Mike: Author Naomi Wolf's first book was The Beauty Myth which disected cultural and societal constraints on women and, as Wolf pointed out, on men. She has written several books since then and her most recent is The End of America: Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot. Which has another sub-title, "A Citizen's Call To Action." The book is published by Chelsea Green Publishing. It is a softcover book that has a US list price of $13,95.
Jim: Thank you. The way it worked is we have a set list of things to cover and we're moving quickly. After the topics, we'll use whatever remaining time to discuss. Dona and I assigned numbers to the topics and individuals guessed numbers and were matched up accordingly. Ruth?
Ruth: I am Jewish so luck matched me well. Naomi Wolf explains the genesis for the book was a friend, whose parents were survivors of the Holocaust, who kept pointing to what Wolf terms "echoes" between the current day America and Nazi Germany. That is a charged comparison for some including Katrina vanden Heuvel who wrote a really bad column for The Washington Post, which had to run a correction on her misquoting Julian Bond, that also ran in unedited form in The Nation magazine. As a Jewish woman, I am perfectly comfortable with what Ms. Wolf has done. She goes beyond Germany but I want to be really clear that the Holocaust is not supposed to be something that just makes us sad, it is something we are supposed to learn from to prevent it from ever happening again. People should not shy from comparisons or cluck-cluck like Ms. vanden Heuvel does. The only way to address a comparison is to weigh the evidence. Ms. Wolf has amassed a sizeable amount of evidence to indicate that the United States is at a tipping point, as was Germany in the early stages of Nazism. This is not the only comparison. Ms. Wolf also addresses other socities that were open and closed. However, this is the topic that makes the timid rage, rage at the person making the comparison. So I want to be clear, I am a Jewish woman, born in this country during WWII. There is nothing outlandish or offensive in her book to me.
Jim: Thank you, Ruth. Wally?
Wally: The "Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot" subtitle refers to the fact that the book is written as a letter to a friend of Wolf's named Chris. The introduction explains that the closing of a society requires ten steps. Wolf cites headlines to show what is going on in the United States that some choose to ignore and some others may have gotten used to because outrageous acts by the government have taken place over and over as the Bully Boy's occupied the White House. In later chapters, Wolf will outline the ten steps. From page 11, I'll note this: "Violent dictators across the political spectrum all do the same key things. Control is control." The countries she examined include Italy with regards to the rise of Mussolini, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Chile in 1973 and many others.
Jim: From the introduction, we now go to the conclusion because we're not going to have anyone e-mail, "You ran out of time and left me hanging!" The book is available for purchase online, at bookstores and it's in libraries. We strongly support public and college libraries and, as C.I. always notes, just because your library doesn't have the book in their own inventory does not mean you cannot read it, they can request it via loan agreements they have with other libraries. Elaine?
Elaine: What to do when your country falls apart before your eyes? Speak truth because, as Wolf notes, "Bullies are cowards." But before you speak up you need to do a self-inventory because the smear tactics used to silence may be turned on you. If there are things you find embarrassing, it is a good idea to get those out in the open to people you are close to, friends or family. She writes of doing "opposition research" on herself, having her accountant look over her records to determine if anything in the records could be used against her? She also notes that some, due to their jobs such as the military or for the government, have more to lose by speaking out than many of us. She believes there are common bonds that can and will be formed across the political spectrum and that rescuing our country may be seen as progress by some on the left and may be seen as a restoration to those on the right. But putting the country back together as something resembling a democracy will require a lot of work.
Jim: Thank you, Elaine. Those who have already spoken may jump in but we're going to try to start with those who haven't yet spoken. We've summarized the book and, as always, these are book discussions, not Cliff Notes.
Dona: The point Ruth covered is probably the most important because Wolf's book explores aspects that make a lot of people uncomfortable. Surprisingly -- or maybe not so -- that is often among the left and center-left. Those uncomfortable are generally those who feel a strong need to bring down a ruler on others to demonstrate how 'reasonable' they themselves are. Hence, columns from the 'left' that call out Julian Bond to begin with. As Jim noted, this isn't a book report. This is a discussion and, as always, the discussions can be a jumping off point. With Wolf's book we wanted a clearly established overview before going into the discussion.
