"Whenever I go into a restaurant, I order both a chicken and an egg to see which comes first"

Monday, July 4, 2022

The Fourth Of July And The Corrosive Attack On Patriotism And American Values

The Fourth of July has become a meaningless holiday compared to those of the early post-WWII years. America had single-handedly won the war against Japan in the Pacific.  After landing at Normandy, American forces pushed the Nazi armies back to Berlin and forced the unconditional surrender of Germany.


Image result for norman rockwell patriotism

Despite a seemingly implacable and resolute enemy,  American soldiers fought their way from island to island across the Pacific to Japan.  Against an equally determined military force, they fought their way across France to final victory in Germany.  Over one million American soldiers were either killed or wounded during World War I, but Asian and European imperialism had been defeated.

In the post-war period, America was universally respected and admired for its collective courage, determination, and will.  Not only was tribute paid to the American military, to the civilian leaders who had quickly mobilized industry and managed the economy in difficult times, and to the American people who had joined the war effort on the home front without complaint or cavil.

Americans felt rightly proud of themselves.  They had given their lives to defeat Hitler and his genocidal, arrogant, and mad effort at world domination, and had fought back against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor with an absolute will to annihilate the enemy.

Image result for images iwo jima monument

The Fourth of July was a celebration of American victory, but also a loud cheer for the greatness of America itself.  The world was a better place after George Washington and his colonial armies defeated the British and the Founding Fathers declared independence.  From 1776 until 1945 the history of the United States was one of unparalleled economic growth, social ambition and diversity, and military strength.  Commitment if not devotion to the principles of democracy and private enterprise never wavered and America was indeed exceptional.  Not only did the national economy recover quickly, but thanks to American aid and support, both Germany and Japan were helped back on their feet.

After 1945, world acclaim became more muted and tempered by American misfortune.  The Korean War ended in stalemate after nearly 150,000 casualties.  The Cold War intensified and the possibility of nuclear war increased the more nuclear warheads were aimed at the enemy.

Vietnam was a military and political disaster.  American supremacy had not been challenged by a superpower but by a small Asian nation.   Americans were stunned that ‘a nation of pajama-wearing little men who crawled through tunnels and ate rat meat and cold rice’ could have beaten them.  Ho Chi Minh and his loyalist supporters were having nothing of American arrogance and exceptionalism and neither were people back home.   The Sixties and early Seventies were a time of political and social upheaval, animated by what many thought was an unnecessary, brutal, and mindless war.

Image result for images ho chi minh


America today has fewer enemies, but no fewer conflicts.   No longer economically premier, the US struggles to find common ground or at least conciliation with a newly-confident and powerful Russia; a China whose economic, political, and military power grows stronger every year; enemies like Iran and North Korea which continue to play America successfully.  The United States is at best primus inter pares and at worst simply one of an increasingly competitive international mix.

The chaotic America of 2021 is a far cry from that of 1945 when America was indeed whole, solidly united, and visionary. Not only have its military victories become part or a dim historic background, but its failures have been used as justification for rejecting national pride.  The Vietnam War and the adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan have dulled any sense of American rectitude or moral purpose.  The nation is not, as Ronald Reagan, said, a ‘shining city upon a hill’, but a hegemonic bully.

At home, the once-celebrated principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have become eroded by political and social divisions.  The polity of the nation has fractured.  The individualism that Jefferson envisaged – individual enterprise within the context of community and civic responsibility – has been replaced by a more venal and selfish one.  

America, says the political Left, is a corrupt, racist nation; a white supremacist colony, a brutal, oppressive regime of greed, social indifference, and ingrained, systemic prejudice.  There can be no greatness here as long as the black man is condemned to perpetually slavery, social and sexual minorities are marginalized, and the poor robbed of their dignity. 

America is a shameful, pitiful example of the worst that humanity has to offer.  This is The Year Zero shout progressives who, echoing Pol Pot, the Khmer dictator who forced millions into involuntary servitude to his Maoist state in a radical effort to erase the past and create a new, better, communitarian world.   America deserves no less.  

