I like your analogies, Jim, between the movie Enron and the war. I worry about another analogy developing. It has been sometime since I have seen the movie but my strong memory is of the way the makers limited the political significance of the Enron phenomenon. They of course included a few markers suggesting that the scandals, etc. had their roots in a system of private production for profit, but more generally they were content to explain the debacle as the end result of personal greed and hubris. Thus, we had business types explaining to us what went wrong with business, etc. The broader critique of the way capitalism as a system operates to promote profits above all and the ways in which all institutions in the system, from the media and the government, are complicit in this process and the outcomes, really gets lost.
Thus, as popular opinion is now turning against the war, our attention is being directed to a consideration of whether, despite the lies that got us involved, it might not still be the right thing to stay the course. In other words at issue for us now, is how we should engage in the ideological fight to define the meaning of the war and its relationship to a broader political imperative. Said differently, who will make this movie and with what political significance. The more we can get some clarity ourselves about the underlying dynamics, the better chance we can intervene in the process and advance some longer term positive political change. Marty Hart-Landsberg On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jim Devine wrote: > By coincidence, I have seen both the play "Stuff Happens" (about the > build-up to our splendid little war, by David Hare, with Keith > Carradine as Shrub) and the documentary movie "Enron: the Smartest > Guys in the Room" in the last week or two.[*] > > There are several parallels between the two cases. Like Enron, the > Bushwhackers were led by some very smart people (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, > not Bush) who were of course amoral, arrogant, and ignorant. Like > Enron, the invasion of Iraq was heavily leveraged and based on blatant > lies and unrealistic expectations. (The invasion was "leveraged" in > the sense that it was assumed that strategic bombing and the like were > used to multiply the impact of an inadequate commitment of ground > troops, which must be the basis of a real conquest.) Like Enron, the > war needs the co-opted cooperation of various establishmentarian > forces (auditors, lawyers, bankers, and financial analysts for Enron; > the media, think-tanks, pundits, etc. for the war). Propaganda is key. > While Kenny-Boy pumped up the Enron bubble (keeping it from collapsing > for awhile) by repeatedly telling people how well Enron was doing, > Bushie-Boy speaks (and will speak tonight, again to a chosen audience) > about how well the troops are doing, how democracy is on the march, > etc. > > Enron was kept alive for awhile by organizing and exploiting the > California energy emergency. I don't know what Bush could do -- or > will do -- that would have this effect. Bomb Iran? Invade Iran with > commandos? Organize another 911? He needs tremendous amounts of > federal money at a time when increasing numbers of congresscritters > are upset about the deficit. > > In the end, the Enron bubble burst. Switching metaphors in mid-stream, > the house of cards collapsed. I forsee something like that with Bush & > the war. The ultrarigid "defend the war" attitude -- combined with > ultrarigid refusals to compromise on almost everything -- suggest that > the administration may snap at some point. > > on another topic: this morning, on the way to work, U.S. National > Public Radio interviewed a broad spectrum of opinions represented by > pundits from the Hoover Institute for War and Counterrevolution and > the American Enterprise Institute. In a year or so, they'll be > interviewing creeps from the National Fascism Council and the > Anti-Scienc Network... > > [*] a good movie that was weakened by its apologetics for Gray Davis. > -- > Jim Devine > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let > people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. >
