War is over if . . . | John Rachel

John Lennon was idealistic and inspiring. His lovely, if somewhat naive Imagine, embodied the hope and vision most of us share for a better, more peaceful world.

Personally, I appreciate Lennon’s genius even more listening to the background vocals and out-chorus of his phenomenal Christmas ode, Happy Xmas (War Is Over) . . .

The beautifully sung line that really catches my ear and fires my imagination is . . .

John and Yoko certainly had the right idea. It’s an idea most of us want to believe in!

At the same time, despite how good I genuinely feel entertaining such a thought, I see a problem here. That sentiment probably wasn’t true back in 1971 when the song was released, and it certainly is not true in today’s world.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. and across the globe want an end to the wars. But given the current configuration of political power, the realities of who decides where and when the next conflict will take place, what we the people think is completely irrelevant.

We everyday, sane, decent, peace-loving folks CANNOT stop the endless wars for a simple and obvious reason.

We are powerless!

I mean that literally, not figuratively.

WE HAVE NO POWER!

And the people who do have all of the power to make peace or wage war have no desire, have zero motivation to end their aggression, to stop creating more enemies, to reduce tensions, to once and forever retire war as the main mechanism of foreign policy.

In fact, all of the rewards and incentives for those now in power — the ruling elite and their lapdogs in government — are to escalate conflict and confrontation, beat the war drums louder and louder, increase misunderstanding, promote fear and mistrust, and accelerate the march into battle. The threat of war, preparation for war, and starting wars will be endlessly recycled until there is a complete, game-changing, paradigm-shifting challenge to the policies which define the way our government now deals with the rest of the world.

War is among the most profitable investments in play. And the turmoil and chaos resulting from war keeps the current batch of warmongers in power. They make money — enormous sums of money — and lock themselves in a position to make even more money.

Why would they lift a finger to seek peace?

Why would they care whether we want peace or not?

Why would they even pay attention to us when we question them?

Why would those who exclusively benefit and enrich themselves selling war, promoting war, manufacturing and marketing weapons, creating more justifications for more lethal fighting machinery, pushing for endless military expansion, why would these amoral, money-hungry, power-drunk empire builders and imperial plunderers declare ‘war is over’ JUST BECAUSE WE WANT IT?

No, as poignant and beautiful as John Lennon’s inspired and inspiring lyric line is, reality demands we reconfigure it. Maybe it doesn’t sing quite as well or create as warm and fuzzy a feeling in us as his original line. But this is the only way things will change . . .

That is the truth about peace in our time . . . or I should say, perpetual war in our time.

It’s up to us to change the disastrous trajectory that we’re on. It won’t be easy. “They” have the money, control of Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the media, most of academia and the think tanks. “They” have been building a permanent war economy from the 1950s, which even President Dwight Eisenhower tried to warn us about way back when.

On the other hand, we have the numbers. In fact, we vastly outnumber the warrior-class empire builders, and if we are unified, determined, focused, and have a solid plan, we can turn the country around and create the conditions for a world at peace.

It’s entirely up to us. Please get involved!

[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . https://jdrachel.com ]

War is over if . . . | John Rachel

Politics is a Rock Concert, Not a Seminar.

The biggest failure of the Left is not understanding politics.

Politics is a rock concert, not a seminar.

I'm not talking about the "political system". I'm talking about the realities of attempting a constructive dialogue with 319 million people.

The political system requires a thoughtful, analytical, patient, usually plodding "process" to accomplish anything of substance and lasting value.  This is how it is, and how should be, as we consider the importance of law and the framework it creates for a functioning society.

Having said that . . .

It's unrealistic to expect everyday citizens to begin to understand the arcane particulars of fashioning laws, much less participate in the tedious business of debate, negotiation and compromise in the committees and on the floors of legislative bodies.  People barely have time to cook their meals and make it to work on time, much less pore over congressional studies and the notes of sub-committee meetings, watch monotonous hours of C-Span, or read the informed analysis of issue experts.

Maybe this is the intrinsic flaw in the whole idea of democracy, but that's an entirely other discussion.

The point is, people cheer for their favorite causes the way the cheer for their favorite sports teams -- or remaining true to the metaphor of this particular piece -- their favorite songs.

The truth is -- for better or worse -- this makes it pretty easy to govern.

