Pop Politico: “The Great Derangement”

Ted Asregadoo September 16, 2008 22

If journalism is the first draft of history, and history is argument without end, then Matt Taibbi has fired the opening salvo of a new argument about the current political and religious culture in the United States. I can just see grad school papers 20 years from now with titles like, “The Deranged Decade: The Hegemony of Myth in Political Manipulation, 2000-2008.”

The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, & Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire is laced with gallows humor but also some sharp observations about certain sectors of American culture. What Taibbi is concerned with is the way in which Americans construct protective bubbles around themselves with narratives about the big bad world — which are more often than not delusional, deranged, and flat-out wrong. He arrives at this conclusion while reporting on the Iraq war as a “embedded” journalist for Rolling Stone magazine. While stationed at “Camp Liberty”– where 30-foot walls are constructed to protect the soldiers inside from attack (even though bombs are randomly being set off by Iraq insurgents) — Taibbi reasons:

Over time I started to feel in my bones that this weird walled-off archipelago was itself a profound metaphor of American domestic reality … the more I looked at them, the more they reminded me of the freaky-tall bulwarks on King Kong’s Skull Island: masterpieces of architectural overkill, the panic visible in each extra foot of protection, walls designed to keep something in, not out. In America we live in a bubble and the rest of the world is a dangerous mystery, about which many legends may be spread by those cunning and unscrupulous enough to bother. The outside world has become scary enough that most of our people have decided not even to bother trying to figure it out — which is how you end up with such lunacies like They hate us for our freedom and 9/11 was an inside job.

Taibbi takes one for the team (and that would be Team America) by not only embedding himself with U.S. troops in Iraq, but also in the Bible Belt as a convert to Cornerstone Church. He also takes us inside the U.S. government and confirms in one chapter what the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have been telling us for years: When it comes to the day-to-day business of the government, there is very little that differentiates the Republicans from the Democrats.

He has the unenviable task of faking his way through indoctrination and baptism as a born-again Christian. He often feels terrible about his fake identity, is appalled by the rampant hatred that permeates sermons that are supposed to “lift the spirits” but are often reminiscent of the “Two Minutes Hate” in Orwell’s 1984, and flummoxed by the lack of understanding of not only world geography but a basic understanding of the geography of the United States (one of his fellow converts had no idea where New England was, even after he rattled off the names of the states that comprise the region. Only when he mentioned the New England Patriots did she have a slight understanding of what he was talking about).

Still, he generally likes the people he’s forged relationships with and sees the value places like Cornerstone Church play in their lives. According to Taibbi, Cornerstone is where people can find community and a refuge from the world; a community of somewhat like-minded individuals who want help from God with their everyday problems (i.e., divorce, unemployment, family strife, and even buying things like a new car). The struggles and strife of everyday life need a psychological “vent,” and that’s where the pastors at Cornerstone do their part to channel all that frustration into things like speaking in tongues, publicly admitting childhood wounds, and an emphasis on the Christ of Revelations (i.e., the Jesus who kicks ass and takes names in the Second Coming, and not the hippie-anarchist in the Gospels). It’s a con; a con that the conned are aware of at some level, but buy into anyway. It’s based on a total submission to authority in exchange for membership, psychological protection from “the world,” but it also reinforces a siege mentality where the enemies (i.e. Liberals, environmentalists, gays, and Muslims) are constantly trying to destroy them.

What makes churches like Cornerstone so powerful is not just the control they exert over their “flock,” but also how connected they are to the U.S. government and Israel and use those connections to promote a particular political agenda during Sunday services. If you want a more anthropological look at how Christian Conservatives frame political issues, Taibbi’s book provides a revealing look.

