Another Anniversary

These days (such as 9/11) which are endowed with historical meaning are laboratories in which the "normative" is developed, pushed and pulled by our collective understanding and those forces which hope to influence the final shape. This process of design is certainly in evidence on 9/11 and a short cruise through the blogoshere and other media outlets is a reminder of the dynamic nature of this struggle over myth and memory. On the Rabid Right (Gates of Vienna, Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugged etc..) a militant and zenophobic patriotism is on full display. Emotionally charged, religiously inspired, the battle cry is sounded with renewed fervor and I understand the Bush administrations first name for the invasion of Iraq, Operation Something (freedom?) Crusade. Vengeance is a powerful emotion, one harnessed throughout history with often terrifying results. On the Left we are reminded how events have been used historically to push for expanded empire, how emotion must be tempered and that we should look beyond the ideological and examine the economic for answers. In the middle we get everything from Cindy Sheehan to George Will, trying desperately to attach their particle of meaning to the overall meme.

Ira Glass did a good thing on his radioshow, This American Life. He produced a story about the phobic anti-Islamism of a returned soldier and his extradorniary and courageous effort to overcome what he knew to be irrational. Listening to this personal story reminded me that there is hope despite the Dog and Pony shows, punditry, and assorted zealots. But we can't underestimate the opposition to truth and reason. Take for example this veiled assault by crafty spinmeister Pat Buchanan, "explaining" Liberal's reluctance to force the issue of troop withdrawal: "Scourged for twenty years over 'Who Lost China' ,they don't want to spend the next twenty years answering 'Who Lost the Middle East'." Do any serious historians contend Roosevelt gave away the East at Yalta? Of course not. But the corporate spin machine and rightwing think tanks, foundations and the politicians and pundits (including Buchanan) they employed surely tried their best to make this myth the dominant narrative. Buchanan omits that part of his "explanation". He extends this straw man with the further twisting of fact: "Come then Vietnam and the credible charge that the Liberal Establishment, the Best and the Brightest , had marched us in then cut and run, abandoning our Vietnamese and Cambodian allies to a holocaust and bringing on the worst strategic defeat in US history." To deconstruct this would take awhile but suffice to say Buchanan knows full well it is a pack of lies yet he plays his important propagandist role. And enough of the poorly informed and easily manipulated "citizenry" of this country believes this myth to cause current politicians to fear for their jobs if they "abandon the troops" or "cause another defeat".

And of course every politician starts his speech, either pro war or con, with this important message: "We all understand that the US has vital interests in the region.."