Demonization and Wars of Annihilation
To make people fight with the will necessary to win, the other side must be demonized, often dehumanized. We must fight them because they want nothing less than to wipe us from the face of the earth. Within such a framework, it is hard to see the other side as having honor and accept the idea of innocent bystanders. Within such a framework, logical goals and acceptable stopping points get lost.

Since “they” want to kill you, it is better for you to kill them first. The world of limited warfare gives in to the world of total war.

Civilian-Military Split

Ironically, the rise of “civilian” armies ended up segregating the “civilian” world from the “military” world. Before Napoleon, Bell argues, soldiers were civilians. The officers were the nobles of the land. The grunts were part-time soldiers. When not at war, they had to go find other jobs in order to get paid. Every person in the military, from the kings on down, was fully in the civil world.

Then, with the start of total warfare, the “military” world came to be thought of as its own sphere. It has its own rules and status. People would and could do things in war that they would not do as “regular” people. Wars became fought by specialists, by soldiers and warriors. The military became professional.

This last point is extremely interesting to me because it is the opposite of what I had previously learned.

Summary
That’s what makes total war so destructive and desperate. The line between combatants and noncombatants are blurred. Almost everyone is fair game. The levels of hatred and destruction are ratcheted up but they are compartmentalized as exceptional feelings.

These feelings and actions are not acceptable in the normal world, but in a state of war, everything is ok. The actions by “0ur” professional fighters are rationalized as necessary in a state of war when all of “them” are trying to annihilate us. The actors are excused while the targets are undifferentiated and many.

In the meantime, the other side is applying the exact same standards to us.

End of War
Bell points out that our world has a lot in common with Napoleon’s world. For us, before the Communist block broke up, there had not been armed conflict between the major world powers for a while. Then, once the Soviet Union fell, there seemed to be a sense that large-scale world peace may be possible. After all democracies do not fight democracies, right?

We’ve seen how quickly that idea crashed and burned as we’ve been in almost non-stop warfare for the last two decades.

The same pattern occurred with the success of the French Revolution. The thinkers of the day saw the fall of the “old world,” a world of royals fighting for greed, power, and territory. With the people in charge, surely we would not fight amongst ourselves, right? The Enlightenment idea that Man and Man’s history were perfectible was demonstrating itself.

Then Napoleon and his Republican army brought into Europe warfare of a style and scope that they have never seen before.

Civilian Warfare
In fact, it seems that putting warfare into the hands of “the people” only escalates the affair. This is something that the majority of today’s people do not understand.

Tyrants and dictators are relatively easy to deal with. Even if they are “crazy,” like a Gaddafi or a Kim Jong Il (or a Napoleon), they have one goal in mind. They want to remain in power. Everything else is negotiable. Accordingly, they may be scary or dangerous, but you can put them in the rational actors category because what they want is easy to understand.

When the kings of Europe fought each other, the civilian population was, more or less, left alone. There were rules, and it was to no one’s benefit to decimate the population or destroy the lands that the fighters wished to rule. The nobles fought each other, and it was better to capture one of your social equals alive for the ransom that they would bring than to leave them dead on the field.

When “people” fight, they don’t use warfare as a tool. It often becomes an expression of hatred and irrationality. To make the people fight, when they have little to gain from the endeavor, you have to make a very strong “Other.”

Continued in Part 2…

I understand the rationale behind this decision, but I think many of us are being short sighted.

The House has already passed the bill to zero out public broadcasting monies. The Senate is up next. I hope enough people can give voice to the importance of this service to prevent many of these outlets from going out of existence.

My family immigrated to this country when I was very young. Although both my parents were teachers in our original country, they did not have the language skills and credentials to get similar jobs after the move. They decided to give my brother and I a chance at the American education system and worked multiple jobs so we can live in a good school district.

As a family on a limited budget, the library and other free services were godsends. They allowed me access to high-quality, intellectually-stimulating, and FREE information and materials.

One of the responsibilities of government, especially our government, is to provide an equal opportunity to succeed. By removing many of these free access points, the gulf between the Haves and the Have-Nots can only grow. Where are the poor going to find the discretionary funds necessary to purchase the books, computers, Internet connectivity, and the range of CDs and DVDs available at their local library? or the science, nature, and children’s programming available from PBS? or the intelligent discussion and non-top-40 music going on at public radio?

