Iraq, Iran and the Moral Rot Infecting the Soul of America

The more I read history, the more I'm convinced that the United States, far from being God's appointed beacon for all mankind, was always a big talking, poor performing country in which the massive and willful stupidity of the majority engendered a moral rot incapable of withstanding manipulation and seduction by self-serving business/political interests. Thus, columnist Richard Cohen was merely acknowledging the latest example of such rot among the majority, when he asserted the Iraq War "was no mere failure of intelligence. This was a failure of character."

"Character" implies steadfast adherence to a moral code. But, as Walter Lippmann so cogently expressed it: "No moral code, as such, will enable [a person] to know whether he is exercising his moral faculties on a real and an important event. For effective virtue, as Socrates pointed out long ago, is knowledge; and a code of right and wrong must wait upon a perception of the true and false." (Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public, p. 20)

By disdaining knowledge unless it's practical (mainly in the service of business), technological (in the service of business) or biblically based -- most Americans have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between the true and the false throughout our history. Such willful ignorance has produced a culture of conformism (lending itself to manipulation) that was observed as early as the mid-19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville: "I know of no country where there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America."

In 1984, two scholars revalidated Tocqueville's observations in their book, The American Ethos. They concluded: "Most public debate in America�takes place within a relatively restricted segment of the ideological spectrum." Yet, more than 150 years ago, both Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau thought they knew why.

Long before business was centralized by dehumanizing corporate power, Emerson could assert in 1841: [T]he general system of our trade�is a system of selfishness; is not dictated by the high sentiments of human nature; is not measured by the exact law of reciprocity; much less by the sentiments of love and heroism, but is a system of distrust, of concealment, of superior keenness, not of giving but of taking advantage�."

And Thoreau, writing in Walden would complain: "Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them�Actually the laboring man has not the leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men; his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be any thing but a machine. How can he remember his ignorance - which his growth requires - who has so often to use his knowledge?"

Troubled by a culture based upon such "ignorance" and "taking advantage," civic and religious leaders, dating back to Puritan New England, "emphasized literacy, especially sufficient literacy to read the Bible, as a means to bring civilization to their country.

"But, as Lee Soltow and Edward Stevens conclude, this push for literacy 'was never more than a utilitarian value to serve greater spiritual and social ends.' [Soltow and Stevens, The Rise of Literacy and the Common School in the United States, p. 18] It was a 'particular' sort of literacy; certainly not designed to 'open vistas of imagination.'" [Ibid, p. 22, quoted in Walter C. Uhler, "Democracy or dominion," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2004]

Because such "education" actually was designed to "instill proper beliefs and codes of conduct" [Soltow and Stevens, p. 22] rather than rigorous thinking in the minds of coarse, laboring Americans, one shouldn't be surprised that the mere ability to read the Bible didn't prevent the widespread propagation of the bogus "Curse of Ham" as the "most authoritative justification for 'Negro slavery.'" [David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World, p. 66]

As actual readers of Genesis 9:18-27 should have known, Noah did not curse Ham, but Ham's son, Canaan. Moreover, Genesis 9:18-27 contains nothing to hint of race or color. That hardly mattered, however, because, as David Brion Davis has concluded, "it was not an originally racist biblical script that led to the enslavement of 'Ham's black descendents,' but rather the increasing enslavement of blacks that transformed biblical interpretation." [Ibid, pp. 66-67] Moral rot!

Professor Davis offers a devastating comparison of the immorality of late 19th century Southern Christians, still embracing the bogus "Curse of Ham," and the barbarian Tupinamba slaveholders in 16th century Brazil. According to Davis, the Tupinamba took great delight in humiliating their male slaves, before eventually murdering them and eating them - even saving specific bodily organs for honored guests. According to Davis, "[T]his freedom to degrade, dishonor, enslave, and even kill and eat gave the Tupinamba not only solidarity but a sense of superiority and transcendence." [Ibid, p. 29]

Although late 19th century American lynch mobs did not eat the blacks they murdered, a rotten superiority and solidarity were served as "Southern whites eagerly gathered as souvenirs the lynched victims' fingers, toes, bones, ears and teeth." They called them "nigger buttons." [Ibid]

Unfortunately, as Anatol Lieven has pointed out, "for a century and a half�the desire to preserve first slavery and then absolute Black separation and subordination had contributed enormously to the closing of the Southern mind, with consequences for America as a whole which has lasted down to our own day." [Lieven, America Right or Wrong p. 112]

For example, as Stephen R. Haynes has written, in Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery, the Rev. Benjamin Palmer delivered a 1901 New Year's Day, "Century Sermon" in New Orleans, in which he "utilized Noah's prophecy as an ex post facto rationale for his government's removal of Native Americans 'from the earth.'" And, as Haynes also notes, "when legal segregation came under concerted attack in the 1950s, the first impulse for many white Christians was to revive the curse to serve as a biblical defense of racial separation." [p. 103].

