HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Forbidden
Connections: Class, Cowardice, and War
by
Paul Street
July
26, 2003
Beneath
myths of equal opportunity and rampant upward mobility, the United States is a
savagely unequal society with a rigidly hierarchical and authoritarian class
structure. As a reflection of that harsh structural reality, it is nearly taboo
to speak or write in any engaged and meaningful way about class inequality in
the nation's "mainstream" (corporate-dominated) media and politics.
That mainstream can host a public debate over the use of race as a preferential
factor in college and graduate and professional school admissions. Meanwhile,
the richly aristocratic "legacy" system, whereby the affluent
children of elite school graduates receive a significant admissions boost at
places like Harvard and Princeton, is beyond the pale of polite discussion and
acceptable debate.
How
interesting during the last year to watch one legacy product - Yale and Harvard
graduate George W. Bush - order his Justice Department to intervene against the
use of race as a factor in admissions to the University of Michigan. Bush then
claimed to embrace affirmative action when the Supreme Court (unanimously
filled by graduates of schools tainted by the legacy system), to which (along
with the massive disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida) he owes his
office, upheld affirmative action.
The
mainstream gives vent to disgust over the revelation that America's great
reactionary virtue magnate William J. Bennett hypocritically "lost more
than $8 million" to the gambling industry during the last ten years. It
says nothing about the higher immorality involved in the maintenance of a
social structure wherein one man affordably entertains himself by cycling a sum
of money greater than six times the lifetime earnings of most of his fellow
citizens through slot machines. (US Census Bureau, The Big Payoff: Educational
Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings [July 2002]).
An
excellent example of class's marginalization in mainstream discourse is found
in the short-lived brouhaha that emerged when Bush taunted Iraqi guerillas to
attack American soldiers earlier this month. "There are some," an
angry Bush told reporters on July 2nd "that feel like if they attack us we
may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking
about if that is the case...There are some who feel like the conditions are
such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on." (Sean
Loughlin, "Bush Warns Militants in Iraq," CNN.com./INSIDE POLITICS,
July 3, 2003, available
online at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/02/sprj.nitop.bush/indext.html).
It
was a Hell of a thing to say. On the same day that Bush blustered, the New York
Times reported that "Iraq's plague of violence shows no signs of abating,
as US soldiers face angry and vengeful Iraqis and unpredictable attacks in
sweltering heat. The gunfire and bombing seemed to come from all directions
today," noted reporter Edward L. Andrews, "leaving a trail of
bitterness, confusion, and hunger for revenge." ("In Day of Violence,
Attacks From All Directions," New York Times, July 2, 2003, A16).
The
next day, two months after Bush declared American "victory" in Iraq,
eleven Iraqis ambushed a US convoy on a highway north of Baghdad and eighteen
US soldiers were injured in a mortar attack in the same area. Another American
soldier was shot to death guarding the Baghdad Museum. ("Attack Leaves US
Soldier Dead, 18 Hurt," USA Today, July 4, 2003). The Commander of Allied
Forces Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez in Iraq acknowledged that "we're
still at war" and offered a reward of up to $25 million for the capture of
Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile,
the US was begging other nations to help them more effectively contain the
people of Iraq, an expensive and dangerous operation the Bush administration
never quite factored into its plan for world domination. By July 10, the New
York Times reported that 31 US soldiers had been killed since Bush declared the
end of major combat and CNN noted that 1,000 American troops had been injured
the US launched its war http://truthout.org/docs_03/071103C.shtml) on March
20th. More have perished since and yes more will die, as the multi-millionaire
and former corporate CEO Donald Rumsfeld recently acknowledged.
To
their credit, mainstream voices responded quickly with criticism to the
provocative "bring 'em on" comment, uttered in the elegant,
air-conditioned confines of the White House's Roosevelt Room. We heard from
Representative Richard A. Gephardt, who said he'd had "enough of the"
President's "phony, macho rhetoric. I have a message for the
president," Gephardt added, echoing the comments of many Democrats.
"We need a clear plan to bring stability to Iraq and an honest discussion
with the American people about the cost of that endeavor. We need a serious
attempt to develop a postwar plan for Iraq and not more shoot-from-the-hip
one-liners."
"When
I served in Europe during World War II," said the incredulous Senator
Frank Lautenberg, "I never heard any military commander - let alone the
commander in chief - invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."