We cannot expect to take away avenues that develop opportunity and ability and expect that we’ll continue to function as leaders of innovation and progress.

170 Million Americans

President George W Bush left office a very unpopular man. He, however, believes that History will temper his reputation and allow him the credit that we, his contemporaries, deny him. I’ve always hated this assumption and believed it to be false. For one, he made his decisions with a huge lack of understanding about basic historical principles. For two, there is too much relevant documentation and analysis to do much legitimate spinning of primary documents in the future.

He, his cabinet, and his supporters are on record thousands of ways about their goals and motivations. And those have always been wrong.

Ok, so now, with the people of these countries raising their voices, it shows that successful revolutions must be carried out by those who are hurt by the tyrant and/or corrupt government. Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States, and the US has never (as far as I can remember) been able to set up a valid interim “puppet” government.

The country in question has always had to kick us out before they can finally get down to the business of governing themselves.

President Obama has received a lot of criticism about his handling of recent events, but I fail to see the problem. These countries’ internal governance are out of our control and should not be determined by United States policy. Beyond giving appropriate words of support and condemnation, just what is a president supposed to do?

This is my perspective and based on that, I think History says “HA!” to George W Bush. “HA!”

Well truthfully, I don’t feel I have done a lot for my country. Sure I pay my taxes and vote, but I have not really had to sacrifice or serve or endure hardships for the security and prosperity of my country.

There have been a few economic downturns but I’ve gotten through them (/knock wood). I’ve also lived through several wars with very little inconvenience. (Frankly, that just seems ridiculous to me.)

But now, our country is broke. Our states are broke. Our cities are broke.

By all accounts, the 2% Illinois income tax increase is going to go through soon. According to the numbers, this tax increase, which is scheduled to go for four years, will give us a surplus by the end of that time. Our $13 billion deficit will be erased.

No, it’s not a perfect solution, but it is one that can work. Can’t we just stop arguing and whining and just do this? It’s an extra 2% of my income.

This time, I’m willing to sacrifice.

Let us be brave. Let us be stalwart. Let us leave the next generation of leaders a new start and an even ground instead of a hole.

We, the citizens of Illinois, need to insist that all subsequently elected legislators hold spending and cut costs where they can. No increases in spending. Reductions as we go. And yes, they can have the increased collection of revenue.

It’s four years. Surely we can do this.

In a democracy, we always get the government we deserve and to stand around pointing fingers is meaningless. We all let the debt happen. We were too busy. We were too lazy. We were too apathetic.

We didn’t want to try.

Now, we can actually solve this problem with relatively little effort. If we can really hold additional spending (meaning no new programs), we won’t even have to do any work. It’s sit around and let the math work itself out.

Yes, 2% will hurt. But it will hurt a whole heck of a lot more later.

Today, I learned that the Federalists got around this contentious idea by having the people be the source of ultimate sovereignty. Any government is merely the agent of the moment, and no government can be fully representational of the people.

The people hold the final power. The national and state governments are always subservient to the sovereign entity that is the citizenry.

It’s a pretty amazing idea, and one that we’ve kind of lost sight of these days. We’ve grown accustomed to having Washington be in charge.

I’m going to think about this for a bit.

Today, I learned that James Madison was a Nationalist (according to Gordon S. Wood). Madison was the primary author of The Virginia Plan, which took the United States away from being a confederation and into being a country with a strong central government. In fact, in this proposal to the Constitutional Convention, he wanted the national Congress to be able to overturn and rule invalid state legislative acts in much the same way that the courts do.

If you’re not a history fan, this may not mean anything much. Now that I know much more than I used to though, this floored me. Madison was so close with Thomas Jefferson and founded the Democratic Party with him. They opposed the Federalists and their nationalist agenda by touting personal liberty, local rule, and state sovereignty.

Of course, I always forget that he is one of the writers of the Federalist Papers because it’s too easy to lump him in with the Virginians. When learning history, it’s customary to teach opposites: Federalists and Jeffersonians, North and South, Nationalists and States’ Rightists. Plus… Virginia went on to make such a stink about states’ rights closer to the Civil War.

