This can at least partially explain the rogue individualism that can be found in the love affair certain Americans have with guns, and even more importantly, the corollary that only they can protect themselves, often from the very government they once looked upon for this service.
Of course, this cultural sea change did not just happen by itself. An array of right-wing think tanks and media organizations, born in the 1970s to lead this kind of a cultural revolution, synergistically grabbed this societal zeitgeist and hopped, skipped and jumped with it, declaring the 1960s and 1970s an illegitimate, naïve, or even dangerous social experiment.
As Sirota reminds us, in the 1980s a minister speaking at The Heritage Foundation, one of these newish (1973) and lavishly funded right-wing media and policy operations intricately tied to the Reagan administration, believed he and his ilk, were "here to turn the clock back to 1954 in this country".
'Prepubescents' in charge
Danny Goldberg, former CEO of Air America, has also recognized this cultural evolution, and the role played by well-funded conservative organs in helping spread the non-love.
As he sees it, appealing to the psyche and vision of the American people or pulling on their heartstrings, if you will, is in short supply on the Left, as "Democrats do not use imagination and culture to open minds for their agenda".
As Goldberg put it in a Nation piece, "you can count how many people click onto a web page, how long it was viewed and how many people it was forwarded to but determining how much impact it has on the minds of the readers requires educated guesses and fallible intuitive human analysis."
The Left had better begin to under this outsized role of culture, imagination and emotion in our politics soon.
Because if we are indeed operating in parameters set up by not only the politics, but the arts and letters of 1980s, reinforced by millions of dollars invested in long-term conservative projects to convince the American people this is the way it has always been, we are in for a rough decade or three.
For as Sirota says, "our world is increasingly run by the prepubescents, college kids, and young ladder-climbers who were originally indoctrinated and inculcated in the 1980s."
Therefore, if we are looking for an alternative to all-too-present strains of foreign adventurism, Wall Street me-ism and domestic militia-ism – among other challenges – we will need our own cultural rebirth to return to the values that once animated this nation.
Because, whether he comes from Krypton, Kansas City or Kazakhstan, I am not ready to start kneeling before Zod anytime soon.
You can follow Cliff on Twitter: @cliffschecter
This column was first published at Al Jazeera English



Chapter VII, Article 42 of the UN Charter: (in its entirety)
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 (non military) would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."
**Now, while Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives the right of declaring war to congress, the following law as part of the "War Powers Resolution of 1973" (specifically Title 22) allows the president to override that, in regards to existing treaties and international charters.
US CODE > TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVI > 287d
"Use of armed forces; limitations — The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.***The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter*** and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That, except as authorized in section 287d–1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."
**Therefore, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about President Obama's actions, within this context. It is precisely the context which makes any comparisons drawn to Bush and the Iraq War completely false and ignorant .
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapte...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode...
but you have to question the fundamental integrity of government don't you? If you don't all your left street cred evaporates. Ever wonder why so many on the left so despise the role on government while demanding more of it?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Of course one has to question the fundamental integrity of Gov't, that's what being "Left" is, we question everything.
As opposed to Right, which is submission to authority.
We all question, we all submit. It is to what degree, and to what ends, that prove the quality of the individual.
I am a socialist, but I do not "despise" my Government, nor do I think the majority of Progressives, Democrats, Liberals do either. The petty bougoise annoy me, but I do not "despise" them.
I despise Capitalists!
The "more " we are demanding is our fair share, what we have worked for, "more" rights, "more" transparency, "more" efficiency.
I do despise the direction our nation is being taken, by sociopathic, Social Dominating Authoritarians, whose greed and lust for power has been proven, time and time again, to oppress and endanger the entire human endeavor.
Ever wonder why so many on the left so despise the role on government
and how many is that? Not many i think. I for one understand that government is the only thing that protects the freedom of individuals while every other form of organization is only interested in freedom of that organization.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I'll probably pass this on.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
The passages you cite are indeed accurate and IF this little coalition had been given the go to bomb ground targets Obama would indeed not be in violation of the law as you attempt to claim.
BUT...
They were giving ONE mandate: to secure a no fly zone to protect civilians.
That was ALL they were mandated to do.
That does not include bombing ground targets, taking out tanks, bombing C and C facilities (unless they are DIRECTLY related and ACTIVELY INVOLVED in air attacks), attempting to assassinate Ghadaffi, giving air support to the rebel armies or any of the other things that he and NATO have been up to.
Nor did it cover the destruction of grounded aircraft or airport facilities.
It ONLY covered providing a NO FLY ZONE.
By exceeding the very specific letter of the UNSC Resolution 1973 and pretending it means what it does not say it means he has indeed violated the law.
"Why don't you love me, you b!*ch! I burned your house down for us!"
-Modern American diplomacy
although you'd have a pretty hard case to make that the same anti-government cant doesn't afflict the left to an equally disturbing degree. Every time the EPA, the FDA, the FCC, the coast guard, Homeland Security, the Fed or any government agency makes a decision with which the left and I mean just about anyone on the left, disagrees these same people become tools of the Korporatist Kultur worthy only of disdain regardless of the merits of the policy. I wouldn't blame this on Reagan. A mirror might be more useful.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
"although you'd have a pretty hard case to make that the same anti-government cant doesn't afflict the left to an equally disturbing degree."
Here you go, a very easy argument to make, 254 pages covering 30 years of empirical research.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
The Left simply does not react like the Right.
I often rant and post about the Authoritarian nature of the Right, but there is good science behind it.
There has been a lot of research into Authoritarian personality types, and there is a huge difference between the Left and Right reactions.
It is not so much what they say when they react, the Left screams and whines, but they do very little, as opposed to the Right, which react with action, vindictive and punitive.
I might argue that what you see is the Left is being used by the Right. Political correctness is said to be a leftist idea, "if you can't say something nice don't say it at all", and the Right plays the Left as pansies. But whom benefits from the false equivalency arguments the corporate media pours down Americas neck? The Extreme Right, whose flat earth agenda now stands equal to reality.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
We are "outatime". NWO is coming for you. The alien just need one phone call to home and the invasion of bugs begin. And the ghost in the shell are out.
Oh, Zod is a prat btw. :p
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
in future otherwise informative posts. Please.
"a worse hat fetish than Sammy Davis Jr."
"easier than say, finding plutonium for your DeLorean in 1955."
Ugh.
Not even.
This whole thing stinks of CIA.
The "rebel" leader lived in exile for 20 years just 10 miles from Langley Falls Virginia, you know, the headquarters of the CIA.
The US and UK had CIA and MI6 in Libya for the last 4 months.
Obama had been actively lobbying for intervention at the UN and in other countries while publicly pretending he doesn't want to be involved.
I would bet this whole "rebel uprising" would never had happened without the CIA making it so.
Face it, the US has used the UN and NATO as smokescreen for yet more military adventurism.
Obama is a master at making it look like the opponent has forced him into something unpopular that he actually was for in the first place and this is no exception.
You have been suckered yet again into cheer leading US imperialism in the name of "humanitarianism".
"Why don't you love me, you b!*ch! I burned your house down for us!"
-Modern American diplomacy
Mr. Schechter doesn't say that Obama's Libyan adventure is illegal or unconstitutional. He merely states "that congressional support for this operation was as important as an appendix or a Newt Gingrich marriage vow." Your evidence supports Mr. Schechter's statement, in fact. If you're going to construct an elaborate argument, you should oppose it to something the other person actually said.
Comments are closed on this entry