America’s Blinders-By Howard Zinn-Evidence of deception is overwhelming

[kpete]

America’s Blinders
By Howard Zinn
April 2006 Issue

Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many people were so easily fooled?

..................

Our present leaders are not so candid. They bombard us with phrases like “national interest,” “national security,” and “national defense” as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.

Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that--not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor--is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.

If we as citizens start out with an understanding that these people up there--the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, all those institutions pretending to be "checks and balances"--do not have our interests at heart, we are on a course towards the truth. Not to know that is to make us helpless before determined liars.

http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0406

[KurtNYC]

1. The majority of people in the US were against the Iraq

invasion even as the war began so I'm not sure how he uses the idea that everyone was "fooled." That sounds like the crap congress says about their complicity in this debacle.

Also, not so sure that the class war stuff is any big secret. There is a line in Scorcese's "Gangs of New York" which says something like "we can always rely on half of the poor to oppress the other half." A more on target explanation of what is going wrong is contained in "What's the matter with Kansas."

It is full of great stuff, including:

But Frank doesn't spare the Democrats: "The problem is not that Democrats are monolithically pro-choice or anti-school prayer; it's that by dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans, they have left themselves vulnerable to cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion and the rest whose hallucinatory appeal would ordinarily be overshadowed by material concerns. We are in an environment where Republicans talk constantly about class -- in a coded way, to be sure -- but where Democrats are afraid to bring it up."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/08/int04044.html

[IChing]

15. kick this is a good article to start with when talking to the sheep

I think this is a nice way of telling the truth in simple terms

[pstans]

2. Zinn is great

I have learned so much already from "A People's History" and I have only read a few chapters.

[Ufomammut]

3. Zinn is amazing - likewise endorses David Ray Griffin's books

And as Zinn says, when the people wake up, and they will, they'll be ferocious.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. -snip-

Our present leaders are not so candid. They bombard us with phrases like “national interest,” “national security,” and “national defense” as if all of these concepts applied equally to all of us, colored or white, rich or poor, as if General Motors and Halliburton have the same interests as the rest of us, as if George Bush has the same interest as the young man or woman he sends to war.

Surely, in the history of lies told to the population, this is the biggest lie. In the history of secrets, withheld from the American people, this is the biggest secret: that there are classes with different interests in this country. To ignore that—not to know that the history of our country is a history of slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor—is to render us helpless before all the lesser lies told to us by people in power.

[KurtNYC]

5. People were NOT in favor of the Iraq war in December of 2002

The whole Zinn piece is about how if people knew their history better they wouldn't have believed that the Iraq invasion was necessary or that the statemnts of the Admin were true. Unfortunately for Mr. Zinn's argument, he either got the major underlying fact wrong or he just chooses to ignore it:

WASHINGTON -- Despite a concerted effort by the Bush administration, more than two-thirds of Americans believe the president has failed to make the case that a war with Iraq is justified, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.

The overwhelming majority of respondents -- 90% -- said they do not doubt that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. But in the absence of new evidence from U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq.
-Los Angeles Times 12/11/2002

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1217-03.htm

How does Mr. Zinn propose that we learn from history if he can't get the facts of recent history straight?

[Ufomammut]

7. Doesn't mean there wasn't national bombardment

"The deeply ingrained belief—no, not from birth but from the educational system and from our culture in general—that the United States is an especially virtuous nation makes us especially vulnerable to government deception. It starts early, in the first grade, when we are compelled to “pledge allegiance” (before we even know what that means), forced to proclaim that we are a nation with “liberty and justice for all.”

Perhaps you're focusing on something he didn't exactly allude to?

[MrPrax]

6. I like Zinn...

but sometimes his 'populist' approach, tends to overlook the reality of how power is exercised.

How come so many people were so easily fooled?

Wrong question inasmuch as whether the people were fooled or not regarding the war is irrelevent. The support for the war was manufactured--the majority of people in the world were not fooled.

Essentially this was a question, where the public was never asked and never had a part in the decision. It was entirely an elite decision vis avis the public.

However in a democracy, the 'people' that failed to assert their traditional role was elected representatives. The public didn't have a say one way or another.

The support of the 'public' was generic--same type of support law enforcement receives when it's member bust up a house and kill a couple of people.

The fact that it was the wrong address/no drugs/wrong people/no guns/etc. usually is not enough to sway the public that the cops should get a 'pass' because of the 'general' theory of policing...safety

Same thing here--most people believe that IF the President is doing this, then he should be given a pass as well regardless of whether he is right or wrong--not because of this specific war, but due to the general purpose of the goals...safety.

I don't think that the propaganda of 'democratic consent' is actually appropriate when one can clearly see that the public generally has not role--if it did, then the public would have also approved a single user medical insurance plan years ago.

It is unfair to burden or blame the 'public' for something it can't do anything about anyway--

Zinn shouldn't just count the media's ability to manufacture consent, but should be focused on those actually elected to ask tough questions.

