Savage Mules: Bill Maher Joke-Writer On War-Mongering Democrats

Is the Democratic Party really a party of peace? Not according to satirist Dennis Perrin. In his latest book, Savage Mules: The Democrats and Endless War, he writes that the Democratic party has long been a party of war. Perrin, a former joke writer for Bill Maher, offers curt revelations about Democratic Party idols such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. He shatters the myths associated with past Democratic Presidents, their stubborn attachment to war, and a party unable to stand up for the ideals they claim to stand for. He ends the book with a humorous account of last year's Netroots Nation conference and the idea that politics will change for the better, if we only elect more Democrats. OffTheBus caught up with Perrin to discuss his new book, his perceptions of the Democratic Party, and alternatives to bringing about social change.

OTB: You begin your book with the following: "We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers. When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers. I believe in killing in great numbers. I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks." That was Bill Clinton reviewing his options in Somalia in 1993. To me, that was one of the more shocking aspects of your book. Was there a lot of similarly shocking material you cam across as were researching the book?

Dennis Perrin: I don't know if shocking is the word. I was pre-conditioned to not being surprised by it. I knew a lot about the Democratic Party history in the 20th century. But when I read about the 19th century Democrats, I only knew so much about them. When you go beyond Andrew Jackson and the "Trail of Tears," you find the Democrats were the leading American Indian killers of the 19th century. It began as a war party. It hasn't changed. Later on there were anti-war and social justice movements that came up through the Democratic Party, or at least were co-opted by them, but that never defined the party itself. The party began in war and is still very much involved in war.

You do a good job in breaking down the myths associated with the Democratic Presidents. Barack Obama is drawing people like a magnet and people keep comparing him to JFK. How does Obama compare to JFK?

There still seem to be people who think JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam. They're isn't any serious evidence of that. There was talk about withdrawing troops from South Vietnam, but it was contingent on what they considered success in Vietnam. The idea that JFK was going to unilaterally pull U.S. troops out of South Vietnam is antithetical to the actual history. Maybe he would have eventually pulled the troops out, but there is no indication of that. Keep in mind, JFK also ushered in the modern death squad state in Central America through the Alliance for Progress in reaction to the Cuban Revolution, among other things. In a sense, Obama is like JFK. only he is saving his militaristic rhetoric for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The idea that he will pull completely out of Iraq, well, I'll believe that when I see it. I can't believe he is going to go in and unilaterally pull the troops out after all this money and blood that went in and out of Iraq, that he's just going to call it quits. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at FISA. He fully expects to be elected as he wants to have all the power that goes with that. I don't know of any newly elected president who came in and diminished his [own] power.

It's clear a lot of American elites want Obama to be the president because he'll play the same role that Cater and Clinton played before him: arriving after an era of Republican excess. He'll come in and be the uniter and supposedly bring the country back together again. It's an ongoing cycle and he's the latest version of that. The problem is that most liberals will go along with it like they did with Bill Clinton. But let's say Obama expands the war in Afghanistan or bombs Pakistan or Iran, will we see a significant liberal protest? I doubt it.

What would you say are the biggest roadblocks for the Democratic Party preventing it from embracing or enacting at least real liberal-progressive policy or reform? You mentioned the corporate elite.

It's just the reality of our situation. There is no place in the current economic political make-up of the United States for a true peoples Democratic Party. This is one of my main arguments with liberal bloggers. They seem to think electing better Democrats is the answer. It may make a difference in small ways, but I just don't see the Democrats being reformable at all. It's impossible under the current conditions.

You wrote about your experience at Netroots Nation. What was revealing to me in your book was the line "I thought the whole point to blogging was to democratize political expression." Can you elaborate?

Of course blogs could have a tremendous effect, but that has to come from within the minds of the people blogging... [bloggers would have ] to think beyond the boundaries given to them and that's just not happening. They're using a narrow form and existing corporate parties to try to effect change. That's impossible. So when I see Netroots Nation and online activism, it's primarily the domain of white college-educated people. Working class poor people are not part of the Internet conversation. I talk about that in the book. If I mention Daily Kos or Atriosto them, they wouldn't know what I'm talking about. That's how far removed it is.

