Charles Krauthammer, “Rewriting History”:
One of the major myths (or, more accurately, conspiracy theories) about the Iraq war—that it was foisted upon an unsuspecting country by a small band of neo-conservatives—[…] lives blissfully detached from history.
The decision to go to war was made by a war Cabinet consisting of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. No one in that room could even remotely be considered a neo-conservative. Nor could the most important non-American supporter of the war to this day—Tony Blair, father of new Labour.
The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely “realist.” On the Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd—voted yes.
Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, but—to select almost randomly—the traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic, and the center right Economist. Of course, most neo-conservatives supported the war, the case for which was also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the political spectrum—from the leftist Christopher Hitchens to the liberal Tom Friedman to the centrist Fareed Zakaria to the center-right Michael Kelly to the Tory Andrew Sullivan.
And the most influential tome on behalf of the war was written not by any conservative, let alone a neo-conservative, but by Kenneth Pllack, Clinton’s top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up the past.
It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.
—Which is true, provided the proper substructures are in place, beginning with a cynical advocacy media still holding itself out as a “neutral” purveyor of objectively rendered fact, even as it repeats canards, falsehoods, or engages in propaganda by omission or commision; a culture that relies on said media for its information, generally content to follow unfolding history in soundbite form; a poisoned partisan atmosphere, coupled with a willingness on the part of certain key figures aligned against the Administration actively to promote narratives they know to be either misleading (in the case of, say, constantly revisiting the “Mission Accomplished” photo op to suggest Bush assumed a victory that anti-war agitators are invested in preventing) or downright false (Bush “lied” about WMDs, he “misled” Congress into war, he tied Saddam to 911, he called the Iraq threat “imminent,” etc.)—all so they can appease their base and take advantage of a war fatigue among the American electorate that they themselves have worked tirelessly to foster; and an ethos wherein the benign materialist descriptions that inform postmodern thought are incorrectly marshaled to form a rickity and unsound philosophical skeleton that underlies contemporary ideas concerning epistemology.
There is a complicity and a duplicity to the entire cultural fraud, the most frightening part of which is the eagerness of so many “progressives” to will certain “truths” into power merely by the force of rhetoric, be it a reliance on repetition, denial, obfuscation, or an artificial “consensus” that gets its power from the willingness of those who hold to it to pretend to believe in the narrative upon which is based—rather than to believe in the power of that narrative to achieve an end that they consider so important that they are justified in waging a rhetorical war of “truthiness” in the service of what they consider larger and more important “Truths.”
Combine those ingredients, and you have a notion of “history” that is so fluid as to be meaningless. It matters not that some Democratic presidential aspirants, for instance, voted for the war initially. What matters now is, how well are they able to walk back that support—which consists of perfunctory mea culpas followed by scapegoating of all those who “misled” them into their initial position (carefully bracketing out those on their side of the political aisle who may have influenced them), and finally, of a rewriting of events to form a convenient, plausible narrative that they can pass off to the American electorate that at once forgives them and demonizes their political opponents.
And what should be the offshoot of this type of craven politicking—that the electorate looks at these backtrackers and comes to the conclusion that they are essentially admitting they were, as elected officials, unwilling to take advantage of their access to intelligence, or that they are crass opportunists who voted for the authorization to use force because they feared a nay vote would be politically unpopular—is, sadly, being staid by a willingness on the part of the media and many on the political left to simply repeat lies and misinformation until history is replaced by “history,” and their version of events, now ascendant, begins to ossify into “truth.”
I’ve spent a lot of time on this site trying to illuminate how exactly this process works—and what linguistic assumptions (from the perspective of “ownership” of an utterance to the creation and promotion of historical narratives) allow it both to gain traction and insinuate itself into the very (anti) foundations of our thinking.
For his part, Krauthammer ably encapsulates the sum of such a cynical, materialist, anti-foundational embrace of the linguistic turn; and in doing so, he stands in awe of the will to power that is unfolding before our eyes—something that we can’t seem to find the mechanism to stop short of deconstructing the press, pointing up the inconsistencies in the pronouncements of those vying for power, and then hoping people are paying attention.
And given that a battle over controlling not just individual narratives, but also the nature of information dissemination itself, is key to beating back the encroaching, cynically-applied “relativism” that allows for the erosion of Enlightenment rationalism, it is no wonder that those who favor the defeat of such bourgeois modes of thinking are beginning to invest time and energy, now that they’ve wormed their way back into power, in bringing back things such as the Fairness Doctrine, or supporting “tolerance” speech codes—all methods of controlling the terms of the debate, even as they weaken classical liberalism under the aegis of promoting “egalitarianism.”
For my part, I’ve long thought the best way to fight back was to expose the incoherence of the philosophical and linguistic assertions that allow such an invidious strain of illiberal thought to take root.
But now I’m beginning to think the best way to fight back is to mail everyone in the US an illustrated copy of 1984—or perhaps develop a TV show around the concept of interpretation.
