The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.
- Stendal (Marie Henri Beyle), novelist (1783-1842)
For those of us who have no idea what this quotation is about, it's allegorical. The shepherd doesn't really haved quiet little chats with each of his sheep while the rest are grazing. The sheep are people and the shepherd their leader, as in many allegorical stories that we call nursery rhymes.
Remember when Beyle lived, so you won't get the idea that this man with the pseudonym is referring to US President George W. Bush.
For the leader's interests and the interests of the followers to be the same, the leader must give a feeling of unity among the group. The easiest and most dependable way of deriving unity of purpose and of cause among people is to make them fear a common enemy. If necessary, an enemy may be created from nothing, just to serve the purpose.
The Cold War was an example of such contrived enemy-making. The US and the USSR, neither of whom wanted anything to do with another war and both of whom wanted to strengthen the power of their countries both politically and financially around the world, created the appearance of enemy of the other. The nuclear weapons and the rhetoric were all parts of the show.
It worked, although the two entered a poker war in which the USSR finally went bust. And, to the great joy of the USA, "democracy succeeded." In fact, the USA does not have a true democracy any more than the USSR had a system of communism. Political ideology was also part of the act. Russia's political system today varies little from the communist system of the USSR, though the candidates in elections are more numerous because more have been approved by the establishment to give the appearance of greater democracy.
What happens now, when the US doesn't have a pretend competitor with whom to have a quiet war? The US has entered into real wars and is heading for the same financial disaster as the USSR suffered--$2 billion dollars per day for the Middle East conflicts alone, much of it coming from borrowings.
Leaders don't like to change course. They remain, just as Saddam did, until their final curtain call. Notice how President Bush and Prime Minister Blair spout basically the same propaganda slogans today as they did before they entered Afghanistan. However, this time the enemy (who is only an enemy because the US declared it so) is terrorism, which exists in every Muslim population, as the US and its allies are quick to point out.
The US is not at war with Islam, President Bush has declared many times. It is at war with terrorism, which just happens to exist in every situation where Muslims exist in large numbers.
The US is led by a man whose largest support base is fundamentalist Christians.
In politics, every instance of coincidence should be questioned because they are very seldom accidents.
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to help people tell the difference.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Why can't liberals just discuss foreign policy straight up? They always have to wrap their words in nuance and thing like fairy tales and poems. I guess its to hide their sympathy for the Jihadis.
It's a shame it's lost on some sheep.
Ayane doesn't want to discuss foreign policy bcause he doesn't know anything more than he has been told. You can tell how afraid he is of real confrontation by the way he slams liberals (read; me, though I am not a Canadian and he hasn't figured that out yet) with an accusation of having "sympathy for the jihadis."
One thing you can count on with sheep: they soon turn their arguments into nonsense because they don't have enough real facts to debate with.
It's sad. He embarrasses himself (they all do) in public and is somehow proud of it. The rest of us would die of shame.
But you still haven't explained your policy. Retreat from Iraq? Let Iran get nukes? Raise taxes? You speak in code words because your ideas are so weak. You will not say which policies to change and which to keep. You can't, because it will sound crazy...
I didn't state generalities, Ayane, I stated facts. I said nothing about retreating from Iraq. Everyone around Iran has nuclear weapons, including Israel, which has never admitted it but everyone knows about it and they were supplied free by the USA.
Iran wants peaeful nuclear power, just as the US has, in abundance. That is, except for the coal-powered generating stations which the US is encouraging by accepting them by the dozens. They pollute the air in ways that nuclear power never would.
You apparently want Iran to burn fossil fuels (which it has in abundance) instead of cleaner nuclear fuel.
By the way, do you even know that the US has a secret agreement with Iran (talk about foreign policy) regarding Iraq? It's that agreement that is keeping the lid on in Iraq instead of turning the country into a full blown civil war. Do you know about that agreement, Ayane? If not, why not? Have your sources in the White House not divulged it to you?
Gee... getting a liberal to just come out with such basic statements is like herding cats. Straight talk is rare among your type.