I'm not saying there aren't possibilities. I don't think what we can see what this technology can do. We're still in the silent film stage of the Internet. We haven't gotten to techni-color or wide-screen yet.

[...]

I have never ruled out serious political and social change. It's possible, but what I've experienced it's going to have to go through a different avenue. Voting for better Democrats just gets us more Democrats. All it does is keep the system in place. What should we replace it with? I don't know, but to know what that will look like [ahead of time] is insane. The whole process of social change is that you don't know how it's going to end. All you know is what your hopes and desires are in the present, and you build towards something. There will be plenty of defeats and roadblocks along the way, but you have to experiment, not get demoralized, not give up, and simply hope that Obama will change it for you. You have to see beyond the immediate structure. As they say, "no guts, no glory."

Check out Dennis Perrin at www.dennisperrin.blogspot.com

Follow Christian Avard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChristianAvard

Comments

[Levittown]

There will never be enough troops for Afganistan. The tribal leaders will play us as long as we feed them money and arms. Our forces will never, even with the UN which is so politicly biased against the US supplying forces. Only constant bombings of the camps and the caves will we get results. But at least we won't be sending live bodies anymore.

In Iraq we are caught in the oil spillover. In order to get the oil out we will be protecting the oil companies for many years. It may ease if we get the revenue from iraq to pay all the bills. Too bad Bush and Cheney walk away billionaires.

[S1m0n]

The USA is a deeply military nation. No party is the party of peace; the american electorate wouldn't stand for it.

[Dennis Perrin]

From the interview:
"When you go beyond Andrew Jackson and the "Trail of Tears," you find the Democrats were the LEADING American Indian killers of the 19th century".
++++++++++++++++++
ThermoChemist:
"??? "Democrats", formally, didn't exist until the 1820's. The "Republicans', formally, didn't exist until 1861 (so, naturally, there'd be less of a connection with 19th century Indian Killings; they didn't exist for the first half of the century)."
That first quote was mangled. As I say quite clearly in my book, The Dems of the Jackson/Van Buren/Polk era set the early brutal tone for organized Indian killing and ethnic cleansing. Others got into the act later on, but it was the early Dems who showed the way. As they usually did throughout US history.
Read "Savage Mules" before judging my historical takes. The above interview touches on a tiny portion of what I explore.

[ThermoChemist]

Ok. Thanks for the reply!

[ThermoChemist]

Follow up comments:

[1] You do see how the "...the Democrats were the LEADING American Indian killers of the 19th century" comment could be misconstrued, right? Could've been interpreted: "Democratic leadership was the LEADING cause of American Indian deaths in the 19th century" (similar to saying "Smoking is the LEADING cause of Lung Cancer". LOL). A more appropriate word/phrase might have been something like "Originators of" or "fore-runners of" or "caste the mold for". [IMHO]

[2] Which brings me to another point. Indian killings of the 19th century happened BEFORE the formal existence of the Democratic Party (circa 1829), committed under the leadership of the "Democrati­c-Republic­an" Party.

Jefferson, Madison. Monroe, Adams (1801-1829); ALL of the "Democrati­c-Republic­an" Party.

Activity: Tecumseh's War (1811), Creek War (1813), Peoria War (1813), First Seminole War (1817/18), Winnebago War (1827).

If it's being said that the Republican led Indian Wars of the late 19th century were following the "early brutal tone" set by the Dems BEFORE them, then (in all fairness), couldn't it be said that the Dems were following the examples set forth by the party in power BEFORE them? As such, the statement that "...you find the Democrats were the LEADING [fore-runners?] American Indian killers of the 19th century" does NOT "hold water" (!)

In the 19th century, it was the "Democrati­c-Republic­an" Party that was the "Originato­r/Fore-run­ner" for setting the "early brutal tone" of American Indian killings (!).

[thefringecenter]

Going too deep into history is meaningless. Lincoln freed the slaves as a Republican. Today he wouldn't get the parties nomination with the same "delusions". It wouldn't sit well with evangelicals. Both parties enjoy war. That is why we have been in more than 200 skirmishes since WWII. War is what we do. It is what makes us uniquely American.

