A Cold War era joke went like this: A Russian from the USSR sitting next to an American on a flight to New York is asked a question about why he is visiting the United States. He answers that he has come to study American expertise in propaganda.
“What propaganda?” asks the puzzled passenger.
“Exactly,” concludes the Russian.
We have witnessed a magisterial deployment of narrative
management over recent months and years that is worthy of study by future
generations. In fact, it is the sole triumph notched by our otherwise mediocre
political class in the entire course of the European war that they sought,
confident of victory, and got. The populace bought the official line without even
realizing that it had made a purchase. Edward Bernays would be proud.
However, the sheen on this bright object has become
seriously dulled to the point where dissident voices have begun to break
through. They were always present, but now they have infiltrated the uniparty,
mostly through the populist/extremist/MAGA (choose one) wing of the GOP. There
was never a possibility that war funding would get bottled up in a Congress
that has long been an affiliate of the MICIMATT complex*. But remarkably, a
subset of troop-saluting, flagpin-wearing, war-cheering Republicans resisted the
idea of tossing another $60 billion into the bottomless Ukrainian pit as they
noticed that the war is lost and that its partisans have no strategy for
success or exit.
With this window into a fuller debate now wedged open
(supercharged by the appalling crimes occurring in Gaza) and major changes
looming, the environment for previously unwelcome questions is more benign. We
can observe, speculate, and attempt to analyze without inevitably having to
face abuse and name-calling. The campuses are again hotbeds of dissent and
rejection of the Received Wisdom descending from above.
Furthermore, we are entering an electoral season during
which we are theoretically invited to engage in debate about our proper course
as a nation. Despite the crudity of what passes for political discourse on most
issues of importance, we may still manage to share some thoughts and feelings
about current events without promptly turning purple.
No doubt there will be lingering accusations that dissent is
attributable to Putin-worshipping Russophilia. That’s an old story. In the
Vietnam war days, we were called socialistic, drug-addled hippies too cowardly
to “fight for our country.” Before that, MLK and his followers were “outside
agitators” (a phrase making a remarkable comeback), who had set out to disturb
the amicable social relations enjoyed by all in the Jim Crow South. Over Gaza,
objection to genocide is painted as resurgent antisemitism, often by the same
neo-Confederates indignant over discussions of American slavery in the
classroom.
I think there is—or soon will be—considerable appetite for
outsider views on our nation’s rapidly changing place in the world. It opens up
all sorts of opportunities for useful dialogue, and I am, at long last, feeling
like participating in it once again.
*Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think
Tank complex, h/t former CIA analyst Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