I'm sure you know all about the super secret agreements of the world. You are a liberal, right? So conspiracy theory is your specialty.
My participation in this piece of idiocy will end now. I don't watch FOX News for the same reason, it twists a few opinions until they sound like facts, but the facts don't make sense.
I will reply to anyone else who wishes to comment on this subject.
I have been told that some Bush supporters even think WMDs were found in Iraq.
I particularly liked your reference to the goat in the abattoir.
Your brilliant premise is that the most effective way to develop "unity of purpose and of cause among people is to make them fear a common enemy."
We should remember this eight days from now as we note the anniversary of the single event that succeeded - in one day - to accomplish that objective for our current "shepherd."
While Islam is one of the most popular religions in the world, there is not a single rich or even comfortable country where Islam predominates. In fact, there is a war or at least great strife in every one of them.
The most peaceful country with a great number of Muslims is India, which has more Muslims than even Pakistan or Bangladesh (Pakistan is 9th in the world for population and Bangladesh is 11th). But India has a large majority of Hindus, a peaceful religion that practises what it preaches (most of the time).
Religions are, by nature, devisive, among their other attributes. Only falsely generated fear has ever brought great numbers of one religion together for one common political or military cause.
Please, everyone, do not bait or taunt Tatsrus. It is evident from his words that he does not know about the subject of the Middle East anywhere near as much as he believes he does. He believe what the media of his country have told him. He doesn't understand that the majority of media in the US are owned by conservatives who have one main propaganda message to teach their listeners and viewers, that preached by the White House.
Tatsrus, I know you mean well and that you are a good person, but you don't know enough to be able to argue with people who are vastly more knowledgeable on the subject. I srongly urge you to read and to learn, then to ask questions about something that seems to be "not right" to you.
A great article, and so very apropos at this moment in history.
I quibble over a very small detail, and then only to draw attention to another, less insignificant detail. That is the notion that;
"The US is led by a man whose largest support base is fundamentalist Christians."
I do not quibble with the technical accuracy of this statement, it may be true, but with the relevance of this particular way of "classifying" Mr. Bushes support. I believe the more significant, and relevant, class of supporters is the sheep analogies subject, and the crucial quality of the class is frightened followers, be they Christian fundamentalists, political zombies, or paranoid war-aholics that just can't resist the "enemy game".
I fear that when we focus too much attention on the C.F.s, we fall into a trap that lies at the heart of the courting of this group by the neocons. Which, will lead to divisiveness and the introduction of immaterial issues that detract from the central question of "warmongering".
I have no idea what you mean by sheep grazing off the mountain.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are pretty good it's a duck. And if it's not a duck but it walks with ducks, it may be mistaken for a duck (see: The Ugly Duckling).
All fundamentalists or radicals are fearful. They cling to something that makes them feel more secure, even if their security is false.
I agree with you completely about warmongering. When a sitting US president identifies himself as "the war president" it may be time to re-evaluate the priorities of the country.
Well, at least he told the truth that once.
President Bush firmly believe that what he is doing is the best and the right thing. To some extent, I support what he is doing. However, in war no one is always right. And no one wins. Once you create the need for "terrorists" you also create the need to defeat them (which was the objective in the first place).
To leave Iraq now would turn the country (can it still be called that?) over to two groups who want nothing more than to tear it to shreds and see which can survive to dominate the remains. Remember, each side has Allah as its strongest supporter and each side firmly believe that the other should die and go to hell whereas its own people can die and be welcomed into heaven by Allah himself. This is a new kind of war, unlike anything the world has seen previously.
Leaving Iraq now would be setting the country up for a religious war, which amounts to nothing less than religious genocide--practised by two enemies against each other.
Worse, if the US were to invade Iran (which it won't because of an agreement between the US and Iran that the US won't mess with Iran so long as Iran doesn't give more than the smallest of arms to the Shi'ites in southern Iraq) the whole Middle East would light up with the greatest holy war--Muslims against Muslim--that the world has ever seen.
The US is like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. Should he get out and save himself?
That's what I mean about the above answer.