The “Loony Left” gets its time in the spotlight, too. The 9/11 Truth Movement is not some fringe group, as Taibbi initially thought, but rather a rather vocal and energetic group who will not accept official reports about what happened on 9/11, instead clinging to things like one phrase in a PNAC (Project for a New American Century) report where it’s written that “a New Pearl Harbor” may be the catalyst for rebuilding U.S. defenses as proof there’s a vast conspiracy afoot. Taibbi examines the PNAC document and concludes that the recommendations made by the PNAC — which included reducing the size of the National Guard, reducing or eliminating the aircraft carrier program, reducing or eliminating the Joint Strike Fighter, and creating a global missile defense system (Reagan’s “Star Wars” program) — never took place after 9/11.

The number of people involved in this conspiracy to institute PNAC recommendations has become solidified in paranoid narrative among the 9/11 Truthers where not only the government but also the American financial sector was in on the plan — which includes the detonation of the World Trade Center buildings, the creation of hologram commercial jets that looked like they were hitting the building, and “secret” footage being kept in vault that shows what really happened. As Taibbi says:

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth Movement is that it’s based on the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq. At its heart, 9/11 Truth Movement is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable. Rather than admit their own powerlessness and irrelevance, or admit that they’ve spent the last fifty years or so electing leaders who openly handed their tax money to business cronies and golfed in Scotland while Middle America’s jobs were being sent overseas, the adherents to the 9/11 Truth Movement instead flatter themselves with fantasies about a ruling class obsessed with keeping the terrible truth from the watchful, exacting eye of the People.

It is exactly the spending of tax money by the government that undermines the quality of life for most Americans, as Taibbi illustrates in one of the best chapters, “Democrats Seize the Reign of the Derangement.” It is in this chapter where Taibbi’s prescient analysis of the pork-barrel politics of both parties make the whole brouhaha over “earmarks” for the Bridge to Nowhere so wonderfully clear — and why politicians can’t stop their addiction to money.

In 2006, the Democrats were able to become the majority party in both houses of Congress — but only a small majority. Stopping the war, pushing back at the changes Bush rammed through Congress, and a general revulsion at “earmarks” that fatten up bills and add more to the amount the federal government spends on programs were at the top of voter interests. What did the Democrats do? Well, they didn’t bother listening to the calls to end the war, and publicly touted they had crafted a “Continuing Resolution” (CR) in the budget that was “earmark-free.” The problem is, it wasn’t.

One of Taibbi’s friends in Congress (who used to work for Pete Domenici of New Mexico) was an expert at reading the complex and tortuous language that contained requests for “earmarks.” What exactly are earmarks? Simply put, they are budgeted items that are not proposed/requested by the Executive branch. They become part of the government budget when individual senators and representatives tack on the requests as part of budget negotiations on a particular bill. Earmarks are unregulated and are basically used to as payback to campaign contributors. The “Bridge to Nowhere” is highlighted because it was a $230 million example of the way in which senators like Ted Stevens — who was the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee — could do whatever he wanted when doling out money.

Earmarks are, as Taibbi said, “[L]ike a kid scribbling ice cream and cookie requests onto Mom’s shopping list.” Yeah, it’s that blatant. Bribery is illegal in the government, but when it’s done through campaign contributions for earmarks, well, that’s just business as usual — until someone points out the corruption. Once that’s done, then it’s a big PR campaign to demonstrate that the government is addressing problems, but not really doing anything but rearranging the deck so money can continue to have an effect on legislation. Or as Taibbi wrote: “You don’t elect politicians to commit crimes; you elect politicians to make your crimes legal.”

The Great Derangement is a depressing read, but Taibbi’s funny prose keeps the gallows humor front and center. He’s certainly pointing out the rot in the system and our own failings to pull our head out of our asses and start thinking more critically about issues that affect our lives. He does see some changes in the political terrain through the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul, John Edwards, and, to a lesser extent, Barack Obama (this book was “put to bed” in late 2007), but as we know now, our heads are rapidly going back up that orifice in our nether regions now that the presidential campaign is about lipstick, pigs, sexism, and terrorism. In short, we’re being bombarded with the same messages that keep us in those bubbles of derangement.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I think the scariest thing about modern religion in general is the extraction of agendas and how they're framed as being biblical. See, I believe in the teachings of Christ and I am a Christian, yet a lot of my fundamentalist friends see me as some backslidin' hardhead that can't get with the program.