So-called civil liberties are nothing  more than vain fantasies perpetuated by a corrosive elite.  Our so-called cultural heritage, the legacy of Jefferson and Hamilton, the philosophy of the Enlightenment, is only a reminder of our slave-owning, murderous, incivility and must be erased.

Image result for images pol pot year zero poster

It is no wonder, then, that the Fourth of July has become an empty celebration of fireworks, cookouts, and a three-day weekend.  Most Americans have only the dimmest appreciation for the nature of their Revolution, the philosophical principles instituted in the Bill of Rights, or the vision of the Founding Fathers; and given the clamor and unmuted drumbeat  What is there to celebrate except celebration itself?

Today freedom, justice, the pursuit of liberty and happiness, fairness, equality – all 18th Century principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – are marginal footnotes.   Yet Samuel Adams’s words to Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton are not empty but vital:

The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it.  While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.

Freedom was not just a vague concept according to the Founding Fathers, but a given right, part of an American’s legacy.  It was a responsibility, and there was always the danger of falling from freedom to ‘abject slavery’.  Adams and others, particularly Jefferson who was influenced by John Locke, believed that freedom and ‘the pursuit of happiness’ had little to do with personal satisfaction or venal interests.  They were the foundation for civic liberty and justice to be nurtured and cared for.

This nurture and care was everyone’s responsibility.  If freedom, justice, and fairness were to be guaranteed for all Americans, then each American had a duty to promote them, secure them, and protect them:

I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of a society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.  This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power (Thomas Jefferson).

There of course is a fundamental difference between empty patriotism and honor and respect for one’s country.  Most calls to patriotism have been thinly veiled exploitive means to rally a citizenry around a deadly cause.  Jefferson and his colleagues when founding the new republic did not do so out of victorious arrogance but out of a principled ambition to create a better place than the exploitive colonial regime of the British.  

atriotism was not an issue at the time of the birth of the nation.  Everyone  fought the British, and all suffered because of the harsh, rigid, and unfair administration of our occupiers.  There was no clarion call to arms for abstract reasons of patriotism, but to free our country from the yoke of British rule.  The revolt was real, immediate, and understandable.

Henry V rallied his troops before the battle of Agincourt with calls to patriotism, the greatness of England, and the absolute rights of the English to the French throne.  In his famous ‘band of brothers’ speech before the final battle, he not only appealed to nationalism and country, but said that fighting together in this most righteous of causes would unite both nobles and common men.  It was not only duty and honor to which Henry appealed, but the communion of English souls.

Image result for images henry v

Later in Shakespeare’s play Henry in disguise discusses his decision to fight the French with some of his troops, common soldiers commandeered into service.  He looked for approbation from them on the rightness of his cause – one which was tortuously and tenuously justified through long academic history.  He hated the fact that his grandfather, Henry IV, might have been a usurper, and now he might also be an illegitimate pretender to the throne of France; and so when the common soldiers suggested that he was committing thousands of Englishmen to a probable death because of his rarified, barely justifiable, and esoteric noble goals, Henry was shocked.  Weren’t they part of his valorous band of brothers, together in goal and spirit?

Despite his reflection on the questionable nature of his cause and on the moral question of sending thousands to their death for such an improbable claim, he  executed his plans.  He took Agincourt, secured French lands and power, and went on to be a great English hero.

He relied on patriotism – the ideal of fighting for the glory of country and the rightness of its cause – to consolidate the support of his troops; and the call to action in the service of one’s country was no more than a silver-tongued, impassioned exhortation to take the first bullet.

Patriotism was the South’s call to arms in the Civil War and it fought to preserve the plantation- and slavery-based, aristocratic system of the English cavaliers.  Like the soldiers of Henry V, those of the Confederacy knew or cared little about the patriotic sentiments expressed by their commanders.

They were sent to the slaughter under a banner of regionalism, the causes and principles of which they only vaguely understood.

All wars coalesce public opinion and strengthened the morale of fighting men through patriotism, and the honor and duty to country; and in all wars the principles enunciated by political leaders mean little to the common man.  It was only through emotional appeals to patriotism that these leaders were able to pursue their ends.

