Late to the Party

Rosa Brooks on shocking recent discoveries of things people paying attention have known for years:

Someday, historians will ponder our strange collective passivity in the face of Bush-Cheney madness. Why did the editorial boards of our major newspapers either parrot the administration line or raise only muted criticism on so many issues, and for so long? Where were the tough journalistic questions? Why didn't more members of Congress protest the administration's blatantly unjustified policies and transparent constitutional outrages?

For that matter, when Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft and countless others found that the administration was, at Cheney's insistence, adopting policies they knew to be irresponsible and even illegal — when they found they had been locked out of the decision loop entirely — why didn't any of them go public with their protests back when it would have made a difference?

I think people who look back on this period from the future are going to have a very hard time figuring out what was happening and why.

Comments

Anatol Lieven argued that this has been the result of chauvinist American nationalism combined with decades of agitation by Israeli lobby groups that colonisation and human rights/torture/rule of law etc didn't matter when they happened in connection with Arabs. The combination of these circumstances created an environment for enabling the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo etc, and Libby's commutation. I think that Lieven's explanation will hold up very well over time.

http://www.amazon.com/America-Right-Wrong-American-Nationalism/dp/0195168402

Posted by otto | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM

These questions demand to be answered now, not a hundred years from now.

I can say this, however. What Bush and Cheney did would only be possible in a country such as the US, where the population knows so precious little about the rest of the world. "They hate us for our freedoms" could only be mistaken for serious analysis by a population of world-ignorant narcissists.

Posted by chuck | July 9, 2007 9:15 AM

I disagree, Matt: I dont think it is very hard to figure out at all. The Great National Freakout over the 9/11/01 attacks gave the Administration the wedge it needed to push for policies and actions it might never have been able to get autorized in "normal" times. The so-called "mainstream" media went along with the program because a) it was pitched as a vital issue of "national security" or "national defense" and b) it was successful for a time.

Congress?? Need you really ask??

I think a more important question/issue for future historians will be just why the 9/11 attacks, awful as they were, sparked such an enormous over-reaction to what was probably a one-time, fluke success by a gang of marginal radical nutcase terrorists.

Posted by Jay C | July 9, 2007 9:23 AM

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

What the country needs more of is moral courage among members of the ruling class.

Posted by Led | July 9, 2007 9:23 AM

Only if they're dishonest. The elite in this country wanted control of the Iraqi oil fields. Republican party operatives wanted a war for the 2002 elections. And Republican donars wanted to fill their coffers with taxpayer money.

In other words, the elite benefited greatly from this war. It's not a shock that they didn't stand up and say "This is wrong". They cared more about their pocket books than the future of their country, or how they would go down in history.

This is more a matter of class than it is of good or evil. They knew others would shoulder bear the sacrifice while they got fat and happy. Just like Nafta. Just like the Immigration bill. That's all these people care about.

Posted by soullite | July 9, 2007 9:54 AM

A more unsettling thought is that they'll look back and it will be obvious in a way that we are failing to appreciate.

Posted by DCBob | July 9, 2007 10:26 AM

C,

I disagree, or at least would reframe your point so that it no longer disagrees with MY & Rosa Brooks. 9/11 can only explain so much. In retrospect it looks less like the cause of the changes RB laments than the occasion for them. Not only were those in government waiting for a chance to concentrate extra-constitutional powers in their hands, but large swathes of congress, of the so-called opposition party and of the so-called adversary press seemed to reveal an 'authoritarian personality': they were willing and eager to go along, to take their lead from Bush/Cheney regime and sacrifice their own independent judgement, and to do so long after the excuse of 9/11 wore out.

As you say the question "... for future historians will be just why the 9/11 attacks, awful as they were, sparked such an enormous over-reaction to what was probably a one-time, fluke success by a gang of marginal radical nutcase terrorists." and, I would add, why, as time went on, those who should have known better continued to show the Bush administration so much deference.

