Log in

View Full Version : Clinton - US: an American hate-love story


Skybird
03-29-07, 06:19 PM
Clinton-bashing is considered to be routine in this forum, that's why I remembered the following text once I had red it. I have finished reading another novel by Frank Schätzing, “Lautlos”, which deals with an American-Serbian assassination attempt against Clinton during the summit in Cologne, via a YAG-Laser and many reflection mirrors hidden in the structure of the (at that time) newly constructed Terminal 2 of the airport Cologne-Bonn. It was a good read with many very intelligent dialogues between the protagonists, and to my great pleasure did whiskey not only play an important role in it, no, the author even shares my preference concerning favourite whiskey brands :) At the end of the book, he added some notes on whiskeys, Serbian history, the Russian Mafia, the Balkan war and the Kosovo war, and America. That essay about America and it’s inner nature struck me, because it almost completely mirrored my own perceptions of and conclusions on the contradictory nature of America, that I see as a pair of two extreme poles that are linked in a relation of high inner tensions. Like Schätzing I see America as the most conflict-ridden social society if not worldwide so at least in the West, with massive advantages, but also immense disadvantages, resulting in very intense inner conflicts. I give a loose translation of it in the following text:


part 1 of 2

In the novel, a White House correspondent describes the American way of life by explaining the excesses of the American media culture. And since the book is on Clinton, a certain mishap necessarily gets mentioned. Nobody can hear the name Lewinsky anymore, but Republicans don’t get tired to repeat it again and again, so one should not have illusions here: no matter how sick and tired people are of the Lewinsky affair, it has massively influenced the way political conflicts are dealt with in the future.

How it could come that far that a high-ranking politician could be pilloried (?) that massively for a bit on the side, is the one question. The more important question must be asked as a direct consequence from the first: what must happen that politics will not aim a second time below the belt like with Clinton? And what dangers are hidden in a social system that allows a political slaughter like this one?

Generally, one has to be aware of the differences between the American and the European understandings of values and morals. The Europe of the present, especially Middle Europe, is - despite left and right camps on the extremes sides - dominated by powers and factions that use to seek a balance: one tends to favour agreements and mutual understanding. All major parties are following a moderate course, even the relation to the churches is relaxed and emphasizes reconciliation. After centuries and millennia that were dominated by wars, revolutions and conflicts, that were influenced by the heritage of old and the awakening of new civilisations/cultures, constant shifting of borders, constant thoroughly mixing of different tribes, and omnipresent primitiveness and brutality on the one hand, and enormous intellectual and ethical achievements on the other hand, Europeans finally have reached a status of harmonization and cooperation. Not because we are so tolerant, but because we realise that tolerance and coexistence are necessary practical constraints.

Different to that, the United States look back onto a history which is much younger and shorter. The world wars have not taken place here (continental America), and a detached, objective reflection of one’s own short history also has not taken place. The home-made problems of the early days are lasting and promise to go on in the future. Racism, the inglorious history of the Indian wars, the question of religions: the lack of reflection of all this still remains, and in principal parts these themes are still unsolved. In Europe, cultural development has taken place unhurried and in slow movements, in the United States people got catapulted from a time of archaic morals and ultraconservative religious beliefs, provincial wild west-thinking and social primitiveness, into a high-tech-universe within the shortest amount of time only – within just two centuries.

Though America has fulfilled its development, it has by far not digest it. It is seething, as if the settlement has just taken place. And it is seething even more, because Americans try with all might to show it differently, because they wish so much that they could look back onto a long history – which they do not have (that explains American’s great interest in European culture and history). The presidency is celebrated and put into scene like a surrogate for the monarchy one had sent to hell two hundred years earlier, the president is seen as an institution that boarders to the collective function of a king/queen for his/her people. The USA are torn by extreme views, their history is marked by moral and physical violence. The American system suffers from its own diffuseness/confusion. Within a very powerful union (that understands itself as a symbol of unity second to none in the world), 50 independent states are facing and often hindering each other, whose understanding of their own identity partially shows a very extreme variety. As a consequence, world-wide interests and global superpower go hand in hand with extremely stupid ignorance of anything that lies beyond the next cornfield. In no other place in the world contradictions are so extreme like here.

The patriotism of many Hollywood productions cannot hide that for these reasons America does not have a national identity like England, France or Germany. The emphasising of this kind of patriotism serves to compensate for this lack of homogeneity and unity. De facto the American society is a loose conglomeration of interests and morals who could not be any more different from each other. It is formed by few people who have incredibly much, and many people who have incredibly little, it is formed by liberals and democrats on the one side, and republicans on the other, whose representatives would like to turn back the wheel of history, sometimes at all costs.

Of course the United States are also great and wonderful in many ways. In this country of almost unlimited possibilities, the individual eventually is given the chance for unimaginable ways to unfold his/her individuality, like probably nowhere else. This side of America is a history of freedom and success. The dark side of America, however, is a nation in which prisons daily, regularly violate basic human rights, where juveniles and mentally ill persons get executed, 30 million people need to book security services, and 1.5 million people vegetate behind bars. A country that spends more money on prisons than on universities, and where the Ku-Klux-Klan experiences a renaissance that is unique in its history.

But also this: in almost no other part of the world, the call for tolerance and equality has been made with such convincing staunchness, and has modern progress been given such promising chances because of that. But all the more the reactionaries retreated from reality and retreated into the past of the pilgrim fathers, the ultra-prudish sexual neurotics and the religiously ambitioned racists. Self-declared “Christians” without any trace of brotherly love and compassion, who preach their beliefs even with violence if needed, are slowly winning a better position again, even the upper hand. The freest country in the world does not stand back behind Islamic fundamentalism if one is looking at the ultra-conservative scene.