Rebecca: C.I. wrote about a college group, one C.I., Ava and I think Kat, were speaking to where a young woman shared that she saw this book not as a departure by Naomi Wolf but as a continuation of Fire With Fire, Wolf's follow up to The Beauty Myth. I strongly agree with that. Fire With Fire was a book where Wolf struggled with the world around her and this book, The End of America, finds her doing the same. The difference is how much of our democracy has developed sink holes, then craters and is now in serious jeopardy. Chapter ten stood out the most to me. It's where a supposed society which values free speech will not tolerate any criticism and begins making charges of disloyalty. With Bully Boy a lame duck -- but deadly -- Oval Office occupant, there has been a bit of breakthrough and I'm not sure how much young people, I'm referring to sixteen years old on up through twenty-one, grasp what a sea of change has taken place.
Kat: I'd agree with that. But I think, having opened my mouth, that C.I.'s really the one to speak about since C.I.'s been going around the country speaking since February 2003 against the illegal war which was only an impending war then. I just realized, too, it's February, you've now been doing that, speaking out, for five years.
C.I.: Okay. Well, the chill begins in the aftermath of 9-11 and I assume someone else will grab that. However, in February 2003 there was a sense, among students I was speaking with, of trepidation. They were against the war, they were willing to speak out against it, but some -- not all -- were couching their remarks to appear more 'reasoned.' A take-away on that would be that 'reasoned' doesn't end an illegal war. Students aren't being slammed by me there, they were aping their elders. This was the first war of their lifetime. And a great many seemed to think that a wonderful presentation of points geared to reach out and across was the way to stop the illegal war. Not all, but many. And they wasted everyone's time. People were going to die. That was very clear. The costs of the illegal war, I'm not talking financial, were not being addressed even in some 'independent' outlets. There was an attitude that if there was just a 'fact check' on the administration, the people would be convinced. By February 2003, it was probably much too late for a 'fact check' to do any good. As Richard Clark has pointed out, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, they wanted to 'wrap it all up,' tie Iraq to 9-11 and start the illegal war.
Betty: I'm jumping in here to make the point others may not want to -- maybe they will -- but Iraq was tied to 9-11. That happened via the administration. It also happened via bad reporting and it was Chris Hedges who got a false link between 9-11 and Iraq on the front page of The New York Times in October 2001. That report was amplified via PBS which did issue a correction . . . after the illegal war started. We've never really talked about this topic so I'm happily suprised that it's one I'm not alone on. There was a culture of fear created and the war was sold on that. By the time Colin Powell's lying to the United Nations and applying his blot, this "Let's refute Colin!" really isn't cutting it because what's going on among the public is fear.
Jess: I'd agree with what Betty and C.I. are saying. Part of the climate of fear, and this is in Wolf's book as suppression, includes the establishment of secret prisons and the invoking of threats -- internally and externally. It was like a roadmap to the illegal war. All the areas of dissent in this society were basically confined to the equivalent of 'protest pens.' And there was even one that came with a dunking chair or a rotten fruit throwing, Fox "News." I think it was a waste of time for people to go on Fox "News" to protest. I don't think, in a wall to wall fear environment, you can make a difference with the viewers of that channel and I think you give it the appearance of a 'news outlet' by appearing on it. I'm not condemning anyone who appeared on it then. I assume they were trying to reach out to as many as possible, to anyone, but I think they're undercut by the hosts and the wall to wall programming.
Jim: Well what would you recommend, with the benefit of hindsight, that people do instead?
Jess: To be clear, that wasn't asked in a nasty manner. Jim and Rebecca were accused of being rude to C.I. in last week's "Roundtable." For those reading, it was logical to assume Jim was being rude by the way it read but that's not how it was stated and Rebecca was being playful but persistent. What would I recommend if I could hop in the time machine? Mocking and ridiculing the White House. That's done more to bring the myth of the hero down than anything else. Pointing out that Bully Boy is not the commander in chief of the people. A president is the commander in chief of the military only. I would have suggested hitting on that hard. The reason Jim's not being nasty is that he, C.I. and I have discussed this aspect. I think Bill Scher, of Liberal Oasis, was getting at that after the illegal war started. But even then, it wasn't a topic most pursued. Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder would seriously go after that when their show, The Majority Report, started but that was in 2004. FAIR should have been issuing action alerts on what may have seen a minor point. Allowing Bully Boy to be "Commander in Chief" of the people gave his every utterance more weight than it ever deserved. The fact checks offered on Colin Powell were coming to late because the basic premise was not being challenged.