He should argue that the Bush Administration was consciously engaged in treason--pure and simple. The evidence at this point does suggest this declaration of war was an act of lawlessness and unconstitutional.

[Ufomammut]

8. A question:

You state: "It is unfair to burden or blame the 'public' for something it can't do anything about anyway"

If the public rose up against its government, does that, in your estimation, qualify as 'doing something about it?' Irrespective of of Bushco engaging in treason, I believe he's simply saying that the people can do something provided they're motivated to do so ...and realizes that is almost always done with small steps.

[MrPrax]

11. Well...yeah

There is the Berlin Wall option, of course--but I don't think that is desireable as I BELIEVE that many in this Admin. would just love an insurrection to even further their 'goals' of power and control.

These are people who HATE America as 'it is' and want to change it and are willing to do so under the mantle of 'fear' and 'war' and 'insurrection'.

The 'other option' for motiviation--as you say, 'incrementalism'.

That is the default position the public is forced to take in order to be 'law abiding'...to which I say, OK...go ahead...but presuemably this would require people to do exactly what they are already doing...vote, listen to speeches, give money, argue, wait for the people that voted for and gave money to, to do their constitutional appointed jobs, etc., which of course was the exact route--incrementalism--that got the US into war in the first place.

The strongest hand in all this is Constitutional challenges and again doesn't provide a specific role for the public--it really does come down to those People sitting in Congress--if they are going to shirk their duties and let the executive piss on their historic role, then it's really out of the People's hand.

Hope that works out for you....

[Ufomammut]

12. Difficult as always

But historically, change always has to come from the bottom-up, not the reverse. Of course, this big experiment called the United States is very unique in that it allows for so many freedoms and rights, again, provided the people are motivated to give a shit in the first place.

I'm not sure about what I see as inevitable insurrection. It'sobvious that much of the "anti-terror" legislation will eventually be used against US citizens who will revolt against fascism. However, even in dealing with small pockets here and there, it will be a very difficult sell for the estab to convince the rest of the country, and the world, that gassing, beating and shooting American citizens in the streets is warranted simply because they're doing as the founding fathers suggested "we the people" do - way too many people are VERY opposed to Bushco, and all that's happened with and without direct Bush involvement.

And regarding the actual numbers of authoritarian personnel, how could the estab even begin to counter a mass uprising? They couldn't, and the sheer size of the propaganda effort here reveals that. People just need to realize what they're up against and overcome their timidity. Of course, many a sensible, "reasonable" sounding excuse will be made in favor of allowing the current course to be maintained, however...

[MrPrax]

13. Fair comment...

I will quibble over the "change always has to come from the bottom-up". Change at the level of the nation state has always been 'top down'--the institgators of the American Revolution were NOT the 'bottom' of society but in fact were some of the wealthiest elites in the colonies that resented British restrictions of trade and personal fortunes.

In fact, there were so few motiviated in the 'bottom' over the long haul of a guerrilla campaign, that mercensaries were 'bribed' from the British contingent of Hessians to lend in the efforts in the final years. (And then the 'victors' proceeded to screw the mercenaries out of their 'pay' and so they subsequently rebelled against the 'new English kings' in the colonies) In fact the 'bottom' rebelled shortly after independence in the incident of Shay's rebellion that was crushed with the same gusto as any European landholder.

If you look at any 'change' (whatever that is) you usually find that the spark was a rivalry between elites and the public is simply enlisted as fodder for both sides--the victors then write the history of a 'noble' populist revolution because that is a necessary fiction for their particular type of regime.

I was probably being too flippant about the 'berlin wall' option--I should have pointed out that the action itself was 'non-violent' and essentially a passive withdrawal of the population from an 'orderly' lifestyle; people spent their evening chatting and demonstrating instead of watching their TVs. That would be a victory in and of itself. But to get to that point, there must, like in India, a widespread understanding that the current government is illegitimate and the people symbolically withdraw it's support.

Unless of course you believe that Ronald Reagan defeated communism--then my comments are unnecessary. ;-) (oh I don't mean 'you' in singular sense :-))

[Ufomammut]

16. For example, take the civil rights movements of the 60s...

As Chomsky points out, the public is more or less instructed to adhere to the idea that those movements occurred due to a few, outstanding individuals, when realistically, it was the seemingly small actions and steps of scores of people who will never be "household" names who made the difference over the long haul. When I said change from the bottom-up, I meant - as I think you understood - change that benefits the people, thus disruptive, or at least undesirable, to the established power structure. However, that's one mutli-facetted example, and your point about a favorable "populist revolution" explanation in relation to others is taken.

Getting to "widespread understanding that the current government is illegitimate" is thee big step, eh? The propaganda effort here is very powerful due to its manifestations of unreality masquerading as "reality" being so deeply rooted within the public mind, the collective unconscious, of what's largely considered "normal," that's the diabolical nature of propaganda and apathy that Zinn is addressing.

Lastly, are you saying that Raygun didn't single-handedly wipe communism from the globe? ;)

[MrPrax]

17. In that context...you are right

And so is Chomsky. I have always been impressed by his views on grassroots synergies and the 'common sense' approach.