Keep in mind, (1) the Greater South extends beyond the borders of the former Confederacy, perhaps as far north as Route 40, which cuts across the middle of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois [Lieven, p. 107], (2) Southern evangelical Protestant religion has spread to other parts of the country [Ibid.] and (3) there are many Southerners and other Americans to whom these generalizations do not apply.

Nevertheless, says Lieven, "a process may have been at work in the United States which could be called the 'principle of the Claymore mine.'

"A Claymore is essentially a shaped plastic case packed with explosives and steel balls. The explosion, blocked at the rear and sides, hurls shrapnel in the direction of the enemy. Politicians and even media and business figures who express racist hostility to domestic minorities in public now often pay a very heavy price, even though everyone is well aware that, in private, such attitudes continue to stream through much of White American society.

"But as with a Claymore mine, the suppression of feelings at home may have only increased the force with which they are directed against foreigners, who remain a legitimate and publicly accepted target of hatred." [Ibid, p. 46] It's called bellicose nationalism.

And it's easy to tap into such moral rot. Take the candid 1989 admission by first generation neoconservative, Irving Kristol, the all-too-deserving father of the despicable "thug," William Kristol. It was the father who boasted: "If the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win�The American people had never heard of Grenada. There is no reason they should have. The reason we gave for intervention - the risk to American medical students there - was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on but they backed the president. They always will." [Ibid, p. 166]

Such moral rot explains why, when presidential candidate George W. Bush smugly asserted, "I may not know where Kosovo is, but I know what I believe," he was not judged to be a dimwit, but a man of character. Such moral rot also explains the ease with which an evil president and vice president -- with the cynical aid of America's neocons -- could manipulate the ignorant fears and blind rage of Americans into support for an illegal, immoral unprovoked war against Iraq.

Moreover, such moral rot explains why, even in the disastrous wake of the evil invasion he inspired, Darth Cheney could send out Christmas cards containing Benjamin Franklin's words: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" And, alas, such moral rot explains why President Bush - who, until two months before ordering his evil invasion of Iraq didn't even know that the country was populated by Sunnis and Shiites - could feel sufficiently confident about the collective stupidity of Americans to erroneously compare Iraq to Vietnam (a war that the moral coward supported, but worked so mightily to dodge).

Moral rot also explains American's current inability to see through Bush's "surge" propaganda. Simply consider two incontestable truths: (1) "As of late-August, no progress had been made in achieving the key objective of the "surge" - to provide safe space for political progress at the national level." [Anthony Cordesman, "Iraq's Insurgency and Civil Violence: Developments through Late August 2007," p. ii] and (2) such political progress, in the form of national reconciliation, cannot occur because the Shiites now in power consider their permanent political ascendancy to be predicated upon their ability to outlast the American occupation.

As the New York Times correctly noted: Mr. Maliki's government "is the logical product of the system the United States created, one that deliberately empowered the long-persecuted Shiite majority and deliberately marginalized the long-dominant Sunni Arab minority. It was all but sure to produce someone very like Mr. Maliki, a sectarian Shiite far more interested in settling scores than in reconciling all Iraqis to share power in a unified and peaceful democracy." ["The Problem Isn't Mr. Maliki," New York Times, August 24, 2007] Of course, it's difficult to foresee such problems, if you're a president who did not even know that the country he was preparing to invade contained such Shiites and Sunnis. Moral rot!

Finally, moral rot now explains what appears to be the inevitable march to war against Iran, or at least the bombing of its nuclear energy facilities. Having supported an illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, which has inflicted untold suffering upon its people, most Americans - including Americans currently sitting in congress and running for president - find themselves incapable of thinking through just how to deal peacefully with Iran, the sole regional power to emerge preeminent from the debacle we initiated.

And, yet, we still consider ourselves an exceptional people!

Comments

[altohone]

Our system of education is geared for conformity.

DePaul University's actions to cancel the class of Prof. Finkelstein and deny him tenure is a prime example that those who challenge the prevailing ideology are attacked to prevent the discussions from even taking place.