Something like, say, “CSI: Duke University Department of English”—where each week David Caruso hams his way through the debunking of some particularly fashionable (yet utterly ridiculous) reading of a well-known novel, the thrust of which creates the intellectual ground for false rape accusations, class warfare, and a willful reigniting of racial tensions in the service of creating the need for further examinations of those very topics.
But Horatio Caine ain’t having none of it.
I’m available for the “Horatio Caine” part. I even have my own sunglasses! Look – see? On…off…on…off…
I like the name “Abel Hornblower”, by the way.
How dare you attack Obama in this manner! He is experienced enough to be president and if he had been in the senate this war would never have happened. Of course he wasn’t in the Senate back then because of Jim Crow laws that people like you supported. Not only are you racist and sexist, but I’m beginning to think you’re a lyricist too.
(Sorry Jeff. Just innoculating myself for when the presidential campaign heats up a bit).
TW: change69? Why? I’m fine with it the way it is.
Neocons stink!
Bwah? What’s material about the discourse?
It’s funny, but in a bit about rewriting history, Charles forgets another of the “biggest intelligence failures of this era”, Pakistan getting nukes.
We had no freaking idea they were even close. I still remember waking up and finding out they had nukes. That was one scary time.
And how dare you write so much truth with so few sentences! Are you trying to induce a Michael J. Fox kind of “Parkinsons” amongst English Professors and Head Starters everywhere?
(Ignoring the issue of revisionist history
I think one thing Krauthammer ignores (for good reason) is that for people who aren’t Serious Political Analysts, “neo-conservative” has had its meaning twisted such that it is almost meaningless; being code only for “friend of Bush”, or “supporter of the war in Iraq”, or “imperialist running-dog”, depending on which person misuses it.
Declaring, quite accurately, that none of the principals involved in the cabinet meeting that resolved on the war are technically “neo-conservatives”, sadly, makes no difference at all to the overall discourse. The people who care enough already know that well enough; the vast majority of mis-users of the term either don’t care or will assert that their misuse is more important or more correct.
“Neo-conservative”, just like, overseas, “neo-liberal”, has degenerated – in all areas outside of technical discourse by serious people – into a mere term of abuse, thrown about by people who have no understanding of what they even meant in the first place. At least, that’s my experience of it, but I’m confident it’s basically accurate.
J. Gibbs’ team of NCIS is better suited to deal with this case, I suppose.
There’s more terms that have been misused to the point of becoming worthless: ”dhimmi”, “terrorist” and “insurgent”.
I rant about this on my little blog every couple of months (just to piss off my mother).
What makes me dissolve into fits of girlish giggles is the anti-war canidates all spinning that they were “misled” into voting for this war, and yet they think they are smart enough to be president.
“They tricked me into voting for the war. Vote for me, and we’ll see who can trick me into something else.” – I’m (Democrat Senator running for President) and I apporve this message.
I can’t wait for the monorail.
“I’m can’t think rationally, don’t understand logic, and am easily misled. So vote for me as leader of the free world!”
While it’s true that the term “neo-con” has become a pejorative used by the anti-war left (really all of the left” to describe those not in BDS lockstep, it’s even more true that most of them couldn’t correctly define what a neo-con is, let alone how they evolved.
As Irving Kristol, one of the fathers of Neoconservatism decribed it, neo-cons are “liberals mugged by reality”. They tend to accept a more expansionist view of government than traditional conservatives, have an activist foreign policy approach and are supply-side tax cutters.
Much of that description does fit the actions of W’s presidency, none of the cabinet officals mentioned are ex-liberals.
I think I’m already on record as saying that if we had a version of the Citizen Journalist’s report on TV, it would be far more effective than the entire right half of the blogosphere. You just saw the fake political ads that could run within it. Or it could be a sketch of a Dem debate where they all point out how easily they were supposedly misled by people who they believe to be morons.
Please excuse my typo. Self editing, y’know. Try this one:
”You’ve got the stupidity and short attention span and I’ve got the cynicism and opportunism, so vote for me!”
These people happily offer up incoherence…
I’m reposting cause you were busy this weekend… here is a bit of NPR’s Spider-Man 3 review with bonus Iraq war commentary:
It’s a throw it against the wall approach, executed with a breezy glibness and a disdain for truth that defies rational argumentation and revels in a conversation-ending narrative triumphalism. And also he’s an effeminate wanker.
“especially when you throw in a revenge motive centered on a father figure,”
This one always kills me. Isn’t it more likely that W. is trying to clean up 41’s mess? Doesn’t W. keep saying things like “stay the course” and “keep promises to our allies”  things his father did not do after the Gulf War? The fact that 41 left the Kurds and Shia twisting in the wind after our withdrawal must haunt him, and he’s determined not to make the same mistake 41 did. Revenge, indeed… it’s reparations.
he stands in awe of the will to power that is unfolding before our eyesâ€â€something that we can’t seem to find the mechanism to stop
I find this will to power jaw-dropping as well. That’s the problem with fighting evil: while you’re busy raising your family and paying bills, other people are thinking of new and improved ways to destroy the Founders’ vision and replace it with their own Utopian dystopia.