If you play a song people hate, or sing out of tune, they will boo and threaten to storm the stage and tear you to shreds. If you play what they like and perform it well, they'll cheer, dance, revere you like a god, and go home happy.

I know this sounds simplistic.  And, of course, it's casually brushes aside differences in taste.  Some will love Katy Perry, others think Deerhunter is the ultimate.

But I'm making a simple point.  If the Left would try "tuning in" to people, immediately stop condemning the public for being so dumbed-down and apathetic -- snidely looking down their noses at Mr. and Ms. Everyday American for not wanting to sit through a four-hour Chomsky seminar -- then actually play some music the voting public wants to hear, maybe some of its messages -- many critical to the survival of the human race -- would actually get heard.

You could argue that this is what Bernie Sanders is managing to do.

Unfortunately, it's also what Donald Trump is doing.

But realistically both have mere cult followings, neither approaching universal appeal. Trump scores with the Ted Nugent fans. Bernie has got the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young crowd locked down.

Both have certainly tapped into a hungry void.  Someone needs to sing the songs the vast majority of Americans want to hear.  Perhaps more than ever before in recent history, there is an urgent need for music which will raise our hopes and inspire new dreams.

But the way things stand, there are still a huge number of folks who have no song to hum.

I believe people know what they want. But they can't write the tunes themselves. They hear what's being played, listen for a catchy melody, a singable chorus, an infectious beat. They take it from there.

None of the candidates so far have come up with a true hit.

Does this characterization trivialize politics?

It doesn't have to.  It simply means that there is a lesson here.

The challenge is offering an honest, heartfelt, engaging, entertaining message, which is true to both the spirit and the content that drives that message, and one which people not only want to hear, but will be "singing" themselves -- because it genuinely resonates with them.

For the right wing of this country, this is apparently easy. While what they say makes me as a progressive shudder and recoil in horror, I have to hand it to them. They know how to put it out there and get their deluded, misguided, parochial flock of lemmings excited!

The Left -- and I'm not talking about the "sold out" Democrats or Starbucks liberals who for all intents and purposes form the willfully ignorant center of the political spectrum -- just can't seem to get it together.

For many progressives, especially progressive academics and pundits, the devil is so entirely in the details, nuance and caveat reign supreme, and tragically the message gets lost.  The "big ideas" might be out there, but they're buried in a blizzard of abstractions, qualifiers, minutiae, pros-and-cons, excuses and rationalizations, the oft-occurring preemptive defenses, deflections, even counter and counter-counter arguments.

You know . . . the old forest and trees myopia.

Where am I going with this?

I'll offer one simple example.

 

Remember the John Lennon song Happy Xmas (War Is Over)?  The end of the song features a vamp with a huge chorus singing:

............. War is over if you want it! .............

Sound naive?  Stupid?  Wacky?  Impossible?

All we have now is war, morning, noon and night . . . 24/7/365.  War is like oxygen!

But the simple truth is, we -- that is, you and I -- could put an end to it, at least put an end to our aggressive, destructive military misadventures.  We could stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of people and the promotion of even more anti-American terrorism. You and I could stop the militarization of our nation and the world precipitated by the profiteering and insatiable greed of the corporate military-industrial complex.

The method is actually quite straightforward.

The message is simple and clear.

Spend some time with this and see for yourself . . .

http://peacedividend.us

War and fear and militarization and national bankruptcy are over.
. . . if you want it.

Have you heard this tune from any of the candidates?

Have you even heard it from the Left, the progressive intelligentsia, many of whom say you should just look the other way on Bernie Sanders' longstanding support for militarization, his active promotion of unnecessary military expenditures, his declared endorsement of drone warfare, his votes for the surveillance state, his condemnation of Edward Snowden, his appalling knee-jerk approval of Israeli apartheid and brutal military oppression of Palestinians?

Why not?

War and fear and militarization and national bankruptcy are over if we want it.

It's simple, catchy.  Has a nice sound to it.  Good beat.

Why don't we ever hear this song?

You might ask one of these "progressives" at your next Chomsky seminar.


[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]


Politics is a Rock Concert, Not a Seminar.

Imagine

 

I don't know anyone who doesn't love John Lennon's song "Imagine".

Before I go on, let me say that I too find it beautiful, inspiring, ennobling, a truly remarkable and timeless creation.  I'm thoroughly enchanted by its haunting melody, totally respect and resonate with the intent, the pure sentiment, the message -- as I do Lennon's equally powerful "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)".