Skybird
03-29-07, 06:20 PM
part 2 of 2

In this country, nobody could become president and make it right for everybody. Until today, every American president became victim of hostility, biting mockery and contempt, because in America it is impossible to represent one direction that is acceptable to all. No matter what the president says, he always has a significant part of the American people against him. Lincoln, McKinley and Kennedy haven’t survived that, Roosevelt and Reagan almost got killed, even Gerald Ford was planned to be assassinated – and this was really a relatively harmless contemporary.

And suddenly there came Bill Clinton. He carried the hopes for a new, more cosmopolitan, liberal-minded America. Less prudish than his predecessors, peace-oriented, aiming for reduced armed forces and understanding, friendly on fringe groups, idealistic, young. He brought sensuousness and humour into politics. The election campaign was performed on a saxophone. Clinton came, and brought the world of the reactionaries into disorder. A very powerful world. An iron lobby.

He took on the weapons and defence lobby, and this lobby is ultra-conservative, it can only be that. And most important, before all else: the weapons and defence industry represents a pillow on which the lion’s share of America’s wealth is founded. American tax payers spent six trillion dollars (6.000.000.000.000) on nuclear armament. 20 trillion dollars (20.000.000.000.000) the balance of terror has cost the tax payer until the end of the last century – it can be understood why the American defence industry has grown fond of the cold war! But Clinton wanted to end the cold war. Oh my God! What would happen to those trillions and trillions still to be earned?

The firearms lobby also was enraged. How could Clinton wish to prohibit the public selling of private firearms…? Taking away that harmless machine pistol from dear old grandpa, preventing kids to make the pedagogical valuable experience of shooting, while all American world is filled with ******s, Jews, communists and pacifists…? This president really must have been a communist himself for sure, if not even a pacifist!

Until here, we have looked at the official, the legal faction of those who simply are of different opinions than the democrats. These opponents of Clinton are persons of public life who formulate their political and/or economical interests. But all too often, their claims base – no matter if they want that or not, or realise it or not – on a wide, extremist movement, that is far more right in the political spectrum as it could be imagined to happen in present Europe these days. There are the violent “Suprematisten”, the seditious, anti-Semitic and racist “Christian Patriots”, the roughly 800 anti-government militias that reject even the mildest forms of weapon control laws, spread conspiracy theories and suspect Clinton of trying to disarm the Americans in order to let the Russians and Chinese into the country. This whole extreme right-wing scene. One look into the web already is sufficient to give you an impression. The Michigan Militia for example tells us what Clinton is up to: to shatter the opposition with communist hordes, Sowjet equipment and gangs of Latinos. This is what they rebel against. The theories are more than ridiculous, but they have 12.000 members, and they have access to significant sums of money. The extreme rightwing scene in the US is estimated to count 12 million activists, and they are solidly established within society like LePen and Schirinowski in Europe, and far more than the skinheads in Germany.

The republican America accepts all this in its moral code, with just a shrug of the shoulders - but for just a dirty quick incident in the oval office they crucify a president who at least has tried to correct some of the things that are wrong. That is possible only in a country where social trends have developed into separate directions and at an increasing pace, and that had no time to find its way towards its own separate national identity. A country that appears moderate on the surface, but underneath the surface sees its inherent conflict braking open in a worse manner than ever before – while especially the guardians of moral virtues kick and corrupt any moral and ethic because they fear to become victims of modernisation and a new thinking.

Clinton is a symbol – this one needs to understand. It is not about his person, it is about his function, it is about what he represents. He stands in place of the war between progress and retrograde steps of society that America is fighting against itself. The methods in this war have become increasingly brutal and ruthless in recent years, and all people participated with enthusiasm. With disturbing results. That Clinton was just one small step away from the final abyss, he owes to the media. And paradoxically especially the most modern media, the internet, has favoured the witch hunt against Clinton the most. Probably the calculation of the responsible media authorities even came to a positive result: subtract all payments for legal compensations from the expected increase turnover. If the result is positive, a lousily researched and morally reprehensibly reporting gets started without scruples. But in the end, it also were the media who saved Clinton. Confusing? Not in a media world like ours. In the end president and media became closer and more similar to each other than any of them could find appreciable. Both lost their moral reputation.

The same is true of other public powers. The love letters by Lewinsky, that she never sent to Clinton, and even deleted on the hard drive in her PC, got restored by experts of the FBI – but only to prove exactly what, one needs to ask? Can social morals only be displayed by “outing” and by braking taboos anymore? Whom or what should be damaged by this? The president? Or democracy itself, the freedom of the individual?

The development is disturbing indeed. During the Watergate scandal, media and reporter were far more restrained. Nixon never got deconstructed in such a way, he never got publicly exposed so shamelessly like Clinton. But times have changed.

Another example. Everybody knew that Roosevelt was sitting in a wheel chair, but one passed over that. One kept within the bounds of propriety. Even the media did not pick his handicap as a central theme. There were no pictures of the president in his wheeled chair, or using crutches. No censoring would have forbidden it to do so, but one thought it was about politics and integrity, and nothing else. In contrast one was staring into Clinton’s underpants, and his inquisitors with all their moralising slogans publicly gloat over the fact that the president had a crooked penis. So much for the style and format of contemporary political discussions.

At least the reactionaries so far have lost all their mud baths. Probably because in all their hate and blindness they had overseen that they had crossed an invisible line marking what is no longer permissible and decent. By that they raised the interest of the public, but also earned its repugnance. For that reason they lost their witch hunt against Clinton. But one cannot ignore that in these events and developments a lack of culture was established that threatens to dominate political debate in the future.

Europe also is affected by such wrong-going developments. When right-wing lobbyists and religious fundamentalists get together, we will have the Lewinsky affair in Germany as well tomorrow, with all its disastrous consequences.

end