Leading
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean weighed in, criticizing Bush for
showing "insensitivity to the dangers" American GIs face. These basic
sentiments seemed to have been shared by Newsweek reporter and commentator
Howard Fineman. Fineman told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that Bush "tripped
up" by "talking tough" when "over in Iraq our troops know
that they are in trouble." "The president," Fineman added, "hasn't
really explained" the US "plan" in Iraq, "and he doesn't
help himself with that kind of thing." Fineman quoted from a postcard he
recently received from "a friend who's a high-ranking officer in
Iraq." "Have I got some news for you," the postcard read.
"The reporters have just fled and the real stories have just begun. Iraq
is a mess." Bush "didn't have a plan," Fineman notes, and
"we don't have enough troops."
ABC's
Diane Sawyer seemed appalled by Bush's comment. On July 7, she was astounded
when General Tommy Franks told her that he "absolutely" agreed with
Bush's "bring 'em on remark." "You do?!," Sawyer responded,
with a look of disbelief on her face. White House reporter Terry Moran, hosting
ABC News for the night, was also blown away. "Very interesting Diane. The
commanding general echoing the chief there, 'bring 'em on."
Fortunate
Son(s)
Yet
while the mainstream expressed a legitimate sense that Bush's comment was
"irresponsible," "insensitive," reflective of poor
planning, and even unpatriotic, it could not note the cowardice and related
rich class content of both the president's remark and American militarism. How
"macho" is it, really, to dare Iraqis to attack not you but your
distant (both spatially and socially), vulnerable, and exposed subordinates,
stuck in the streets and sands of an ill-advised, unplanned occupation,
opposed, we might add, from the beginning by the preponderant majority of
politically conscious humanity?
Like
many of fighting age from his privileged, super-wealthy circle, "bring 'em
on Bush" avoided real military service during the Vietnam War. He dodged
the central military engagement of his time by "making occasional
appearances at the Texas National Guard" (Eric Margolis, "Bring 'Em,
On Bush," Toronto Star, July 3, 2003). Given the opportunity to express his
rugged, West-Texas sentiments against the "Communist" enemies of
American "freedom" in the jungles of Southeast Asia, he was content
to leave the bloody and dirty work to the sons of the American working-class.
He recoiled in horror at the supposedly elitist anti-war movement but was
pleased to egg America's predominantly poor and working-class soldiers on to
murder and death from the sheltered sidelines of aristocratic advantage. His
basic attitude and related position was perfectly captured and savagely
ridiculed in the populist Vietnam-era anti-war rock anthem "Fortunate
Son":
Some
folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh,
they're red, white and blue.
And
when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh,
they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It
ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It
ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no, Some folks are born silver
spoon in hand,
Lord,
don't they help themselves, oh.
But
when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord,
the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It
ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It
ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no. Some folks inherit star
spangled eyes,
Ooh,
they send you down to war, Lord,
And
when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh,
they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It
ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It
ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son.
By
J.C. Fogarty (Credence Clear Water Revival)
Now,
Bush, truly the ultimate Fortunate Son, has - thanks to interrelated accidents
of birth, campaign finance, electoral racism, oil and Osama (a class brother) -
graduated to a higher role in the sociology of war, captured in an earlier
Sixties anti-war anthem, Bob Dylan's "Masters of War" (1963):
You
never done noth'n But build to destroy
You
play with my world Like it's your little toy
You
put a gun in my hand
And
turn from my eyes
And
you turn and run farther While the fast bullets fly
You
fasten the triggers For the others to fire.
Then
you sit back and watch While the death count gets higher
You
hide in your mansions, While young people's blood,
Flows
out of their bodies And gets buried in the mud.
It
is essential, however, to note that Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of their
super-affluent, skin-crawling War Party received carte blanche from the US
Congress to pursue illegitimate war and imperial occupation in Iraq. Equally
significant, the neo-imperial campaign has been consistently enabled,
encouraged and even largely driven by the corporate-state US media. Among the
children of the 435 members of the House of Representatives and of the 100
Senators (at least 90 percent of the latter are millionaires), it is worth
noting, just one - the father of a single, solitary Senator's son - has a child
who has served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There is no available comparative
data on the sons and daughters of war-profiteering media and
"defense" company executives. Still, the existing data suggests that
we will not find many of them among those who served in the supposed great
struggle to save America and the world from Saddam Hussein.