Posted by J | July 9, 2007 10:39 AM

Not clear that passivity in the face of collective crime is unusual

This country went much crazier in its involvement in WWI, and the years immediately after the war. Over what? The threat that the Kaiseer was going to conquer the world?! There was a period of reaction and some regret within a few years, but that reaction in turn was swept away by hysteria over WWII. Probably because the other side in that war was responsible for the Holocaust, we apparently think that answer to the question, "Over what?", is sufficient, and we've never had a reaction against the collective crimes committed by our side in that war. But even if we get past the objection that two wrongs don't make a right, you can't justify Hiroshima and Dresden with the Holocaust, because bombing these cities did nothing to help end the Holocaust even a day sooner.

I think it much more likely that people will one day look back on the failure of people in the democracies to oppose the "strategic bombing" of WWII, which is just a euphemism for slaughtering non-combatants, as the great and inexplicable moral failure of our era. I think this will be the case because the legitimizing of terror bombing by governments that we accomplished in WWII will one day lead to much more widely and systematically destructive imitators than even the Holocaust and its subsequent imitators. After we finally recognize that we must again de-legitimize strategic bombing, its practice in our times will be held in as much contempt as we now hold the Holocaust.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | July 9, 2007 10:58 AM

All those years of democracy finally produced the population predicted by people who hate democracy. To take advantage, rich gangsters got themselves newspapers, tv stations, and set up shop for the long haul.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 9, 2007 11:24 AM

i think that future historians are going to have plenty of explanations. in addition to the ones already cited by some of the posters here, i'd add that we live in a culture that celebrates power and influence; giving those up for principle is regarded as completely beyond the pale, something only a hippie would do.

Posted by howard | July 9, 2007 11:33 AM

I think otto, chuck, Jay C and soullite are all onto big parts of the explanation. I would like to add something I can only call the "Pollyanna tradition" in American politics.

A certain kind of reporter just finds it very difficult to contemplate the dark and shadowy parts of life in the Great City on a Hill. They are naive, sunny, clueless sweethearts who believe everything their mommies ever told them about the sainted leaders of their country, and simply can't bring themselves to believe anything bad about government officials, or attribute nefarious - or even human and realistic - motivations to them. Every allegation of government malfeasance, lying, skulduggery or criminality, no matter how humdrum and amply confirmed by history, is treated as though it is a wild and outrageous conspiracy theory. It's always morning in America for them.

You might think such people couldn't thrive very well in journalism, which supposedly values traits like skepticism and critical judgment. But journalists are not rewarded primarily for truth, but for writing or saying things that other people like to read and hear. Pollyannas make the most affable and institutionally acceptable of reporters. They make friends easily, at work and in the government, and are quickly elevated in their profession, where they specialize in talking about what everyone else is talking about in an engaging, friendly, gossipy and not threatening or overly curious way. They take dictation from government officials because they instinctively feel it is rude or cheeky even to allow for the possibility that the officials are lying. Official dishonesty is something only those nasty, disgruntled, conspiracy nuts consider. And there is no end to the number of outlets for their fluff, because the paying audience for a lot of journalism consists of people who look to the news to cheer them up, and fulfill their fondest wishes.

Sometimes these cute folk profess to have learned their lessons, after being duped in the past. And yet the latest round of government emissions - currently, for example, about Iranian nuclear programs, alleged Iranian activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, etc. - are not followed-up on and investigated with zeal, but all just sort of wash over them and are absorbed whole into the uncritical, Pollyanna zeitgeist.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 9, 2007 11:33 AM

