Press Action ::: Let's Complete 'The Emperor's New Suit'

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Let's Complete 'The Emperor's New Suit'

By Micah Holmquist

The society depicted in “The Emperor’s New Suit” has nearly come to life in the United States with the election of George W. Bush, but the revival won’t be complete till Bush has been exposed as the manipulative demagogic militarist that he is.

In Hans Christian Andersen‘s nineteenth century story, a pair of “swindlers” con an emperor into believing that they have made a piece of great clothing for him by telling him that only intelligent people can see the cloth that to the emperor (correctly) appears not to exist. The emperor’s subjects go along with it when they place him in the “outfit,” in an effort to not appear foolish. This confidence game is broken up by “a little child” who says the obvious, “he has nothing on at all.” Reason then spreads quickly through the people who were had complimented the emperor.

One piece of beauty in Andersen’s story is that while the emperor is depicted as an insecure fool, the story shows that his rule is perpetuated by the desire of his “subjects” to court his favor. Until the child’s statement, the crowd is an essential part of the spectacle.

This comes very close to describing the current political situation in the U.S.

The Bush Administration is playing the swindlers with their absurd “war on terror” against “the terrorists” performing the part of the clothing. “The terrorists” and “war on terror” have publicly defined meanings so vague that the Bush Administration can use them for propaganda purposes whenever they want to get people in the U.S. angry once again about the attacks of September 11, 2001. The “war on terror” isn’t a real “war”—the Bush Administration has gone so far as to say that it cannot be won—but rather an effectively all-purpose justification for actions they desire at the moment.

The contemporary crowd is a varied lot.

The mainstream media is there. From “mainstream” sources like CNN and The New York Times to “new media” such as Air America, drudgereport.com and The Rush Limbaugh Show, almost all, if not all, news media outlets in the United States with anything approaching a mass audience have given Bush a pass on the “war on terror.” Some sectors of the media may like to see themselves as being adversaries of the Bush Administration, but any challenge they pose to the administration is on minor issues such as whether Bush and friends are doing the best possible job they could do at a given task. The mass media accepts the Bush Administration’s foundational premises—they accept the need to do what Bush says needs to be done – which in turn means that the appearance of challenging the administration can only end up strengthening Team Bush’s broader argument for the “war on terror.”

The Democrats, or at least most prominent Democrats in the U.S. Congress, are also in the crowd, admiring the clothes that are the “war on terror,” having supported the PATRIOT Act and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather than critique the establishment of martial law in Iraq or any other policy or events that the Bush Administration is directly or indirectly responsible for, Democrats now want to know if Bush will be their friend by being “bipartisan.”

Opponents of at least some aspect of the “war on terror” are nestled closely to the Democrats and the mass media. Too many of the arguments used by this group have been dull to the point of being nonsensical. For instance, there was no “rush to war” with Iraq by the Bush Administration in 2003, as a military conflict between Iraq and the U.S. had been going on since 1990. When it came to the 2004 presidential election, it appears most “anti-war” people supported Kerry, which is one way of saying they weren’t going to let their stance get in the way of the smooth operation of democracy. Issues were also left unaddressed because those who did back anti-war candidates such as Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader failed to demand that these candidates turn opposition to the “war on terror” into the central element of their campaign.

Then there is the undifferentiated members of the general public in the U.S. Although seeing through the “war on terror” and calling “bullshit” isn’t hard in this case, virtually nobody has done so. They just stood in the crowd praising the “war on terror,” even as some of them were willing to wait for hours in order to cast a vote for the U.S. presidency. (It is also telling that relatively little is being said about how to prevent such long waits in the future. Apparently the message is that participating the process is so glorious that change is not needed.)

So far no “little child” has arrived on the scene to say the obvious where and when everybody can hear it. Waiting for the arrival of a single “little child” is a mistake since this critique has already been made by, amongst others, fairly popular comedians David Cross and Jon Stewart, and yet the dominant discourse of treating the “war on terror” as legitimate continues unabated. The role of the “little child” will almost certainly be played by many people, and that means those of us who are opponents of the “war on terror” need to get in costume and get on stage.

But, assuming that Bush doesn’t appear in public like he’s auditioning to appear in a new edition of a book by photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, what are we to yell? The key, in my not exactly humble opinion, is to avoid being alienated if that that means ending attempts to convince others of the fraud known as the “war on terror.” (The same is true as it relates to many other issues.) But it is also of no use to pretend that everything worked out or even suggest there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a political culture and a political system that affirms giving one person effectively unchecked war making power.

Don’t advocate bipartisanship or attempt to prop up the Democrats’ political fortunes. Don’t argue that Bush failed to get a magical percentage of votes that would given him a mandate for certain military actions as if majorities haven’t been wrong before. Don’t “quit complaining and accept the will of the voters”!

Do point out that Bush’s foreign policy—i.e. the “war on terror”—is based on the false premise that “the terrorists” exist as such. Do demand that Team Bush and their supporters define “the terrorists” and the “war on terror” and then point out that these definitions conflict with official policies of the U.S. government or previous statements from the Bush Administration, which they will unless the definition given is, “whatever Bush and friends want them to mean.” Do point out that Bush has manipulated the public’s lack of critical thinking on these matters for the sake of war.

Don’t worry about being called a “wacko." Do use whatever ethical means are possible to expose and discredit as well as stop and defeat the “war on terror.” Do make “The Emperor’s New Suit” come to life.

Micah Holmquist, editor of Irregular Thoughts and Links, is a Cadillac, Mich.-based writer.

More from Micah Holmquist