"The
Military Mirrors Working-Class America" and "Our Upper Class No Longer
Serves"
Who
exactly is stewing, dodging and taking bullets, dying, and killing in Iraq?
According to the New York Times, in an important study released as the invasion
moved into full swing, "a survey of the American military's endlessly
compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is
anything but a cross section of America."
The
military, the Times found, "mirrors Working-Class America,"
resembling "the make up of a two-year commuter or trade school outside
Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year
university in Boston." It is, "in essence, a working-class
military," one that is "require[d] to fight and die for an affluent
America."
Even
among the officer ranks, notes Northwestern University sociologist Charles C.
Moskos, affluent Americans are essentially missing. "The officer corps
today," Moskos told the Times, "does not represent nobility. These
are not people who are going to be future congressmen or senators. The number
of veterans in the Senate and the House," he added, "is dropping
every year. It shows you that our upper class no longer serves."
There
is no draft, to be sure, but the "volunteer" military is full of
people who enter because they lack, by accident of birth, access to America's
standard middle-class pathway to career success. A key motive is the
opportunity to learn a skill and to receive college tuition assistance,
something the military offers as a bribe to lure recruits.
"It's
not fair," noted one young Army private quoted by the Times, "that
some poor kids don't have much of a choice but to join if they want to be
productive because they didn't go to a good school, or they had family problems
that prevented them from doing well, so they join up and they're the ones that
die for our country while the rich kids can avoid it." (David M.
Halbfinger and Steven A. Holmes, "Military Mirrors Working-Class
America," New York Times, March 30, 2003).
The
formerly expendable and now officially celebrated Jessica Lynch provides a
perfect example. Now severely injured due to her service in Bush's war, Lynch
is the daughter of truck driver from coal mining territory in West Virginia's
Wirt County. A fifth of that county's population, including more than a fourth
of its children lived beneath the federal government's notoriously inadequate
poverty level at the peak of the 1990s economic boom. (United States Census,
Census 2000 Summary File 3 - Wirt Country, West Virginia).
Like
numerous other young Americans from her socioeconomic cohort, Jessica joined
the predominantly working-class ranks of the armed forces looking for more than
immediate employment. She was also pursuing college tuition assistance to
attain the educational certification so essential to making a decent living in
the United States, the most unequal nation in the industrialized world.
Military service is the price she and many other Americans pay for being born
into the lower ranks of the American hierarchy.
As
one iconoclastic West Virginian puts it, "here in West Virginia, we have
the highest enlistment per capita of any state. I suppose that speaks volumes
about the opportunities this economy offers the young in these parts. Jobs in
the coal mines aren't even very plentiful anymore. Jessica was one of the hopeful,
looking for a way to get the skills and education she needed and eventually to
return to her beloved mountain home. She sure got more than she bargained for
in more ways than one." (Anne Tatelin, "The Gospel According to
Jessica Lynch," at http://wheresmypants.net/jessica.htm)
The
pampered boy King in the White House likes to cultivate a folksy, faux-populist
familiarity with America's working class. Curiously enough, he and his handlers
regularly screw that class over with a domestic policy that includes regressive
tax cuts that also plays like something out of "Fortunate Son." And
the closest Bush wants to come to the hazardous military action he dares Iraqi
militants to initiate against working-class Americans is sitting in front of a
television, watching cruise missiles blow up in Baghdad or the thespian
brilliance of his favorite actor - the one-dimensional Cold War action hero
Chuck Norris.
Bush
imagines himself, perhaps, a real-life Norris, striking fear into the hearts of
those "evil" Arabs, who dared to attack God and History's chosen
state, the center of "goodness" on earth, on September 11th 2001. In
reality, he's an armchair cowboy from the effete circles of privilege, where
supposed great men of power are happy to send young men and now young women of
inferior status to the military hospitals or an early grave in the pursuit of
imperial dreams that profit the privileged few. No, everything did not change
on 9-11.
Paul Street is an urban
social policy researcher in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of
"Marriage as the Solution to Poverty: Bush's Proposal for Welfare Moms and
the Real White House Agenda," Z Magazine (April 2002): 33-39 and "Beacon
to the World?” This article first appeared in ZNET. Email: pstreet@cul-chicago.org