@anna missed Interesting. We could be thinking the same thing differently. I had always considered that political movements such as Bushco presented the world with an image of society like a Rorschach inkblot. That is something at first glance shapeless, without any form at all.
The subject is then ‘shown’ the shape by Bushco’s manipulation of emotions, hopes and fears. It becomes a shape that the subject is committed to because he/she ‘discovered’ it themselves. Witness the deep schism in US society. Also the inability of BushCo to have most of the people outside the US see the shape BushCo wants them to.
Up until now they haven’t had sufficient power to successfully manipulate the populations of other nation’s hopes and fears. So we just don’t ‘get it’.
The problem with this ‘one size fits all’ attempt at controlling the world’s population is currently best revealed in Sydney’s inter-cultural violence. No I can’t really blame the US for that. The problem is that different cultures react completely differently to what appears to be the same stimuli. But it’s not the same stimuli really.
The varied ways that different cultures filter input means that the same message can cause completely different stimuli to occur in different societies.
A generation ago the solution would have been to send different messages to the different nations but that is no longer possible. Mass media and the worldwide flow of news makes it very difficult for ‘operators’ to stay on message with two conflicting memes. Whenever BushCo try that one on they get caught out and accused of contradicting themselves.
What may stimulate one group of people into fear, withdrawal and the desire that someone else deal with a problem, may in another culture stimulate people into taking action themselves.
This seems to be what happened in Sydney. Generally people in Australia are more used to ‘sorting things out’ themselves. This is more a function of the length of time that a community has been established rather than any inherent difference between the nature of the population.
A few generations ago in the US if 9/11 or it’s equivalent had occured we wouldn’t be debating whether or not the government did the right thing in the mass arrests of people of Mid Eastern ethnic origin. We would be campaigning to get the government to intervene and stop the lynching of people of mid Eastern origin.
So although the current response to BushCo’s misinformation from populations around the world has been destructive and conflicting, ultimately people will see the misinformation for what it is.
Even if that weren’t to happen elites like BushCo would be forced to recognise that their misinformation wasn’t effective. Admittedly they would cast around for another cat to skin but meanwhile people would be drawn to the conclusion that choices made as close as possible to the people they are most likely effect, to be the decisions that they support. Decentralisation of decision-making carries it’s own risks but it prevents the concentration of power.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 13 2005 22:40 utc | 3

Debs,
I think you’re right that we are not that far off in perspective metaphore here. What I think I’m trying to get at with this is some pictoral accounting, or structural explanation, that should also answer your question:
Up until now they haven’t had sufficient power to successfully manipulate the populations of other nation’s hopes and fears. So we just don’t ‘get it’.
I’ll reframe my above notion of the interior undefined shape — the administrations rhetoric (& propaganda) as an essentially and particularly american phenomena called exceptionalism:
……………………..
from wikipedia,
American exceptionalism is the ethnocentic idea that the United States and the American people hold a special place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom. Political science defines it as presence of unique traits in the United States, such a tradition of individualism, the failure of socialist parties, and high levels of religiosity that do not correlate with national characteristics in communist countries.
Some interpret the term to indicate a moral superiority of Americans, while others use it to refer to the American concept as itself an exceptional ideal, which may or may not always be upheld by the actual people and government of the nation. Dissenters claim “American exceptionalism” is common ethnocentrism and little more than crude propaganda, that in essence is a justification for a America-centered view of the world that is inherently chauvinistic and jingoistic in nature. Historians and political scientists may use the term to simply refer to some case of American uniqueness without implying that an innate superiority of Americans resulted in the development of that uniqueness.
………………………….
There should be little doubt however one looks at exceptionalism, that it is the political mainspring that drives both domestic and foreign policy, serving as almost universal justification. One would think that such a central and defining characteristic would be the focus of much agreement and acknowledgement, especially if it is to be understood as the equivilant of an “ethnocentric” or cultural understanding — or even, as it may be, as a replacment for ethno-identity. Without re-hashing the arguments for/against exceptionalism, suffice it to say at best, it is a fuzzy notion. A notion without clear substantiation or definition, that is internalized nonetheless, as the connective tisssue of national identity.
It is interesting, that what is qualitative of exceptionalism; individualism, egalitarianism, liberty, and free markets, is not only givin little academic scrutiny, it is also (except perhaps free markets) under non-stop legislative assult on all fronts from the government itself, the patriot act being the most blatent example.
All of which leads to the underlying (and cynical) reasons for exceptionalism to remain an amorphus thing without true definition. With a clear definition however, it could not be whored so easily. It could not be smeared all over oneself like a cheap cologne reeking of patriotism while at the same time undermining it. And importantly, it could not be used to throttle critisicm with the whole “you’re either with us or against us, how can you be against freedom and democracy, questioning the leadership is giving comfort and aid to the enemy” rubric, and implicitly always asking the question do you hate your own freedom, because you hate your country.
If exceptionalism were givin an equal proportion of actual support and understanding i.e. definition — to the degree it is been whored and whored out again and again it would probably just dissappear, and evaporate itself as a mirage. Which would be good. As the constructs of (especially foreign) policy might appear as the rest of the world
sees it — as a jagged silhouette in the sharp profile of naked aggression. Which will, if things continue down this sordid tobacco road of dillusion, will define us. For us.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 14 2005 8:35 utc | 5

American Exceptionalism™, is a marketing slogan, pure and simple. A creation of MADison Ave that Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman would be proud of.
It is never defined, like all programs of government, or utterances of Shrub are ever defined. Plausible deniability. What does Freedom mean? And Democracy? I once took a class where we discussed the concept of Democracy for six hours straight, and we only touched the surface of the concept. How could a sheeple grok?
What does “sucess” in Iraq mean? You’d think the White House Press Corpse would have poked that stinker a bit, but no: they don’t touch opinion, they deal with facts.
I don’t have much experience with other countries, but I always believed that all countries believe in their exceptionalism to some extent or another, as a form of mutual national consensual propaganda™. In Denmark, the myth went something like this: Because we are so small and defenceless, we have to have higher moral standings than others (except that Greenland is OURS!). We are the Danes; we have been for over a thousand years; we share something special; we suceed because we are clever (except for the Fyns); we are the Danes. (Have a shot of snaps and repeat.) Surely other countries must have their versions too. I would like to hear them.

Posted by: Malooga | Dec 15 2005 3:52 utc | 7