How else would doughboys have poured over the trenches in World War I into a withering hail of bullets, dying at a rate almost matching that of the most deadly of conflicts, the Civil War?  Who understood the real reasons for the European conflict, Archduke Ferdinand, and petty border differences between the descendants of ancient kings?  Very few; but all understood the meaning of the tocsin call to arms.  Which of the 70,000 men who died at the Battle of Borodino understood Napoleon’s grand imperialistic schemes or the nature of Russian aristocratic claims to Europe?

Image result for images napoleon

Religious patriotism sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the Crusades.  All had to fight for Christianity against the infidel and to rid Europe of the scourge of Islam.  The Mexican-American War was not fought defensively or over issues of survival but Westward expansion, and many criticized President Polk for his aggressive attempts to take over Mexican lands in his march to the Pacific.  The death toll and cost of the war were considerable; and yet the war was fought to support American interests.  A call to patriotism in this questionable cause was heard throughout the land.

President McKinley prosecuted the short Spanish-American War because of similar ‘national interests’, i.e. fighting to eliminate Spanish influence in the Pacific.  Again, a questionable war, with many dead and more wounded.

The War of 1812 had more justification, and despite the fact that it was fought over a simple issue – the impressing of American seamen – it really was about ridding the United States once and for all from English influence.  Once again, it was a war about territory, influence, and power, and patriotism was the wearying call to arms.

The country today, however, is without any patriotism at all.  Geopolitics and presumed moral authority have replaced it as operational philosophies.  America either acts according to Machiavellian principles or moral righteousness.  We act because we must, say politicians still stinging from the ignominious defeat in Vietnam and the nonsensical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which did nothing to democratize, stabilize, or improve the countries invaded. 

Since at home the nation is depicted as one of evil, there can be no generic patriotism; not pride in the country’s character or achievements.   The image of America at home and abroad is one of a pitiful giant, aimless, soulless, and shameful.  No wonder no one really celebrates the meaning of the Fourth of July, but goes through the motions.  Parades are few and far between, symbols they have become of militarism and American adventurism. Flags have become the symbol of the American Right, not of the nation.

The Fourth will come and go, forgotten, dismissed, and dishonored.

Thursday, June 30, 2022

D.H. Lawrence And Sexual Dynamics – What A Mess We Have Made Of Such A Simple Thing

D.H. Lawrence understood sex.  While other writers wrote around it, played with it, made it into the stuff of melodrama and family drama, Lawrence knew that it was far more than idle romance or the sealing of the marriage contract, or the necessary act of reproduction.  It had to do with the balance of male and female power, the consequences of sexual imbalance, and the near epiphanic nature of complementary union.  

Sexual dynamics were all about dominance and submission, said Lawrence.  Sexual complementarity was a matter of will and its exercise.  Subjection to it was never a question of defeat or retreat; but an acknowledgement of sexual polarity, the balance of which achieved only through challenge, testing, and proof. 

Image result for Images D.H. Lawrence. Size: 150 x 214. Source: www.britannica.com

Gudrun, Gerald, Rupert, and Ursula in Lawrence’s Women in Love are all dissatisfied, frustrated by their sexual desires but tentative, often incompetent, and wary of sexual encounter.  There are moments of resolution, periods of balance that pass as happiness, but they are short-lived as personal demands intrude – questions of sexual identity, the weight of the past, fathers and sons, sexual liberation and traditional, increasingly old fashioned notions of sexual parity.

Lady Chatterley and her lover, Mellors the gamekeeper, achieve a sexual coming together that approximates Lawrence’s ideal of sexual epiphany – an emotional and psychic completeness achieved through a matching of dominance and submission, of taking and giving, a combination of ego and receptivity, of mutual understanding and acknowledgement of maleness and femaleness.

Idealistic perhaps, and even Connie Chatterley and Mellors find that despite the perfection of their sexual relationship, they cannot live together.  The old inhibitors of class, education, background, and breeding, put aside during the far more telling and irresistible sexual attraction felt by both, return.  