Bill, I'd be an idiot if I did not question sociology because there is a whole different set of people to study who may not come up with the total "results" you have stated in your article. Good article and I apologize if I led you to believe I took it personally. I take nothing personally on gather. However, I would like to see more articles from another cross section of people,who just may have different references to help others or may or may not be "christian fudamentalist" to make your point. Your article stirred up a little strife. Strife leads to contention and wars. What does sociology have to offer? Only guesses.
As to the sociology, please separate the views of non-Americans about the political and military entity known as America from their view of Americans as individual people. The two are very different and must be kept separate (except by those who want to confuse the issue).
Similarly, US citizens have a different view of their national government and military than they do of themselves, their families and their neighbours. Some see the US as its ideology, others by how much it misses its ideology. But that has NOTHING to do with how they see themselves or their fellow countrymen.
Sociology can look at one or the other, not both. The strife comes from confusing the two, or from listening to those who intentionally confuse the two.
Sociology is not necessarily predictive. It can look at what is and what was and quantify them. It can separate and create statistics. It cannot tell you what will happen next any more than hsitory can. Put sociology and history together with a good computer program and you may be able to predict some possible outcomes of staying on the present course or of changing it.
But nothing is predictable about human behaviour. All bets or guesses are off as soon as a group of people agrees to act together. Look at what happened with firmly entrenched racist beliefs by Americans in the 1960s.
The more you write here, the more you reveal a disturbing tendency to generalize, while giving no indication of your underlying source of knowledge. How incredibly contradictory to say in one breathe that none Knows "unimpeachable truth" and then begin making blanket assertions about numerous groups of people in the next. As well as a declaration (if my best guess at correcting your typo is correct) of Mr. Bushes firm beliefs.
I dislike arrogance, and though I do not even see why you made the comment about not meaning to be rude, I find it is that arrogance that is objectionable.
I asked that you be cautious in assigning innocent intent to the administration in courting the Christian fundamentalists. I repeat that caution and await any realistic explanation as to why my words are combative or unnecessary. As well as any rational explanation for your lecture on what you appear to be claiming is my failure to realize the truth is a slippery prize.
I commented originally to express my appreciation for your basic analysis, and make a small quibble with a choice of words. I now find myself wondering if you have a firm grasp on sanity. I hope I have made some sort of error in interpreting your remarks.
The trouble I have with responding to your comments is that I don't understand them. I have no idea what you are asking for. Honestly.
With this last comment I must wonder if what you really want is to tie me in knots. Please remember that everything that everyone says in a comment is opinion. Opinions do not have to be supported.
I have no doubt that you misinterpreted my remarks. I also have no doubt that I have neither the time nor the ability to explain in depth in a comment of my own something that is not easy to understand and that depends on having whatever knowledge I have as a basis.
I don't mind responding to questions, even though I have little time. But yours I can't, in this case, because I have not understood what you wanted throughout this thread.
Sorry. So shoot me.
Please, let's put an end to this thread because I can't afford the time to wait while my dialup connection loads all these comments. Let's pursue whatever it is somewhere else.
John neither of us can do justice to concepts that take much explanation to understand or to convey within short comments. If you can't agree to disagree, then simply think me an insane Canadian. That should wrap up the whole matter.
I only said I found myself wondering, I was not persuaded. I would advise you read more carefully my words in the first comment, and the second, and you will probably realize that my remarks did not even address the matters you responded to them with. Nor, do I believe, any implication that I did not understand that truth is often impeachable. I felt as though you were reading much into my remarks that never crossed my mind. I tried to short-circuit that possibility in the opening of my comment, but don't think you noticed it.
I actually agree with much of what you spoke of in rebuttal to implications I never made, so I will assume we have come to terms in this secondary matter. I hold no grudge or malice and hope you feel the same.
What I really meant was that I don't want to continue this discussion any further, no matter what the fact or who may be right or wrong.
Even if I am wrong, or confused, or misleading, or pissed off, I have that right and I grant myself that right in every circumstance.
I will no longer address any question I don't understand.
Thanks for your time and energy in carefully answering all our tiresome questions.