J is completely correct that the willingness of the "liberal" media establishment to roll over under any conservative pressure pre-dates 9/11. It was very obvious during the farce that was the Clinton impeachment scandal, the 2000 election, and really probably back to the Reagan administration. There is an elite consensus that macho tough guys know best when it comes to foreign policy, and the media will roll over like puppies for the team that acts mas macho. It is a symptom of the "hippie derangement syndrome" so many of our Washington elite suffer from. On top of that the last 6 years has borne sad witness to the fact that the US elite is just as insular and self-protecting as the French, the Italians or any of those "corrupt" countries Americans like to mock. Most of our elite are quite willing to ditch any principles they have in order to stay in the good graces of the Club. That's why there will be no long term repercussions for any of the idiots who got us into this mess. Bush will retire and make a good living giving speeches in the heartland, the Kagans and Kristols will still be considered "serious" thinkers, wolfowitz and Feith will continue to draw handsome consulting fees, etc. etc. it may be that Bush has unleashed forces here that will have untold consequences 30 years down the road but right now those are unpredictable. One consequence for elements of both the left and right might be the realization that the US in its current form is too large, too centralized with too much power amassed in too few hands to really be a place where personal liberty can continue to thrive. Hence while movements like the Vermont secessionists are jokes today, they may not be in 20 years.

Posted by vanya | July 9, 2007 11:37 AM

Why didn't any of these guys go public? I think you have to consider that they didn't want to rock the boat for their post-administration careers. If they spoke out they would be seen as disloyal and that would hurt their futures in lobbying/lecture circuit/consulting.

Posted by Random Dude | July 9, 2007 12:15 PM

Posted by otto | July 9, 2007 9:12 AM:"decades of agitation by Israeli lobby groups that colonisation and human rights/torture/rule of law etc didn't matter when they happened in connection with Arabs."

Which is interesting because for decades the Left too has agreed that torture and human rights abuses do not matter when Arabs are the victims - as long as Arabs are also the perpetrators. There is a clear double standard here that only crimes by Israel matter or count. Only Arabs killed by Jews really suffer. I don't think it is just the Neo-Con Right that is going to be held responsible for their attitudes.

Posted by chuck | July 9, 2007 9:15 AM:"What Bush and Cheney did would only be possible in a country such as the US, where the population knows so precious little about the rest of the world. "They hate us for our freedoms" could only be mistaken for serious analysis by a population of world-ignorant narcissists."

Really? They tried to blow up Tiger Tiger, a popular London Night club, on Ladies' Night. Prior to this Islamists had been talking about blowing up "slags" in another London nightclub. I can see why the IRA would want to kill cavalry horses. Just. But I have trouble with this. Without producing a version of "they hate us for our freedoms" can you please explain why in a city the size of London they chose not to kill soldiers or politicians or economic targets but tried to kill women out clubbing and families off on holiday in the Sun? And while you are at it, could you please tell me why Muhammed Atta did not want anyone to touch his genitals once dead nor any women to attend his funeral?

Posted by HeiGou | July 9, 2007 12:34 PM

What are the elite other than successful people you disagree with? When both cons and liberals complain about what "the elite" are doing, it's pretty much a useless term. It's really just a rhetorical crutch. I suggest that the term be dumped in the trash as an obstacle to clear thinking and communication.

Posted by Led | July 9, 2007 12:47 PM

@Posted by J | July 9, 2007 10:39 AM

Actually, I suppose what I was trying to say was that MY's question seemed a bit disingenuous; not that I disagreed with Rosa Brooks' main
point: just Matt's "surprise".

But I WILL argue the point that "the excuse of 9/11" is at all "worn out", since it is still a staple of Administration talking-points, and those of its supporters who are still flogging its aggressive warmongering policies (e.g. over Iran), or dismissing concerns over domestic abuses (e.g. warrantless wiretapping) - it is the gift that keeps on giving for authoritarian types.

Call it the Death Wish scenario: society (and even world opinion, at times) is often willing to give the victim of a particularly heinous crime a little bit of leeway in their strikeback actions: IMO the biggest (actually just one among many) flaw of the Bush 43 Administration
has been that they have milked this national sense of victimization way beyond its sell-by date.

Posted by Jay C | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM

@Posted by J | July 9, 2007 10:39 AM

Actually, I suppose what I was trying to say was that MY's question seemed a bit disingenuous; not that I disagreed with Rosa Brooks' main
point: just Matt's "surprise".