Yet their sexual relationship beggared all other considerations, and even if most of it was crafted from fantasy, and only partly about the equilibrium of a unique sexual partnership, it still left them in a very different space than the ones from which they came.

Image result for images lady chatterley book cover

We live in a day where such reflections on the potency of heterosexual relationships are considered irrelevant in a sexually diverse world.  The issue is not about exploring and expanding the dimensions of male-female sexual relationships, but focusing on inclusivity, diversity, and alternate sexuality.  It is less about intensity, sexual relationships as means of exploring human nature, and the limits of intimacy than it is about finding one’s sexual home on the gender spectrum.  The relationship between any two individuals sharing the same sexual identity is the only issue of merit and value.

Travelling along sexual byways, guided by signposts and memes to particular, untracked and untried destinations is today's journey, not the boringly repetitious waltz of gowns and slippers, good manners, and sexual propriety dismissed by sexual reformers.  

Writers other than Lawrence thought about sexual dynamics and its rewards.  Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is an example of heterosexual dissonance and the couple’s painful desire to find harmony.  Albee wrote that marriage is the crucible of maturity – its confines and internment guarantee the explosive exploration of personal, character, and will.  George and Martha flay each other to the bone, scraping away at the bits and pieces of emotional ligament that prevent sexual consonance. 

Image result for images taylor burton who's afraid

Brick and Maggie, characters in Tennessee Williams’s Cat on a Hot Tin Roof do the same.  Theirs is a seemingly destructive, angry marriage, but its confines and expectations push them both to a moral and emotional brink.  ‘I do love you’, says Maggie at the end of the play.  ‘If only it were true’, replies Brick.  George, Martha, Brick, and Maggie have the same aspirations and the same willingness to fight through the necessary and unavoidable conflicts of marriage to find some kind of harmony.

Image result for images taylor maggie the cat

The culture of identity by its very nature deprives couples and individuals of any chance of scratching even just under the surface of appearance.  One is either gay, demi-sexual, pansexual, transgender, cisgender, or any one of an almost infinite number of sexual shadings and subgroupings. No more is asked or required.  Finding a suitable partner does not involve the tricky investigation of sexual impulse, its nature, origin, and consequence.  The incendiary relationships described by Albee and Williams have no meaning in the world of diverse sexual identity. 

Sexual partnerships, however, are not like social groupings where like attracts like; and where commonality and synchronization of interests are the rules.  In Lawrentian dynamics opposites make the best partners.  It is expected that wills will be opposed, and all the baggage of childhood, schooling, and social interaction will be opened, spread out, and sorted through.  Polar opposites will inevitably attract each other because of the desire to be found out, explored, delved.  

Women and men want their partners to find and live in their inner rooms, spaces that have been kept secret since childhood.  Gender identity has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  The equations to be solved are a function of a higher emotional mathematics.  The numerical language of transgenders, anthro-sexuals, and hyposexuals is still arithmetic.

Image result for images Calculus Equations. Size: 262 x 105. Source: fineartamerica.com

This is not to say that two individuals sharing the same unique sexual identity cannot find a Lawrentian epiphany; but it is unlikely because the expectations to do so have been declined.  Worse, the heterosexuality behind Lawrence’s vision is itself suspect by progressives.  Binary sexuality, male and female, has become somehow retrograde and valueless.  Although heterosexuality has a place on the gender spectrum, it is at the asymptotic ends, hard to find, elusive and deliberately obscure.

Lawrence, Albee, Shakespeare, and Williams of course were not the first to identify sexual energy as the fuel for the human engine.  The Old Testament, ancient Greek, Hindu, and Persian myths, are filled with stories of heterosexual encounters, paternity, lineage, jealousy, spite, and envy. What is the story of the Garden of Eden if not the first tale of sexual dynamics?

Despite the reformist movements of today, sexuality will find its previous equilibrium.  The heterosexual ninety-seven percent of the world’s population will ignore the currently hot notions of gender diversity and return to their native sexual roots, will rejoin the familiar course of human history – heterosexual, procreative, demanding, and permanent.