Kat: Yeah, that's very true. Basically, Bully Boy was elevated to God 'status.' Big media caved -- and some were fired for just pointing out Bully Boy's Bunny-Fu-Fu scampering around the country after the 9-11 attacks which did not show leadership -- and little media was, as usual, scattered to the wind. Jess is exactly right, from the iconic Vanity Fair portraits of the administration on through the rest of the press, mere mortals were being elevated to so much above us. And that was the point that needed to be made, the very basics, such as we, the citizens, do not take marching orders from the White House. Take some of C.I.'s early writings or Susan Faludi's wonderful The Terror Dream and you can see the critique of the elevation of masculinity, the attacks on women, the need for a "Daddy" figure. All of that led to the illegal war and it should have been called out repeatedly.
Cedric: Because, sorry to speak over you, Kat, when it's not called out, everything Naomi Wolf is outlining in her book can happen and does. When the White House is occupied by a god, who can challenge it? When people are living in fear, a government can push through anything including things that are unconstitional. I hold a number on the left responsible including the ones who attacked A.N.S.W.E.R. throughout 2002 to make themselves look 'reasonable.' You know what I would like to see, all the tut-tutters on a roundtable where they were asked, "Looking bad, do you think your efforts to appear 'reasoned' and 'respectiable' accomplished anything?" Because I don't think it did.
Mike: I love Wolf's book and recommend it strongly but I think it is missing a step: The Cult of Personality.
Ava: She does talk about propaganda but I agree that is a step in the destruction of democracy.
Mike: It was the Cult of Personality that allowed this to happen. You couldn't talk bad about Bully Boy and just a remark in a gym could get the FBI visiting you. While the people were being silenced, you had others, in the media, trying to act 'respectable' and offer gentle prodding. The Cult needed to be ripped apart. It wasn't and that's how he sold the war.
Ty: I agree with everything so far but I'm going to toss this out there. A lot of the public went along with the illegal war. I'm talking about in the perceived privacy of pollsters calling their homes. That goes to the ten steps Wolf's outlining -- and I actually think we're worse off than she does -- but it also goes to the enshrinement. It absolutely was necessary to chip away at the Bully Boy, bit by bit and day by day. I mean with humor, mocking, you name it. He's been brought back down to earth by reality, to be sure, but he could have been brought back down earlier and should have been. There was no reason for Diane Sawyer to shame the Dixie Chicks. That's what she tried to do and she kept repeating "the" and "your" commander-in-chief. The press ran with that title. The only way to stop that would have been to have created a climate where it was too embarrassing for them to use it. That's a point that comes up regularly on KPFA, it seems like every other week a caller's saying we need to be using humor and we do, it's very powerful and an excellent leveler. And the Cult of Personality, in most of the societies Wolf's studying -- if not all -- we're seeing that. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc.
Mike: I really don't think that point is recognized. But it is very important. It's why a Jon Stewart is important. It's why, in the film V, the comic is killed. It happened in Nicarauga as well. They, the bullies, can't take it. And certainly, it has a huge impact. Saying the emperor has no clothes on is very powerful and I loved the book, but if there's one fault to it, I would say it's that Wolf doesn't explore the power of humor. We can think of a thousand examples, easily, but let's stick with this site right here. Ava and C.I. didn't command attention by just saying, "Not true!" They did it by making people laugh. I mean, ask Ty about the e-mails.
Ty: Mike's talking about what has been a big repeat in the last six months, which is that a lot of people who were reading for the humor only and had some disagreement stuck around and now 'get it' as they tend to say. And I don't like talking about this because they haven't written their TV commentary yet this week and it may put pressure on them. But the jokes sneak up on you which is part of why it grabs you. It's also true that as a body of work, it stands up and the points come across. Humor is very powerful.