Chomp has said quite rightly that in most western socieities, including the fine folks in the US of A, that the average person is basically centrist and decent. There is a large center of folks that want to to do the right thing and want the best for everyone--they are not ideological by nature, not extremist and quite profoundly annoyed by cheap partisanship that has no ideological underpinnings or 'vision' and are simply pursued by professional politicians who promote the extremist and ideological positions of a small economic elite;namely corporations.

The civil rights movement tapped into that basic notion of fairness--the womens' movement of the 70s brought changes for this same reason. Perfectly reasonable to pay people the saem rates for the same work. Only ideologues and their corporations and their defenders argued the extremist view that women were second class citizens.

Part of the problem these days is that the Media is a proactive corporate player and has invented through framing a 'public' opposition or support for this and that which really doesn't exist outside of questionable polling.

Having said that, environmentalists have tried to do this same thing; slow and gradual, but they have met with little success if you thing about it, even though a huge portion of the public is sympathetic.

These are important considerations and one thing I always like about Chompsky was an essay he wrote (I think one of his Letters from Lexington I read in the pre-internet days of Z mag)...that a violent 'revolution' is not necessary anymore and anyone in any movement should question the people that demand 'aggression'

He was quite right in saying that in modern societies like we have, a few bits of strong legislation supported uniformly by 'the People', unaltered by 'interests', can produce an enormous amount of social justice all by itself. In the US, a single payer medical insurance plan would do wonders for folks. Strong worker protections would go a long way as well. Simple changes to bank practices and the acceptance of 'income re-distribution' schemes would do a lot as well.

The problem of course as Chomsky notes all the time is that there are elite forces alligned and designed to bust up any popular concensus...it begs the question: Would someone like MLK be as successful today?

I'd like to think that a great man like King would be as powerful 'unifier' today as he was then, but I am not sadly convinced by this.

This is the flavour of what Howard is saying as well...but my original point was more to do with not letting elites off the hook either.

[glitch]

9. Well said. Augments KurtNYC's critique as well.

Still, Zinn's article does help explain the people who did buy the spin, even though their support was as irrelevant(with the exception of those who actually enlisted due to the propaganda and not for economic reasons) to the process of war as were our objections.

[rman]

14. I see your point,

and it's a good point.

But many did believe the lies, perhaps not a majority but enough that it was a major factor in creating the illusion of public consent. The illusion of consent creates the illusion for those who disagree that they are a minority, which discourages them to speak out.

If no-one would have believed the lies, there might have been riots or something.


Again: point taken. This isn't so much the manufacturing of consent, as it is the manufacturing of the illusion of consent. Though both do serve the same purpose.

[iconoclastNYC]

10. Amen.

This is the biggest area in which the Republicans have boxed in Liberals. The Democratic established just WILL NOT TALK ABOUT CLASS. You can think of tons of reason for this.

The middle class needs to take back the party. We can't have the party of the middle class owned lock stock and barrel by millionaires and corporate power. This must change. Groups like Progressive Democrats of America and Democracy of America are leading the charge.

[Inland]

18. Why are Bush and the Right Wing Enterprise believed?

We were scared by nine eleven, and there was and one thing even scarier than that....that our nation is in the hands of a man who feels justified in saying anything he wants, skewing any science, falsifying any fact, hiding any contrary fact, squelching dissent with chauvinism, and more, in order to get his way and magnify his own power.

It's too horrible to contemplate. Our great nation, our ideals, in the hands of such people. Some refuse to look. Some look but refuse to see. Some see but turn away from politics because it's too painful.

At every turn, Bush and his co conspirators put it in exactly those terms: YOu calling the president a LIAR? You saying he wanted a war no matter WHAT? You saying that he connected Saddam to nine eleven and then LIED about that? You saying the president STOLE an election? Just what are you SAYING?

And people instinctively, emotionally recoil, because to say "yes" is to look straight into the abyss of a country that is worse than lost. So the answer comes out "errrr no", and that point, the issues become muddled and confused: suddenly nobody is responsible, everyone is equally wrong.

Sure, there's the incompetence argument when things turn out to be Not the Way He Described Them, and Bush is getting hammered on that. But "incompetence" only comes out *save* Bush when the only other alternative is that he or his people are evil. Nobody gets impeached for incompetence, and things have to go really, REALLY bad before incompetence means a lost of trust. So the plan has worked for five years, eight counting the campaign and fundraising. An evil, lying sack of shit from the very formulation of the "judicial restraint" and "compassionate conservatism", a strategy meant to disguise true stands while winking at the base, simply came to full flower. All Bush policies are built on, use, and win approval by lies. What, you really don't think he knows how Roberts and Alito are going to vote?

The Bush team is taking advantage of the same principle of surprise that pirates use: nobody wants to believe how evil they are until it's too late. Credit to Kurt Vonnegut.

[Festivito]

19. Easily fooled with foolishness strongly held. /nt