How do you battle so many people who are so willing to go so far out of their way to tell so many lies and engage in so many distortions? We’d have to be just as crafty, just as persistent, just as loud, and just as obnoxious.
But who has time for that? There are bills to pay and kids to get off to soccer practice.
Tilt head.
“Doesn’t rewriting history concern you?”
Doff sunglasses, straighten head, lock eyes meaningfully.
“Because rewriting history should concern us all.”
Put sunglasses back on to the sound of Roger Daltry’s scream.
Chalk another one up to the Dowdification of “journalism.” (cf. Dowd, Maureen)
It’s everywhere.
Just today, my plumber, having arrived to replace leaky bathroom sink pipes, repeated some Truther pap: that Bush’s brother was head of WTC security on 9/11.
Me: Which one? Jeb, the governor of Florida?
P: No, Bush senior’s brother.
Me: Prescott? He’s in his eighties….Do you know who John O’Neill and Rick Rescorla were?
P: No.
So I explained who they were. I then received the standard Jewish conspiracy “theory” and some of the Truther “theories” of physics. I counter with another “Jewish conspiracy theory”–E=mc<sup>2</sup>–and gave a quick rundown of what that meant.
The way real education had been abandoned–something which even plumbers need to make informed decisions as citizens–one might be excused in thinking that this abandonment were a conspiracy itself.
Related, I wrote yesterday about another symptom of same.
The terrifying thing is, the press apparently believes what they’re peddling. I was over my parents’ last night, and they had “60 Minutes” on. They had a story on Lou Dobbs, and one of the themes of the piece was how horrible it was that a journalist was taking positions on issues.
The reporter (Stahl, I think) made this point while making statements like “[Dobbs] assaults immigrants on his show”. Apparently, the CogDis wasn’t enough to cause her head to explode.
Right about when he went into Jewish Conspiracy theory, or even when he started in on any relative of Bush’s being “in charge of WTC Security” is when you should have said: “Okay, you’re fucking done, pack up your tools”.
The response you gave versus the response you should have given: “Well, if the Jews are so all-powerful and all-knowing, I think I’m going to fire your ass, and get me one of them jew plumbers. Since they’re all-knowing, they’ll know better to spew insane, delusional conspiracy theories and anti-semitic bile in my house. I ain’t paying $90 an hour to be lectured by some left wing guy with more ass crack than common sense; I can get that for free from Al Franken.”
You’re far nicer than I am. I would have just looked at the guy like he had three heads and was speaking Martian…
Idiot plumber: “Ack-ack, ack-ack, ack-ack-ack…”
Me: “Uh-huh. So, can you fix that pipe, or what?”
Man. That’s just eerie…
I can’t counteract this stuff if I throw him out of my house. This guy’s been my plumber for years. Besides, if I behaved that way toward everyone in my life who started spouting nutcase and/or racist theories, I’d have stopped speaking to everyone but my parents and my siblings long ago. (Black people, we are.)
The guy had been listening to Pacifica Radio about all things Iraq and 9-11. I told him that PR was talking out the other side of its mouth–especially about Iraq–before Bush 43 became president.
He did listen about Rescorla and O’Neill. I told him what many of us here take for granted: that much of the MSM (and politicians) seem to be counting on the fact that much of the American population is too lazy or does not have time to check into the MSM’s claims.
After he finished fixing my bathroom sink, he even sat down and had a civil back and forth with me about this. (It was in this way that I found out how badly educated this man was.)Me: “These 9/11 conspiracy theorists never bothered to take a basic physics course and are betting on the fact that most of their listeners haven’t either.”
TW: It only seemed29 malicious.
I wonder how many Obama supporters have noticed that one of his supporters—according to The Times of London—is one of the co-founders of <sinister chord> PNAC. <bloodcurdling scream>
Weebl & Bob: CSI
His luck he’d have Noam Chomsky show up with a monkey wrench.
I’ve wondered, ever since I read it the first time, why 1984 is not required reading for every high school student. It’s much more important and interesting than that Lord of the Flies crap.
Again in college wouldn’t hurt, either.
Turing: ahead69
Well, I hope so. I’ll pass the idea along to the gf.
Her luck.
FabioC—NCIS can’t even,er, ‘find’ all its Haditha files… and I won’t trust a man with a Moe Howard haircut to save the country, even if he is a veteran…
These days I find the term “neo-con” useful mainly for what it reveals of the user. Usually it’s like a sign on the person’s forehead reading, “No real thinking going on in here.” In my experience about ninety percent of the people who use the word “neo-con” would be hard pressed to define it correctly.
Ohhhhh..THAT Baldilocks. Mea maxima culpa…
[…] republic, international sanctions, and proactive defense are supposed to work — of this most excellent post by Jeff Goldstein, which provides a nice little coda for the intellectually curious (a broadminded […]