Wally: If I can jump back in, Cedric and I are doing humor posts. And, yeah, I think it makes a difference. Wolf is talking about how 'bloggers need to' and I enjoyed the book but you're always going to lose me when you start talking about what someone 'needs to' do. She wants them to be more serious and more nose to the grindstone. There's a need for real reporting, fine and dandy, and Ava and C.I. do real reporting in those TV commentaries, but a web that's shooting the air out of the tires of a 'personality' is also very powerful and I don't think that's grasped.
Ty: In the book.
Wally: Right, in the book.
Ava: Well Wolf writes "Bullies are cowards," as Elaine noted at the top. And no coward can take being laughed at. Many non-cowards can't take it as well. But it is important, humor, and it does need to be used and deployed as part of a tool of peace. The tools of war are bombs, guns, etc. Humor is the tool of peace and, until this discussion, I hadn't noticed that it wasn't valued in the book. I think that's because she's writing about a serious topic and an important one but if we don't have the humor, if we're not able to be the one snickering in the audience after Bully Boy's delivered his latest lie, what kind of a tone are we setting? I think it's a really important point and listening to Mike, Wally and Ty speak, I'm convinced it's the only flaw in the book.
Rebecca: Absolutely. If Bully Boy's Mission Accomplished romp had been greeted with universal laughter, can you imagine the White House's reaction. Instead, he's marching around with a codpiece and you have G. Gordon Liddy and Chris Matthews wet dreaming in public on TV about how 'manly' the midget is. Ava's right about humor being a tool of peace. And that's all forms of humor -- gentle, mocking, ridicule, what have you.
Kat: And I've seen really tense situations on campus where C.I.'s defused it with a funny remark. Usually, that's caused by someone pointing out some failure in independent media and then a few may try to defend it but the bulk of students are in agreement. And it could feed and feed without no one being able to hear anyone -- even the ones they agree with -- but along comes the humor. So that's an example of where it can bring people together but it's equally true that it can create a common target and bring people together that way. I really do think humor is undervalued in society and I don't feel the book addresses it in terms of tool we have for change. I do get the point that it's a serious book and the natural inclination is to follow that by being solemn. But when you're talking -- in a polarized country especially -- about the two sides coming together, you need humor. Or to give another example, one time last fall, we were speaking to a group and a guy there was pro-war and just wasn't going to listen. Later, a woman would apologize for brining him along and saying she didn't realize he was against the war. But, I mean, he was really just there to heckle. And hostile. And C.I. didn't bat an eye, just zinged him back and this went on -- zing, zing, zing -- for several rounds until finally the guy laughed and said, "Okay, I'll pipe down." Now if C.I. had tried to talk to over him, or to shout him down, or anything else, it wouldn't have worked. Humor is very important. And I'm sorry to be using concrete examples but those are the ones that come to mind.
Dona: Winding down. Wolf's organization is American Freedom Campaign. When the book was published, the organization was not personally for impeachment because they're bottom-up, the take the marching orders from their members. The group now is for impeachment and Wolf has written a book that did not necessarily set out to argue impeachment but it makes a strong case for it.
Jim: Most recently, in "It’s Time to Hold Democratic House Leaders in Contempt," she's written about contempt, about Congress holding Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton in contempt and how the vote on that has been postponed and postponed by Democratic leadership. But we're going to focus on the impeachment aspect. Can it happen? Will it happen? And, legally, it should happen and we're all in agreement on that.
Elaine: Trina wrote about this a few weeks back and I'm in complete agreement with her so I'll bite. No, it's not going to happen. Wolf's column you referenced makes the point that contempt was brought by the House Judiciary Committee and, all these months later, the Democratic leadership in the House still won't call for a vote. Like Trina, I want to be clear that I'm not saying it's not needed. It is needed. But, for her, the Dennis Kucinich sell out in Iowa was the awakening and she re-evaluated what she was focusing on and what was important to her. She's not telling anyone else, "Stop it, it's not happening!" She's saying she doesn't believe it will happen and so she's not going to be writing about it. She's going to focus on the illegal war and other things.
