Influences on Political Biases

by Andre

As mentioned in my previous post, I recently finished reading Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States. Within the boundaries of the book lie seven hundred pages describing the struggles of America’s women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor and immigrant laborers. It is a seemingly never ending account of the ongoing power struggle that exists between these muted masses and the powerful elite (taking the form of government, monopolists, corporations, etc.). It is an eye-opening read and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in American history.

That being said, I am not here to write a book review.

I am curious instead about the seemingly incompatible nature between a more left-leaning-social mind and that of a right-leaning-capital based one. I am interested on how these mindsets are established and decided upon. So what I proceeded to do upon the completion of A People’s History was start reading The J-Curve by Ian Bremmer. Its underlying premise suggests that countries like Iraq (until 2003), North Korea and Cuba are stable only because their dictatorial governments rely heavily on censorship, population oppression, and propaganda. These countries are placed on the left side of the J-curve as a result.

On the right side of the J-curve, you will find open societies such as the United States, Western Europe and others that rely on democratic institutional reform, freedom of speech/information, and so on. The bottom of the curve is left for unstable governments that find themselves in a period of transition.

It is suggested that for any government to switch from left to right, or vice versa, this transitional period is necessary. A popular example of this is what has been taking place in Iraq since the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Only time will tell which side of the curve Iraq will find itself on after America’s inevitable departure.

As I intend to write a follow-up to this entry, I am only going to cover my reactions to first third of the J-Curve. Early on in this process, I admittedly realized that the book isn’t nearly as far right in its message as A People’s History is left, but it’s what I had to work with.

I was barely through the first page before conflict regarding the two opposing views began to reveal themselves. Below are some examples of these conflicts:

• Regarding North Korea’s government: “If North Korea begins to behave as Washington wants, the United States should reward the regime. If it does not, Washington should further seal it off.” This statement irritated me in that it assumed some a universally accepted position of authority given to the United States as world police. 
• Regarding censorship in North Korea: “If half the people of North Korea saw twenty minutes of CNN (or of Al Jazeera for that matter), they would realize how egregiously their government lies to them about life beyond their walls.” Are you kidding me? I thought of the corporate, mass media agendas that dictate what its viewers see within our own borders. Flashes of Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent boiled through my veins. CNN is driven by the same top-down structure that closed governments are. We are simply unaware of this because of its successful implementation, I continued to think while shaking my head.
• On the dangers of North Korea: “The regime has sold missiles in violation of international law. It could do the same with weapons of mass destruction and related technology. It also traffics in illegal drugs and counterfeit currency.” No mention is made that the United States is the largest dealer of weapons in the world. The drug and currency trafficking is presumptuous and used to push a point with no attempts to back it up.
• Further on its danger: “North Korea is today the most dangerous country in the world. It has nuclear weapons capable of striking South Korea and Japan.” It further suggests that because North Korea is likely to deal these weapons to terrorists, the world is in grave danger. I clenched my teeth. All of this assumes that the Axis of Evil should be accepted as an absolute truth. That there are no flaws in its designation and that North Korea is indeed bent up on world domination, forgetting completely other Nuclear ready governments of questionable stability.
• On lying to respective populations: “Just as North Koreans are asked to believe that the Great Leader is a genius and the Cubans are told that Castro is their last line of defense against American aggression, Saddam alternately portrayed himself as a champion of Iraqi, pan-Arab, or Muslim interests, depending on the needs of the moment, and as a strongman ever ready to face down the world’s most powerful nation…” I failed to understand how this was much different than the assurances given that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or of suggestions that, until very recently, the U.S. economy was strong.
• On Saddam’s control methods: “He had inherited a huge state bureaucracy that, as in any state that seeks absolute control of a divided country, placed emphasis on discipline, conformity, and surveillance.” I thought of Nixon’s wiretapping, and the Patriot act.
• On the will of God: “Propaganda campaigns now portrayed Saddam as a pan-Arab leader and the direct decendent of al-Durura.” I couldn’t help but think of the ongoing Christian rhetoric in American politics.

I must stop.

Early frustrations held during my reading of the J-Curve are based on fundamental assumptions that the reader is supposed to have going in.”

Early frustrations held during my reading of the J-Curve are based on fundamental assumptions that the reader is supposed to have going in. It presumes a trust in your government and the infallibility of Democracy. It presumes an unquestionable acceptance that there is a right way and a wrong way, giving little consideration to compromise.

On the other end, A People’s History of the United States pushes the reader to question government policies that exist. It pushes for the organizational resistance of the masses already found within open societies and questions the legitimacy of its rulers. There is fundamental conflict between the two and that is part of the reason why there is an ongoing struggle in politics and opinion, between left and right.

However, as I continued to read, I found myself having fewer and fewer of the “Are you kidding me?!?” moments described in the above bullet points. I began to understand that it’s true that Castro’s sanctions on small businesses within Cuba restrict the middle class, forgetting that the elimination of class struggle is a key component in Communism.

I understood that Saddam Hussein was indeed a horrible ruler and his type of God appointed Dictatorship is for the dogs, while simultaneously failing to consider the two-tiered Christian driven system that marches on without end in the United States. The condemnation of Saddam for surrounding himself with friends and allies instead of by those best fit to run the country made sense to me, all the while forgetting about Cheney/Haliburton.

Furthermore, whenever points were made that I already agreed with, I became less suspicious of the text as a whole. An example of this was when the author, Ian Bremmer, suggested that Iraq is currently at the bottom of the curve because “the United States ignored the danger that the artificially created country would fragment and descend into chaos.” It was if suggestions like these were suddenly twice as valid because I held them going in, and didn’t suspect to find them within the text.

The human mind is capable of a passionate belief in any number of things. After reading A People’s History, I was frustrated with the system I was a part of. Now, as I further encapsulate myself in the J-Curve, this anger lessens. I am urged to trust that the government is doing the right thing based on the overall will of the people.

As someone who leans left politically, it is both disheartening and comforting that seemingly bulletproof ideals can be reorganized with the introduction of opposing views. All of this gives credence to the idea that people can change and that there are no absolutes so far as human nature is concerned. Sadly, this flexibility also allows for brainwashing and propaganda to flourish in promoting any imaginable agenda within short periods of time.

Is it better to find a happy medium within conflicting ideologies? Or is healthier to choose one position and stick with it, refusing to accept alternatives once a mind is convinced? What about the consequence of the actual words in the text themselves? I will continue reading The J-Curve and delve deeper into these questions in a future post.