Now I know better. Many in the South actually wanted a stronger central government than what was provided by the Articles of Confederation and many in the mid-Atlantic states (plus New Jersey, which proposed the “opposition” plan to Madison’s at the Constitutional Convention) wanted to keep local rule.

Regionalism as a prism for looking at US history has it’s place, but I have obviously made it be too harsh a filter if I have forgotten so much about James Madison.

By the way, I’m almost done with this book, and it is a really good one. A full write-up will come later.

• The old saying goes, “If you’re not a Democrat when you’re young, you don’t have a heart. If you’re still a Democrat when you’re older, you don’t have a brain.” Now I doubt I will ever become a social conservative (and I can’t believe that equality is still a radical idea in our country), but I have to admit that some of the older Republican platform issues are more my speed these days. Still, as an Independent voter, I’m surely not going to identify myself with the party as it is today. Many of my reasons are voice by Chris Currey in his How the GOP Purged Me.
• Office supply stores make my breath quicken. The storage areas in Target make me drool. Now, I also know about dollar stores and the organizing and storage possibilities within.
• Book Review Blog Carnival No. 41

Sure I’ve been pro-Obama before this, but to me, being president-elect is nowhere near the same thing as actually doing the job. And watching him do his job last night? Whoo was he hot.

It was almost too good to be true. A smart guy like him breaking out the triple threat of

1. history,
2. responsibility, and
3. pragmatism.

These are right up my alley, buddy.

Not to mention—the social contract? Are you kidding me? He broke out the social contract?

I’m probably his forever.

I wish it could be communicated somehow that the morality of good citizenry is more effective, more powerful, and farther reaching than any government run according to a morality of religion. A government of citizenship has character. A government of citizenship has integrity.

When the overarching powers of society operate like that, it does permeate through the rest of life. A trickle-down effect if you will.

An ethical standard does make lies, cheats, and crimes more shameful.

Citizenship and posterity are two things that George Washington especially understood. And that understanding makes a difference. He, now and in his own time, holds a revered spot above all the other Founders.

It heartens me to think that we may have placed another man with similar understandings in office last year.

The first time I read this short work was as an early teenager. I read it after 1984 so to this younger me, this book was almost a throw-away effort.

Many of Orwell’s ideas are more developed and applied in 1984. It’s a longer story in a more extensively created fictional world.

Compared to this, Animal Farm was laughably simple.

What I discovered during my rereading is that the simplified elements make this work more flexible.

Even though Orwell was commenting specifically on socialism-communism within the Soviet Union and on their influences on the West, my modern mindset allows me to apply the events of the book to a number of contemporary issues.

First, there is the issue of colonialism and foreign occupation. Is it more desirable to suffer under the rule of your own “kind” or to be better off under the rule of a foreign power?

Next, there is the question of whether capitalism and communism can function as a self-contained system. As both the US and China continue to adapt to economic realities, is a hard-line belief in either economic system a sane belief to have?

The book also asks: Where is the line between loyalty/patriotism and a justified questioning of the leaders?

The final issue I’ll mention here is whether or not we can ever completely rely on our elites? And what are the consequences of obedience?

At this moment in the United States, we are living a reality where the elites have been sequestered in Jones’s farmhouse for a long, long time. (In the book, the growing elites shut themselves inside the overthrown farmer’s home to plan their new society.) They’ve been doing things and handing down decisions that have affected us all.

Foremost in the news these days are the financial and governmental elites. They led, but we are paying the price of our unquestioning obedience.

In Animal Farm, the commentary paints both sides, the pigs and their followers, in a bad light.

But … we are also living a reality that Orwell couldn’t have incorporated into his work. There are so many voices today. So many ways to dissent.

In our world, the domination of those in control did not last. Within a few short years, majority opinions have switched in a variety of very important national policy issues. We’re listening to those questioning voices now.

And so, in my rereading of Animal Farm, I see the cracks in the pigs’ plan. I see the eventual downfall of their system. Orwell may have intended to present an inevitable ending with a dark future extended way beyond the last page, but I hit the last page optimistic that things were not going to stay the same. Change will be inevitable.

Benjamin may be right. The next regime, or the new version of the pigs’ rule, may not be any better, but it will be different.