Betty: Iowa was offensive and Elaine's referring to the very public deal Kucinich made with Obama to swing support his way by 'giving' away his delegates. That was it, that was when this community stopped supporting him because if you're not going to fight in all 50 states, don't fight in any. Now let's remember what he said when he officially dropped out, "I'm brining impeachment charges against" Bully Boy. And we wait and wait some more. I believe C.I.'s point about "Dennis is going to do what's best for Dennis" has been more than proven. Now he's facing primary challengers and has to deal with that. But guess what, every member of the House is up for re-election. Forget the presidential election for a moment, they're busy with their own campaigns. If they can't even bring contempt charges to a vote, I don't see how we can expect impeachment to be pulled off.
Rebecca: Well, I agree with Betty. And Elaine, C.I. and I were talking to Trina before she wrote that post because she was really afraid she was going to be pissing a lot of people off. Her point, like Elaine stated, wasn't "Stop working on it!" Her point was, "I don't believe it's a possibility and if I don't believe it's a possiblity, it would be dishonest of me to cover it." And like C.I. pointed out in that conversation we all had, in July the focus will be on the upcoming conventions. The media will spend a large chunk of that month gas bagging about what we'll see in August. And, in Congress, people will be jockeying for their positions at the convention -- Will I get to speak! So their minds are going to be elsewhere. That really means that impeachment would have to move very quickly. I'm not talking about the trial in the Senate which I think would move quickly if it could get to that. I'm talking about the House getting off its ass and doing something. It's now February. That's really a little over four months that people have to force Congress into action and Nancy Pelosi's not going to do anything on it even though it's the only thing that could assure her re-election. Personally, I believe if that point could be brought home to her, that impeachment is the only thing that takes her out of race for the office she currently holds, then we could see some traction on it.
Ruth: I would add that time is more limited now but it's not impossible. If someone really wants to see this happen, they're going to have to up their actions and really go to the wall on this.
Jess: I agree with everything that's being said but think it's becoming one of those non-issues that takes up all of our time. I'm not saying he shouldn't be impeached. I am saying we have a do-nothing Congress where the leadership took impeachment 'off the table' and I don't think these resolutions in towns and cities are going to force it. Jim, I think you're going to toss to C.I. for the wrap-up and I want to suggest that C.I. speak about it in terms of the Patriot Act.
Jim: Sure. I'll toss to C.I. now for the wrap-up of this topic and of the book.
C.I.: Well, to name another group, The Bill of Rights Defense Committee does incredible work. I know a few people in that organization. And in 2003 and 2004, I was always on the road alone so when I'd get to a campus and they'd say whomever from that organization had just spoken there, I would be eager to hear about that because we were always crossing paths. What they were working on was repealing the Patriot Act and they did amazing work. And in terms of the long term, they've laid the ground work nationally. But, sadly, the Patriot Act doesn't end in January 2008. So they've got a longer window of opportunity. All their work going city to city to force the issue of the Patriot Act, and often very successfully forcing a vote on it in the municipal government, is important and does have an impact. So do the impeachment resolutions. But they [impeachment supporters] have a tighter window of time due to the fact that, thankfully, Bully Boy will soon be out of office. But the window of opportunity is closing and the work being done is educational but with the Patriot Act, the reaction was to ignore the votes. Congressional members whose districts voted to repeal the Patriot Act didn't turn around and make that their position. It's equally true that Congress members offered a strong push back with some of them rushing home and attempting to strong arm city council members into delaying the vote or shelving it as well as issuing statements that they either read in to the record themselves or sent and had read into the record. I think Rebecca's right that if impeachment's sold as an election issue, it will get traction with Congress. If people, not just Pelosi, got the message from their voters that if impeachment didn't go forward, they wouldn't get the votes, something would happen. But, in terms of the Patriot Act, that was largely blown off by the Congress, the efforts back home in their district. I'm not insulting the impeachment movement or the work done by The Bill of Rights Defense Committee. I think, regardless of what happens, both educated and involved citizens in their democracy, sent a message and it was one that reached other citizens if not members of Congress. Naomi Wolf is for impeachment -- as are all of us -- but there's a reason she's for it and that's because she didn't hole up in one area. She went out and spoke with people, she went out all over the country and spoke with people. So if someone wants impeachment to happen and wants to make that their driving issue, my guess would be the battle belongs in DC or at home offices. Time is too limited and these resolutions are important to the record, these municipal resolutions, but they're not having an impact in Congress and the movement to repeal the Patriot Act saw the same thing happen. Again, they [repeal the Patriot Act supporters] have time on their side. The impeachment movement is dealing with a Congress that hates the idea of impeachment. When Ramsey Clark was brought in, prior to the illegal war, to explain, brought in by Congress, how Bully Boy could be impeached right then, Congress was receptive. Let me back up because I'm not sure how aware everyone is of that. Dr. Francis A. Boyle, international law expert, and Ramsey Clark met with Democrats in Congress, at the invitation of the Dems, to discuss impeachment in 2002. And they were receptive and then John Podesta storms in and puts a kibosh on the whole thing. So the point here is it's not that Congress -- it's not that they don't know their duties. It's that they know impeachment is considered a no-go by leadership and has been since 2002. It very easily could have come to the floor in 2002. And it didn't and that was four years before Nancy Pelosi's bragging that she's taking it "off the table." So that's four years of knowing -- for those in the House this entire time -- that leadership doesn't want it. I think it's going to take something major -- like full disclosure by Sibel Edmunds, for example -- to get impeachment going now or else non-stop work in DC and at home offices, occupying Congressional offices. The way Cindy Sheehan did before she declared her run for Congress. They could identify the soft "no"s and target them. That would be my suggestion. In terms of Wolf's book, she's not saying anything is fixed tomorrow or the day after. She's fully aware that this is going to take a lot of work to fix, restoring our democracy. It's always easier to take away rights than it is to return them. And she's making the point that this isn't just a case of stopping the ball from rolling futher towards destruction. There's no band-aid cure. An election isn't going to change anything. The powers that have been taken from the people must be returned or we're one more ego maniac away from the complete destruction of the country. I also agree with her and Daniel Ellsberg that another attack on the US could result in the death of democracy under the current administration. But I also think, and this is what gives me hope, another attack won't cloak the adminstration in 'authority' and 'power.' There will be no way to weasel out again by blaming Bill Clinton. And, seven years after the attacks of 9-11, I think Americans would be rightly outraged if another attack took place and far less interested in accepting Condi babbling on about how "No one could have guessed." This comes up a lot on campus, less so now, but over the years it has. And students were genuinely fearful and probably rightfully so of what happens to the country if there's another attack. There is legislation in place already that would destroy democracy, no question about it. But I don't think you'd see a compliant population this time. I think people would be outraged and it would be more difficult to manufacture those bullhorn ground zero moments because another attack would expose Bully Boy as a complete incompetent. To be clear, an attack could happen under the next president. It would be different because they didn't make 9-11 their touchstone. Not unlike Rudy G, Bully Boy's built his repuation -- such as it is -- on his post-response. And another attack would most likely cause even some of the devoted to leave the fold while the rest of us aren't going to be in the mood for the press to order us to rally round the Bully. But the damage he's done will be with us long after he's gone and, as slowly as Congress and the Courts move, it's going to take years of work on the part of citizens to rescue the United States. Wolf doesn't sugar coat that nor encourage people to wait to get involved. She's sounding, righly, alarms and if you agree with this discussion, pick up her book. If you disagree, pick it up as well. Read it and see if you still disagree. You may. But you'll appreciate the work she's put into it and you can't claim that she's phoning it in or that she doesn't care very passionately about democracy.
Jim: Let me say, "My apologies to Ava." Ava and C.I. take the notes on these transcript pieces and C.I., knowing we were limited on time, rushed through those words so quickly. Dona was counting down from three minutes and C.I. managed to get it all in there. The book is Naomi Wolf's The End of America: Letters of Warning to a Young Patriot and we all strongly urge you to read it. This is our rush transcript, enjoy typos; however, we aren't adding sections in the typing that didn't take place which, after last week, isn't a promise independent media can make.