[Ant]

"He ends the book with a humorous account of last year's Netroots Nation conference and the idea that politics will change for the better, if we only elect more Democrats.­"

He wasn't paying attention. Electing Democrats was only the beginning.

[Brattlerouser]

Electing Democrats only gets you more Democrats. I think he's spot on. Meaningful social change doesn't come from elected officials. It comes from down below from the people and we need to turn to each other rather than those we elect.

[ThermoChemist]

"When you go beyond Andrew Jackson and the "Trail of Tears," you find the Democrats were the LEADING American Indian killers of the 19th century".
++++++++++++++++++

??? "Democrats", formally, didn't exist until the 1820's. The "Republicans', formally, didn't exist until 1861 (so, naturally, there'd be less of a connection with 19th century Indian Killings; they didn't exist for the first half of the century).

The "Democrati­c-Republic­an" Party was founded by Jefferson around 1792. It became the dominant political party until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party. So, we should look at things in the context of AFTER the 1820's (IMO).

Jackson, Van Buren, Polk were the FIRST true "Democratic" Party Presidents (1829-45).

Activity: the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the Black Hawk War (1832), Creek War (1836), Seminole Wars (1835-42), Battle of Little Robe Creek (1846), Battle of Pease River (1860).

The "Indian Wars" were, to my recollection, the government policy for decades AFTER the Civil War (ie. 1860's to 1890's?). Wiki lists the major Indian battles and the vast majority (98% ?) occur during this time frame.

The majority of Presidents during that time frame were "Republican" Presidents. Lincoln (1861), Grant (1869), Hayes (1877), Garfield (1881), Arthur (1881), Harrison (1889), McKinley (1897).

Activity: Sioux Uprising of 1862, Navajo and Apache Wars (186x), Sand Creek Massacre (1864), Battle of Little Big Horn (1876), Nez Perce War (1877), Wounded Knee (1890). [TOO MANY to list here]

[TRichards]

If you listen to how much the average guy knows about what's going on around him or ask such "tough" questions as to which countries are Sunni or Shite or which Osama is, you soon come to be in awe of the fact that we have even the appearance of a democracy still going.

You can't hope to have a democracy when the electorate is, for the most part, proudly ignorant.

[arvay]

I'm being slowly dragged by events to the position, similar to Perrin's, that Noam Chomsky is right and the US is irretrievably in the hands of a militaristic corporate governance and can't be changed except by a revolution.

I hope this is wrong, because I don't want to live through more of the same OR a revolution.

But if Barrack Obama takes office and we keep building advanced weapons, overriding the Constitution, intervening in other countries (except for Afghanistan) and generally continue our role as self-declared "leader of the free world" then we're going to do something so blitheringly stupid that it shuts down the world's oil supply, or sets off an armed conflict with Russia or China, and a million Timothy McVeighs will swing into action here.

Regimes of that sort eventually will disastrously end their own existence, so this isn't just onanism. If that happens, we and the rest of the world will suffer horribly.

[KenTao]

Philip K. Dick referred to it as the Black Iron Cage. Wilhelm Reich dubbed it the Emotional Plague. He wrote, "Man fears and hates the exit from the trap. He guards cruelly against any attempt at finding the exit. This is the great riddle." Fear itself. True love is fearless. Not for the faint of heart.

Earthlings Unite!

[PhantomAviator]

..

America IS a war economy. Has been since ther Civil War and the standing army.

.

[Melkor]

As someone who has lived and studied history out of the inculcating effect of the American school system I can say that what Perrin is saying is one of the most ignored obvious truths of political reality. War (either small or large) has been a consistent facet of American foreign policy despite the then presidents' party affiliation. And the US is so far to the right of the vast majority of Western democracies that Democrats look like conservatives in otyer parts of the world.

[Fotios]

War was never as pervasive for us as it has been over the past 100 years.

[OhBigWoo]

Face it...at least 75% of Americans are a mean-spirited, judgemental lot who are holding The United States back from her potential greatness. Unfortunately, in a system of government like ours, the majority rule. We cannot compete in the global community with our hands tied behind our backs by the willfully ignorant who set the agenda here. Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold are the sort of Democrats we need but they are considered too radical by most of our kind. Seriously, is there any hope that we can evolve quickly enough to save this nation from its doom? Please convince me otherwise.­..