The narrow range of American ideology provided the opening which the neocons have exploited, and the range must be expanded if we hope to counter the disastrous direction the country is moving in.

[dougd]

Looks to me like Americans are free human beings.

[cktirumalai]

Whatever their political preferences (and so far as I know Ralph Waldo Emerson did not vote in elections), you have given Americans things to think about in the sphere of values. In parts of the world, even though the people of America are respected, it is thought a characteristic American defect to disguise self-interest in the language of morality.
It is possible that many Americans are so caught up in the American Dream that they pay insufficient attention to how they go about achieving it. What Emerson and Thoreau (and Whitman embody) is the American Vision, which is loftier and more creative than the Dream.

[hoopoe]

a brilliant post. worth forwarding to everyone i know.

the term 'willful ignorance' perfectly encapsulates the national character; it is the facilitator of the 'moral rot' of american exceptionalism which so permeates our ideology, policy and discourse, allowing us to live in blissful isolation from our tragic moral failures.

when americans are convinced to wave the flag, they agree to waive their rights - and none more significantly than the right to free and critical thought. such thought lies at the heart of democracy itself, and must be rigorously pursued; neglect of critical thinking is the end of true democracy.

for another dimension of this manipulation, check out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521626099/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-7479208-2870235#reader-link

[beef33]

Well this really is not news. I mean the country has chosen to look the other way regarding iraq as they felt it would lead to cheaper gas. Plus they rationalized it as some kind of half assed revenge for 9/11(however the hijackers were saudi arabian)??? I guess you could say it is "moral rot" that people are obsessed with consuming i.e. cigarettes,gasoline, fast food, electronics, and feel that throwing a yellow sticker on the suv works. We are a shallow, greedy country. That a guy like Cheney could get this much power and we bought into his bullshit says more about us than him. They ought to start the draft up and then we would see how much people "support" the troops. All the gutless would come to the surface who are so "afraid" of the "terrorists" and wouldn't want their snot faced kids to be in harm's way. The biggest concern for most of America is not wanting anything to get in the way of shopping, tv watching, suv driving etc. I mean how can you expect people to care about the dolts over there fighting a war when there is some intense news on about Michael Vick, Anna Nicole etc. There are priorities.

[SRegnet]

'Moral rot' may be a problem, but it has
nothing to do with Iraq/Iran. It's simply
about The World's Only Superpower
taking a decision to 'totally secure' the
world's oil supply, and 'accidentally' do
so in a very clumsy way.

It's been clear for at least 30 years that
since the Middle East is where most of the
oil is, it occupies a very special position
in a world where OIL is absolutely essential
to supply the world's energy needs & keep its
economy functioning. There simply came a time
when 'an opportunity presented itself' to do
something about it, and we took it. More fools us.

[usna73]

This is a brilliant portrayal and sadly, very accurate. Now we must create our own insurgency to reverse the tide. I'm convinced that our leaders will come from the military. We must support and elect people like Webb, Sestak, etc. It is our last best hope.

[Spookcatcher]

The Essence of Propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succomb to it utterly and can never again escape from it". This was written by a Catholic educated PH.D. named Goebbels...the Head of Adolf Hitler's National Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. (Rove/Bush?)

[Dap]

Dear Walter,

There are really no words that I can use to express the eloquence of your essay, as it is combined with concepts for which mere terms fall short.

I was actually moved to emotion, by time I finished the second paragraph, my eyes were welling up, by time I was done with the sixth paragraph tears were rolling down my cheeks.

Bravo, on such a superb essay. Agape.

[OutsideLookingIn]

"And, yet, we still consider ourselves an exceptional people!"

Well, as long as there are people in the US who can write such articles, and citizens who can agree with them, at least the seeds of the exceptional are there.

[argeec]

Two points:
1. Southerners were on solid ground in relying on the bible to justify slavery. There is ample acceptance of slavery in the bible (old and new testament) without reference to Ham.

2. The comment by Doofus is right on. Morality and ignorance should not be conflated. The average American does not have time to be well educated. The elites of any country determine its direction and our elites are sorely failing us.

[connski]

George Bush (Andover, Yale, Harvard) blew off his chance to be educated and developed the preppy smirk to show off made-in the-shade his smugness. Yes, the elites have failed us. With their authoritarian attitudes, they would have supported the British in the War for Independance.

[altohone]

Solid ground is certainly relative.
There is no justification for slavery.

