The Adolescent Beltway Mind

In my last post, I spoke to the foolishness that follows from the adolescent militarist assumptions of our current leadership, and how it has come to define the conventional wisdom.  Paul Waldman speaks to it here:

A few days ago William Kristol, who is as responsible as anyone outside the Bush administration for the neocon dream of creating an empire in the Middle East—which has become the now-familiar nightmare—made clear his preference for military action against Iran, sooner rather than later. And not only that, once we start dropping bombs, the Iranian people will do their part and rise up to overthrow their government. “The right use of targeted military force,” Kristol told Fox News, “could cause them to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power.”

That Kristol could make such a prediction without getting laughed out of Washington, never to be invited on television again, tells us something about the miasma of inanity and insanity that envelopes our politics like a fog. Being wrong—or being an outright fool, or being possessed of not a shred of morality, for that matter—carries no cost. Only being “weak”—that is, insufficiently enthusiastic about spilling others’ blood—will earn you the contempt of the Washington establishment.

Why? Because that establishment, both governmental and journalistic, is ruled by weenies. They burn to show that they’re real men, that they’re tough and strong and mean, that they don’t cower from a fight, that they’re the ones who get going when the going gets tough. Washington is an arena of institutional and ideological competition, but it is also a throbbing mass of insecurities.

That extremists like Kristol have come to play a huge role in defining the conventional wisdom is a symptom of how Americans have lost their way.  Kristol is not a madman; he is an expert fabulist.  He has proven time and again, that if he is given the megaphone, he can say the most ridiculous things, and if he says them often enough they become accepted as conventional wisdom.  All talented propagandists understand this, and Kristol is among the best. I have often watched him do his talking head thing in slackjawed amazement.  They guy is a snake, but he knows the rules of the game, and he games the system with consummate skill.

Genuine courage is much needed in the corridors of power just now to stand up to this adolescent, macho nuttiness.  It's something we need from our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle.  And courage requires that these leaders step forward and offer sensible, adult alternatives to this militarist madness.

Why have I no hope that this will in fact happen?  Why is it that the only time anything gets done is when people take to the streets?  The answer is simple--because it's the only way the opposition gets the megaphone. You have to have media credibility, and you don't get it unless you appeal to the adolescent mind that shapes conventional wisdom within the Beltway establishment.  People like Kristol recognize that all the cool kids in the Beltway establishment are acting and thinking as if they're still in high school.  He got his media cred by appealing to the adolescent mentality that needs to prove its toughness. 

So maybe the only alternative is for a sixties type street movement which counters with adolescent slogans and street behavior. I'm becoming more convinced it's the only way some oppposition to this alarming trend toward a deepening authoritarianism and militarism can gain any traction. Just talking sense doesn't seem to get it done anymore.

Comments

[Matt Zemek]

I think that since Christianity is:

A) the overwhelming religion of choice for our national elected leaders, if they do have a religion;

and B) something of a focal point in the discussions and political jousting that go on in politics these days at the national level...

...the Christian story, and specifically the combination of Jesus' physical nonviolence and spiritual violence in the face of persecution and evil, must be told with fresh urgency and clarity. If this can be done, a lot of edifices and postures can be punctured.

But this is precisely the kind of language the Democrats are unwilling and unsuited to speak as a reflection of current political and cultural realities. Perhaps, though, enough old-time Goldwater conservatives will find the language to express this kind of principled moral outrage and frame it in authentically Christian terms.

[TransatlanticGirl]

"So maybe the only alternative is for a sixties type street movement which counters with adolescent slogans and street behavior."

But isn't this how most protests have been conducted in this country ever since the sixties?

"Adolescent slogans and street behavior" certainly seem to describe the Seattle WTO protests, for example-- and the media and the public were both dismissive, if not downright contemptuous. And that was before the riots started.

Sadly, I'm doubtful that any kind of street protest (even the disciplined and principled sort found in the 50's Civil Rights movement) could work today. People have gotten too good at tuning them out. But like you, I'm at a loss for a better idea right now.

BTW, I'd like to add that I've really appreciated your writing on this blog. You're one of the few bloggers not falling prey to political tribalism and instead really delving into the historical and philosophical roots of these issues. I appreciate your insights a great deal. (And I sympathize with your struggles-- I am also trying to figue out what an authentic, postmodern faith should look like.) Thanks.

[Jack Whelan]

Transatlantic Girl--

Thanks for the kind words. I'm at a point now where I"m almost ready to throw in the towel with blogging, so it helps when you hear from people that what you're trying to do is a help to them.

Regarding the WTO, we shouldn't forget that the organized, serious part of the protests worked in shutting the meeting down. I would agree that it got mostly negative press--mainly because of the vandalism committed by some fringe anarchist groups--but at least it offered a way to push back. And if such a movement of public protests were sustained, it could possibly provide a venue for more serious voices to be heard, because the media cannot ignore sustained, massive public protests.

And maybe, just maybe, someone articulate would emerge as a spokeperson who was not a sophomoric yippie type. There are lots of serious people out there whose voices need to be heard, and the terms of engagment just now simply don't permit them to get on the stage.

Our endless opining accomplishes very little, and that's one reason I'm thinking of backing away from this blogging. I'm questioning whether it is diverting energy that should be directed toward other ends.

[Matt Zemek]

Jack,

I think your blogging is of great value and supreme quality, but I would say that you should supplement it with the occasional op-ed column in a daily paper, to increase the reach of your ideas and, in turn, build up this blog even more.

Opining isn't unproductive if it is appreciable in reach and winds up reshaping the politico-cultural calculus. You are too insightful and masterful a writer for Seattle to not benefit from your meta-contextual understanding of all these events that are tearing at our national fabric, and which touched us on Friday with the shooting at that Jewish Federation center.