So what follows is not criticism of the song per se, but more of an attempt to build on it -- find within its deeper implications something productive and enlightening -- my shot at taking it to a new level of appreciation.

Let's be honest.  "Imagine" is an anarchist anthem.  It recommends us picturing a world which has . . .

No Heaven
No Hell
No countries
No religion
No possessions

Throw in 'no television' and 'no money' and we're grunting savages back in a cave.
He opens the song with . . .

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try

I have mixed feelings about 'Imagine there's no heaven'.  There are many among us who have trouble imagining there is a heaven, at least as some religions characterize it.
I'm not sure imagining heaven pro or con in a literal sense is the issue.

And looking at it more as a metaphor, I think we spend most of our waking lives thinking about some ideal state, some level of perfection where the challenges and hardships of our lives would go away.  We all dream of a utopia, a Nirvana, at least a better version of what we have.  I think it's wired into us and is what drives humankind to its most admirable achievements.  Why would we want to give that up?

Having said that, the next line is enigmatic. 'It's easy if you try'.

Try?

As if we weren't already trying? That's practically all we do. We live in fantasy worlds of our own creation or ones conveniently foisted on us from others usually with an agenda.  People constantly live in their imaginations, fancying better looks, sexier more attractive bodies, more interesting friends, finer possessions, better jobs, nicer homes, cooler cars. We are, it seems, already engaged in a nearly pathological level of "imagining", one which has dissipated our sense of self, submerged our individual identities, often caused a sense of alienation from others, and created unimaginable levels of uncertainty and insecurity. Sometimes when I listen to people talk or look objectively at what occupies a generous portion of their time -- television, movies, sporting events -- I wonder if they aren't completely divorced from the real world, even when they appear to be engaged.

If anything, we could be accused of trying too hard, imagining too much. You might more reasonably argue maybe we spend too much time imagining many of the wrong things.

So the question is:  Is what this song recommends an improvement?

Imagine there's no countries

Imagine no possessions

Nothing to kill or die for

No religion too

Okay . . . gone is heaven, hell, countries, religion, possessions.

What do we replace these with?  There has to be something.  We can't live in a void.

I recognize he's saying we should try to imagine ourselves in an alternative better world.  But there's a reason we don't imagine a world without countries and possessions. There's a reason we don't imagine a world where there's nothing to kill or die for.  I believe . . .

IT'S BECAUSE WE CAN'T!

I would defend with my life those I love and respect.  My wife.  My daughter.  My friends.

Yes, I would kill and die for them.

Is this bad?

People can't imagine a world without possessions.  I don't know if they seriously try or not. I do know it's not worth the effort.

It's not the possessions that are evil.  It's what the possessions do to us and those around us.  It's when the possessions "possess" us, when one person's ownership deprives others of basic survival or dignity that they become toxic.

Similarly with countries.  Humans by nature are both social and tribal.  We achieve a sense of communal worth and purpose by belonging to a people, a clan, an extended family, even a nation.  It gives us identify and comfort.  I don't think humans are capable of viewing themselves otherwise.

I believe that in and of itself is not bad.  It becomes threatening and destructive when it crushes our sensitivity to others who are not in our tribe, when it convinces us that "we" are somehow more special or more important than "them".  America's obsession with its exceptional role on the planet, rising above all other nations, is an example of national identification and healthy pride becoming a dangerous, sociopathic affliction.

It is not the lack of imagining or lack of imagination that plagues us.  It is attempting to imagine the wrong things, or things that go against our essential nature.

Plus, I would start small.  If successful, we can work our way up.

Here are just a few things to get us started:

Imagine everyone in the world having enough to eat.

Imagine everyone being free of illness and disease.

Imagine everyone having clothing and a decent place to live.

Imagine being kind to others, even those we don't understand.

Imagine treating everyone equally, with dignity and compassion.

Imagine being honest with ourselves and others.

Imagine cooperation instead of competition.

These are things not only we can imagine, but things that can actually be done.  

It’s easy if you try

Having said all of this  -- and I know I've probably trampled on some sacred ground -- I still think that "Imagine" is one of the most beautiful and important contributions a pop artist has ever made to the world.  Let's enjoy it for its purity of spirit and honesty.

[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]


Imagine