The Hussein Avenues and the American public

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

First, let me say hello to all of those who have read and responded to my posts in the past. I hope all are keeping healthy.

Now, here's how I see America responding to Hussein capture. My analysis is based on an anthropological theory called mimetic contagion (aka, the scapegoat mechanism). This is very watered down for brevoty's sake. I'll elaborate more as people get confused or angry at my analysis.

1) Extreme disorder in a community. It gets to a point of all out war, where there are no differences, only sameness. This is truly chaos, a time/place where one can make no distinctions. When all is going to hell, we must find out WHY. Historically, one can insert any group one wants (the Jews, blacks, the immigrants, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Palestinians, etc., etc.) in order to see the scapegoat. In fact, anytime one hears the phrase, "I want a sense of closure," this is the individual's desire for a scapegoat (remember, a scapegoat can be innocent or guilty; it makes no difference for the mechanism).

2) Once the community has exiled, or killed, the "reason" for the chaos, all goes back to normal (only temporarily, beacuse the community doesn't see that its response to chaos is the problem--and solution). This is our scapegoat. We all feel relieved at his/their exile or death (think of the end of Oedipus--and how all is normal again after he is exiled). Why is order restored? Simply because the entire community agrees that the cancer has been removed. The community can go back to "normal" (which means waiting for yet another crisis and scapegoat). The only end of the scapegoat mechanism is to name it as such and not participate in it.

O.K., so what are the implications politically with Hussein's capture?

1) Bush will get a bump, I think. The press will eat this shit up. Hussein will act as a scapegaot for America (but for America only). Our media loves to instill fear into our society (see Bowling for Columbine). They create a chaos where none exists (or where we actually created it), then offer us up our scapegoats. Hussein will play this role. Be VERY CLEAR on this one point: as much as Hussein or Usama plays the scapegoat for us, America is the scapegoat for the Middle East. Being conscious of one's role in this drama will ultimately be the cure.

Did you notice how the immediate Wall Street predictions were "wonderful." The dollar will come roaring back. All of this may happen. But why? Because there is a palpable sense that order has been restored. And when we look at the DOW go up 185 points today (if it does), we can say, "see Everything's going to be alright." Hussein has been the purveyor of disorder for the American media for over a decade (once the Soviets left us high and dry). But he clearly doesn't serve the same function in other parts of the world, clearly not in the Middle East, even more clearly not in Iraq. They know better than to think the downfall of one man will restore order. The realize its far more structural than this. Hopefully, they will resist the lies of the scapegoat mechanism.

2) The democratic party needs to be very aware of all of this. The right is inherently sacrifical (participators in the scapegoat mechanism). They will blame all chaos on the "dissenters." What frightens me is when we turn on one another. This doesn't mean we can't have disagreements. This means that we have to watch our rhetoric. I will not point to any candidates, but their rhetoric was indistinguishable from the right's scapegoat rhetoric. They cheered the order created, and then pointed to the disorder that would have continues to exist had one or more of the candidates been president. This is classic scapegoat logic (i.e., it blames the hypothetical chaos on an individual and asks for his exile). Again, disagree all you want, but watch the rhetoric.

3) We all know that order has not been restored. The question is, how does one frame this? Do you scapegoat the administration? Are they the problem upon whose removal all order will be restored? Well, no (but this could work politically). Here's the real danger, I think, for some in the democratic party: in not participating with the scapegoat mechanism, you potentially become "one of them." This is the diabolical brilliance of "with us or against us." Classic scapegoat rhetoric. Every candidate better be aware of this simple structure within every human community. It's real and it's palpable. It seems to me the democratic party's response thus far has been to participate in this mecahnism, but simply redefining who the "us" and "them." There are nuances within their packaging of this message, which I won't get in to, but this is the basic structure. Kucinich, and I may or may not support him, is the only candidate to think outside of this mechanism. But, let's face it, he's a joke (unfairly) to the Washington pundits. This is why Rove is licking his chops at the Hussein capture; there is now a REAL "them" to link his opponents to.

Here's one thing Clark and Dean have done to begin a move outside of this: calling for a trial before an international court. But we all know this won't be popualr for the American populace and the Iraqis. Hell, trying Hussein before the chaos is EXACTLY what the scapegoat mechanism calls for. Now see who supports it.

O.K., I've rambled enough. Nice to post again, friends at DU.

Please for give me for not spell-checking/grammar-checking the passage above; I'm feeling lazy today.

[Ninga]

1. Yikes! I would not call you lazy!

This is very good "stuff." Thank you for the well thought out, and valid thesis. We all might benefit if we incorporate this into our talking points.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Your brought up something

What frightens me is when we turn on one another. This doesn't mean we can't have disagreements. This means that we have to watch our rhetoric. I will not point to any candidates, but their rhetoric was indistinguishable from the right's scapegoat rhetoric. They cheered the order created, and then pointed to the disorder that would have continues to exist had one or more of the candidates been president. This is classic scapegoat logic (i.e., it blames the hypothetical chaos on an individual and asks for his exile). Again, disagree all you want, but watch the rhetoric.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I am not for the promotion that (well, I can't say his name) is engaging himself in. However, it is imperative that we have honest and frank disagreements about policy issues and the persona of the candidate. It is a difficult balancing act, but I think it can be accomplished.

As a side note, what do you see of John Kerry?

[loudnclear]

3. I wholeheartedly agree with this observation!

The Dems are self-destructing and I fear that our candidates are more responsibile than their supporters.

I would like for each of us to write to our candidate of choice (send a contribution while you are at it) and ask them to please stop setting the tone of divisiness and anger at the top. We know there are differences but the differences that they discuss openly in public should be focused on the issues and their own position on the issues. They don't need to attack each other personally and give the opposition ammunition to use on whoever the nominee may turn out to be. I would much rather they used language like.."while my opponent.....has his/her own view on this and there may be some merit to that position, here's the problem I have with it and here IS WHAT I WOULD DO." I have sent a contribution to my choice of candidate, promised more but only if he/she adopted a more civil and enlightening tone in their next public appearance and not do for the opposition what the opposition has the resources, media access, and unmitigated gall to do for themselves. We must show ourselves to be the true patriots and statesmen and women. We could take a lesson from McGovern that even in defeat he was more civil, more gracious, and more correct than the victor. If we keep reminding America of the bad choices they made and the results because of rank dirty politics, lying, cheating, and other corruption, I believe it will be a message that will resound with the voters and result in our ultimate victory.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

5. I guess we could see exhibits a-z of democratic scapegoating

from democrats right here. Amazing. It's just too bad when the rhetoric is identical from the rhetoric on the right.

I'm all for bloody noses in primaries. But there has to be a far more constructive way (meaning, a way to slap chimpy around at the same time) to do this.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

4. We've already seen the repubs. response.

Many of them admit that this won't restore order, but that it is a step in the right direction. While this may appear to be their stepping away from such rhetoric, it is, politically, quite the opposite. They want to claim that slight order has been restored, but that we're at a delicate "turning point" (mark down how many times you hear this--or take a shot of tequila). As the democrats voice opposition (or even if they don't--the repubs. will just make it up ), they will be blamed for the image of increasing chaos, and the media will be blamed. The media will cave, and has caved in the past, but the democrats must not. Reject explicitly this scapegoat rhetoric, and name it as such. Just remember: protestors of the Viet Nam war (and I'm not comparing Iraq to Viet Nam--though I'm not saying one couldn't make the comparison) were then, and still are today, blamed for our failure.