Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, "Infallibility, " Iraq

There is a street in Berlin named now after the scholar Hannah Arendt, who is perhaps best known for her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, subtitled A Study in the Banality of Evil. The street is very close to where remnants of Hitler's bunker lie, under a parking lot.

As an American colleague in Berlin noted, Arendt was an old-fashioned philologist, a lover of knowledge, and the breadth of her learning, depth of her studies, and refinement of her synthesis are almost not believable, especially in The Origins of Totalitarianism, which I've begun to read after being in Berlin, looking at the street sign, and considering other things. She is one of those scholars who seems to have read--and mastered--everything.

In the book, she writes, "Totalitarian movements use socialism and racism by emptying them of their utilitarian content, the interests of class or nation. The form of infallible prediction in which these concepts were presented has become more important than their content. The chief qualification of a mass leader has become unending infallibility; he can never admit an error. The assumption of infallibility, moreover, is based not so much on superior intelligence as on the correct interpretation of the essentially reliable forces in history or nature, forces which neither defeat nor ruin nor prove wrong because they are bound to assert themselves in the long run" (p. 348-349 of the HBJ new paperback edition, 1973).

The passage was meant, of course, to apply directly to Hitler, for example. But I think it also pertains to Bush and Cheney insofar as they have taken a stand of infallibility. When, in the 2004 campaign, Bush was asked about mistakes he made, he said he couldn't think of any, and he wasn't trying to be funny, even though he may have giggled nervously, as he tends to do. The invasion of Iraq and its consequences, a debacle, are still framed (by Bush, et al.) as an infallible strategy that has some tactical problems, even as soldiers on the ground in Iraq write openly about the failed strategy, not failed tactics. Bush also has positioned himself as the correct interpreter of historical forces. Thus we have, not a war on a particular nation (that's what war really is, as Gore Vidal notes), but a war on an abstract noun, "terrorism," and thus the war in Iraq is open-ended (as far as Bush is concerned) because although Iraq was conquered in conventional military terms, "terrorism" is a constant, requiring constant war, meaning the occupation of Iraq must, by definition, be indefinite. That appears to be the underlying logic, as exposed by innumerable critics of the war (conservatives included), and with some help from Arendt and Vidal. It's important to note that Bush's "authority" is based not on "superior intelligence" (Arendt's term) but on a kind of gut-level reading of historical forces. And if the evidence doesn't support the reading of historical forces, then you send Colin Powell to the U.N. with fake evidence. The gut-level reading seemed extremely appealing to Americans right after 9-11. Now, perhaps, not so much--if the polls are reliable. And of course they're not. I actually expect Jeb Bush to be the next president. As Chuck Berry once sang, "C'est la vie, say the old folk, it goes to show you never can tell."

It was interesting to watch John Stewart interview Cheney's approved biographer on The Daily Show. Stewart ran the video of Cheney saying, in 1994, that to invade Iraq would be disastrous because the nation would fall to pieces and indeed, "pieces would fly off." Stewart asked the biographer a) what changed since 1994, b) why didn't Cheney repeat this wisdom right before the invasion, and c) why don't Cheney and Bush admit they made a mistake, and d) why do Bush, Cheney, and Rove always paint critics as traitorous or soft on terror? The basic answer was, "Everything changed after 9-11." "But Iraq didn't change," Stewart countered, meaning its composition (Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, influence of Iran, perceptions of the U.S., how Iraq was invented by the Brits in the first place) made invasion a stupid idea before and after 9-11. "Yeah, but after 9-11, everything changed," the guy repeated, "and Cheney still thinks the invasion is a good idea" (I am paraphrasing, but not mis-representing).

Vague "historical forces" ("everything changed"); infallibility. The answer to "d" (why to they demonize critics?), of course, is that demonizing critics has worked so far for Bush, Cheney, and the recently retired Rove, so why would they change strategies? It didn't quite work in the 2006 election, but so what? Bush wasn't up for re-election, and the Democratic Congress is completely intimidated, so intimidated that they approved warrantless wire-tapping. The Democrats cower, dogs whipped by propaganda.

I think elements of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wire-tapping, and the exquisitely refined propaganda of Rove, et al., have totalitarian qualities. Watching FOX News, Bush's PR arm, is like watching something inspired by 1984, constant self-parody that is taken seriously (non-parody parody), whereas watching CNN or NBC is merely to watch fluff, lazy reporting, trivialization--with some exceptions. FOX abets the propaganda. CNN and NBC mostly nap while the propaganda goes to work. Sleepy time with Wolf Blitzer, whom Cheney makes quake.

There seem to be more totalitarian elements in Bush's presidency than in any presidency I've known in my lifetime, though certainly every presidency has had some of those elements (Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court; we know what Nixon did when he couldn't resist his own worst instincts; and Reagan was a masterful mass-leader--and note that even when forced to speak on TV about Iran-Contra, he remained "infallible" in the sense that he claimed he didn't remember things the way the evidence suggested things happened; he may actually have been telling the truth, given the condition of his brain at the time, early stage of Alzheimer's).

But really the thesis of this particular blog-miscellany is simply this: I highly recommend Arendt's book on totalitarianism, regardless of whether you're inclined to see the degree to which the book might apply to the current executive branch of the United States' government. Arendt is wise.