[timothe]

Wow!!! Just wow! This post explains a lot about the movement.

America's greatness came about because of rugged individualism and limited interference from government. More government has never been the answer...i­ndividual citizens are the answer.

The reason why well-meaning politicians and public servants become corrupt and uncaring to the problems of Americans is that the system swallows their individualism. That's why big government will never work. Yet regardless of who is in charge, government continues to get bigger and bigger.

Any revolution to take back this country must start with the desire to make government smaller. Otherwise, the revolution will get swallowed up just like individualism.

[OhBigWoo]

I guess the individuals that founded us were more interesting in making us great than in lining their pockets like the individuals of today. No, now we need government to protect us from greedy Neocons who have more loyalty to their political party than they do to their country. We've had 8 years of the Republican wet dream of "small government" Timo, and it has ruined us!

[gypsy508]

Government is fine as long as it serves the people. I have no problems with universal health care, the post office, etc, but its power needs to be decentralized.

[pizzmoe]

The ugly reality is that we have a 2 party system, like it or not, and within that system, the Democrats are better.

[TexasProgressive3]

Sorry friend. The ugly reality is that we have a ONE PARTY SYSTEM. When you strip away the BS that doesn't mean crap to the average person's daily life like gay marriage and abortion, etc, we have basically the same economics, foreign policy, and abject groveling to corporate power (money). Our government has abandoned the people. We keep legitimizing it by useless voting instead of (dare I say it?) revolting against it. Peacefully, I mean ;>)

[gypsy508]

Gay marriage. Didn't that happen under a Republican president? That was a social movement not a political one. And how many male Democrat politicians say they are personally opposed to abortion but support a women's right to choose? What the #$@# does that mean? Does that mean they would forbid their daughter or wife to have an abortion or are they talking mythologically about after their sex change operation? As for the other issues, two parties are way too easy for the powers-to-be to control. That's why they are the same and why both strive to keep it at two.

[theyedster]

"But let's say Obama expands the war in Afghanistan or bombs Pakistan or Iran, will we see a significant liberal protest? I doubt it."

This statement is nonesense in terms of Iran or Pakistan. While part of the post is factual, I'd rather belong to something and expect to have a hope of changing it for the better than to embrace something that is guaranteed NO political chance at all.

Democracy is fragile and requires constant vigilance to protect. We are screwed now but the only choice is to fight.

[zann]

We could behave like the social democracies in Europe, and maintain a watchful eye, sound alliances and a modest army, but spend our money on our own people, here at home. If we practiced strength, restraint, generosity and fairness, our enemies would have a tougher time finding recruits.

[RealityCheck101]

Yeah you see the problem with that is their sound alliance is the United States. If we cut back our military someone will grow theirs. (probably China) You Liberals just want to live in a bubble. Your completely complacent with isolationism and not having to worry about troubled regions like the middle-east. None of you can even fathom a world without American hegemony, you benefit from its economic prosperity. However, all you want to do is strip down the power of the US, both economic and militarily. AND THERE WOULD STILL BE ENEMIES OUT THERE TRYING TO DO THE SAME!!! WAKE UP!!!

[BushSunkOurShip]

Why is all this BS instead of facts about the destruction to this country by Bush and the republicans become a none issue.

Republicans and their news personal are the best at distorting the truth and given people BS to cover their criminal crimes , corruption and switching the discussion to attack the democrats for their arrogant criminal crimes and total destruction of our country.

911 happen on Bush/Cheney's watch.

Illegal spying happen before 911.

Bush told total lies and propaganda to invade Iraq for their oil.

Bush's Administration was involved in treason , torture , illegal spying , destruction of our constitution / bill of rights / democracy / social programs / jobs / economy / military and our security--­-"PERIOD""­...

We are constantly bombarded with lies , Bs , propaganda and distortion of the facts to take the eyes off this administrations criminal crimes and destruction of our country.

[brendanm]

Revelations? Shattered myths? It is just history. I knew all of this.