But I WILL argue the point that "the excuse of 9/11" is at all "worn out", since it is still a staple of Administration talking-points, and those of its supporters who are still flogging its aggressive warmongering policies (e.g. over Iran), or dismissing concerns over domestic abuses (e.g. warrantless wiretapping) - it is the gift that keeps on giving for authoritarian types.

Call it the Death Wish scenario: society (and even world opinion, at times) is often willing to give the victim of a particularly heinous crime a little bit of leeway in their strikeback actions: IMO the biggest (actually just one among many) flaw of the Bush 43 Administration
has been that they have milked this national sense of victimization way beyond its sell-by date.

Posted by Jay C | July 9, 2007 1:18 PM

Although there are definitely systemic factors at work, I think it's naive to dismiss good, ol' fashioned black arts of the kind conducted by authoritarian regimes the world over.

Think how quickly high-profile critics of the administration (D'Illio, O'Neill, and others) have recanted, often embarassingly so. And the borderline pedophilia levied against Scott Ritter effectively silenced him as a well-regarded opponent of the Iraq War. Eventually, it will come out that the VRWC was, well, an organized conspiracy, and that the obvious carrots for good behavior (speaking fees, board memberships, etc.) were supplemented with pretty hard sticks.

After all, if the Scaife Foundation and others were willing to fund private investigators looking into the Clintons' private lives, why not expand the scope a bit to get dirt on influential media figures and "respectable" politicians? I mean, for instance, it's hard to square Colin Powell's performance as Secretary of State with his prior reputation unless there was a huge blackmail threat looming over him or his son Michael.

Granted, I have no proof of any of this. But it seems to me that a filing cabinet full of incriminating documents seems a simpler explanation for the behavior of the American elite in the last decade than the others posited above.

Posted by jlw | July 9, 2007 1:19 PM

I don't know about the others that Matt mentions but I can guess with regard to Condaleeza Rice. I'll bet that she never imagined that things would turn out so badly.

Posted by rk | July 9, 2007 3:17 PM

[quote]I think people who look back on this period from the future are going to have a very hard time figuring out what was happening and why.[/quote]

Lord knows it doesn't actually make any sense.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 9, 2007 6:01 PM

It's very simple -- they're all whores for the few odd billionaires who wanted to take over Iraq.

Matthew hasn't got it yet --because he doesn't have kids and a mortage-- but when you do punditry for a LIVING, truth becomes a useless concept.

"What do they want me to say? What do they want me to say?" is the driving question.

That's why pompous blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and bow-tied George Will are so disgusting. They are happy to criticize the moral failings of people who live on the edge of survival -- while all the time committing acts of deception that would make a truly moral person vomit.

Posted by Don Williams | July 9, 2007 6:37 PM

Actually, I shouldn't say "whores". Because even the most hardened crack whore --one who gives $10 blowjobs -- is not as despicable as our leading journalists, pundits, and TV anchors.

Their cowardly silence has caused the deaths of 3500 of our best citizens and the permanent crippling of thousands more.

Posted by Don Williams | July 9, 2007 6:41 PM

I think Dan Kervick gets closest to the prime reason, but its not just for journos. The USA is wonderful at programming its children in patriotism -- eg, not having grown up here, I find the Pledge of Allegiance downright creepy.

A lot of this programming was activated by 9/11, where the national response was shock and anger of the quality of an over-privileged adolescent. Not at the event, but that it happened to us. So the whole country turned into Sandra Bullock's character in Crash, including the way she would turn on her husband for not being as insane (the reaction to the Dixie Chicks still stuns me).

If it's at easy as it was to grab all the reins of power -- and the "how it happened" is obviously answered by "we wanted it to" -- then the whole mythos of America that everyone was raised on is pretty much a fraud.

Letting go of the mythos was a preconditions of stopping the abuses, so on with the abuses. Even now, it's only the deaths in our tribe (US soldiers) that is turning public opinion, so there can be opposition without letting go of self-image.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 10, 2007 8:46 AM