[GoodwithWood]

This has been obvious to me sense bush started campaigning for president. Putting a born-again into office was a recipe for disaster from the start. Though I couldn’t imagine just how disastrous it would be. I’m thinking that maybe New Zealand would be a good place to seek political asylum.

GWW

[LITU]

Amazing that no one has commented on this article. I was grateful to have had the opportunity to read it.

[loslobo]

I know the MSM will never discuss it, but American has committed the heinous of all crimes a nation could commit. Invading and overthrowing a sovereign government. You know, that chit the Nazi’s did. No apologies, no “Opps my bad”, and all the billions wasted to support them, what has Bush/Cheney accomplished? One hour of electricity in 100++ heat, jail those that haven’t fled, and then wonder why they can’t get people in the Iraq army.

I sure it would be just symbolic, but the UN or the World Court should bring charges against Bush/Cheney. Ya, I know, I’m still hoping a co-conspirator will confess to IX/XI, silly me.

[hoopoe]

you and me both. we can dream, can't we? ;-) i'd love to see the lot of them standing before a war crimes tribunal. they've broken the very laws created to bring nazis to justice and prevent others attaining that kind of power. americans may be too manipulated and complacent to be shocked by this, but the rest of the world is still free to act...

[Doofus]

'Never attribute to malice that which can
be adequately explained by stupidity.'

Heinlein's Razor, attributed to famous
libertarian mystic/seer Robert Heinlein.

Updated version substitutes 'moral rot' for 'malice'.

Or, try substituting it for 'stupidity', if you prefer.

[jsarets]

This isn't about stupidity. We're being misled by cynical politicians that know that the truth is irrelevant, as it is our beliefs that shape the way we think about the world. Does that make our politicians malicious? Does that make us stupid? Or are we all simply being human?

I prefer The Talking Heads:

"""
Isn't it weird / looks too obscure to me
Wasting away / that was their policy

I'm ready to leave / I push the fact in front of me
Facts lost / facts are never what they seem to be
Nothing there / no information left of any kind
Lifting my head / looking for danger signs

There was a line / there was a formula
Sharp as a knife / facts cut a hole in us

The island of doubt / it's like the taste of medicine
Working by hindsight / got the message from the oxygen
Making a list / find the cost of opportunity
Doing it right / facts are useless in emergencies

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts dont do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts dont stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape

I'm still waiting...
"""

The wait is over. The danger signs are all around us. The world is being sliced apart by ideological interpretations of facts. Facts which are useless in addressing the emergency unfolding right before our eyes. Facts which are getting the best of us. That was their policy. That's how politics works.

[Dap]

Sorry!

This Heinlein's Razor... Is dull, as the reality is that malice is often accompanied by or a direct result of ignorance/stupidity, and malice can always stand alone, as can ignorance/stupidity.

Malice is also always accompanied by intent/desire or it cannot be considered as malicious by definition. Therefore, if the intent to cause harm exists, no matter the source, i.e. ignorance/stupidity, it's malice. No need for a *Razor*!

It's a fallacy argument, contrived of sophism, no doubt.

Throw Heinlein's Razor in the recycle bin.

[Doofus]

'This isn't about stupidity. We're being misled by cynical politicians...'

The point is, maybe they're only 'stupid'. It has
been said that a President should always surround
himself with people smarter than himself. It seems
GWB has, but only barely. We have seen that
it's possible to be both shrewd & unintelligent.

Dap: It's not 'sophism', it's either wisdom or generosity.
What, no 'Agape'?

[Dap]

Dear Doofus,

I am aware of what side you're on, and I am sorry as I did not wish to undermine what you said, I was focused on the razor, on that I stand by my call, it's a sophist's tool, it is invalid as to what it claims to be, and unless you are Mr. Heinlein that should not be of concern to you. By definition if an argument ( in this case a razor) cannot hold it's edge it is false, hence, sophism.

You say: "We have seen that
it's possible to be both shrewd & unintelligent."

I have made this argument myself, which is some what of an oxymoron so to say. I call it moron-ism, bottom line. But really it is more complex than that, we have to move into psychology to really understand it, as it moves into aberrant human behavior, which is quite irrational, and not easily understood or explained. Philosophy just does not cover it well.

I must say *cynical* is an excellent term to use and says it well. Agape. (love in fellowship of our shared fragile Humanity)

PS. The point is about *Moral rot* Cynicism? I think not. "Maybe *Stupid* will do?" Not if one has a clue!