    The program, as I see it, is a series of tollbooths placed between you and God – cloistered confessionals, belief that you're not forgiven until you've confessed to your spiritual guide, be it a priest, pastor, or even rabbi. For a Christian, Jesus died and was resurrected in order to break apart those tollbooths to have a direct communication with God, no more blood sacrifices, spiritual proxies and such…

    However, there's a lot of power to be wielded if you have Christ as your stabbing spear. You frame your candidate as God's own choice, your opponent as the Antichrist and forever assert that the United States is a Christian Nation of God's design, and people will pay attention to you even (if I'm correct) if that places your political figures and your country at the top of your list, making them false idols (oops, didn't think about that one, did you?)

    If one goes to the example of Jesus versus the bumper sticker version of him, you get a whole lot of things that make a whole lot of sense, and at the same time, a whole lot that our most prominent preachers are in direct violation of – pride, self-aggrandizement, an inability to “come down here” and “drink with the sinners and hang with the thieves”…

    Finally, one said “turn the other cheek” and another said, “fight, fight, fight and never stop fighting”… How Fundamentalist America reconciles those two philosophies into the current electorate choice baffles me.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    I gotta give Taibbi credit. He's pretty hard on everybody. I like that. His recent Rolling Stone piece, Candidates For Sale, condemns Obama and McCain as both likely servants of the same big campaign donors. It's the same money, the same machine, two different faces. Take your pick. Can McCain rise above that to instigate real reform? As a McCain voter, honestly that is nothing more than a leap of faith.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2221

    DwDunphy raises some great issues in his comment. He said it pretty well, so why repeat? One small point about the apparent disconnect between “turn the other cheek” and “fight, fight, fight.” It has to do with the difference between personal vengeance and national defense. If you believe the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament (I do), then it is clear God is no pacifist. “The LORD is a man of war,” says the book of Exodus. But justice and defense are to be carried out by the community and the nation, not individuals. Even the New Testament recognizes the government as “carrying the sword” as “ministers of God,” “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13) But personal vengeance is not allowed, in Old or New Testament. That may not solve the issue for DwDunphy, but this is the Fundamentalist basis for supporting law and order, and (at least in theory) for taking out evildoers like Al Qaeda and Saddam. It isn't mere jingoism, or at least for the Christian it shouldn't be.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Here's the problem though. The commandment to spread the Word to all the world is taken often as a spiritual right to wage war. It is not. In fact, the movement of “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war…” is more about saying your peace and, should the Spirit move the recipient, connecting. If the recipient is not obliging, you may die, as in war. Now that's just a hymn, but all through the New Testament, we are “To live as Christ, to die as gain…” We are absolutely supposed to turn the other cheek, even if that means losing our heads (scarily, you can take that literally.)

    So we face the ultimate contradiction: Yes, we must defend our borders against violent marauders. Still, we are called to meet them in their land as peacemakers and reconcilers, not as armies. I read that fairly explicitly as being diplomatic, not militaristic. By going to war with anyone who has not first assaulted us (re: Iraq, no matter how heinous Saddam was) we immediately contradict our Christian Nation status.

  • ozarkmatt

    This sounds like a great read. Like Dw, I have my beliefs, and they are not as “in tune” as some of the people I know, and they let me know it. I have had a running debate with a dear friend of mine for about two years about her hard core Catholicism. Or more accurately, my non-hard core Catholicism. But I hate to paint that broad brush of “modern religion.”

    I'll have to check this out.

    And, as an aside, the “Truthers” are nuts. . .

  • steve

    Earmarks are a big deal, and CNN has done some great fact checks. This could hurt Obama big time. Of the four names on the ticket, only McCain is clear of this BS that goes on. Obama & Biden have requested hundreds of millions in the Senate, and Palin has requested millions for Alaska. But forget Biden and Palin – we're really voting for Obama vs McCain and McCain is in the clear on this. He prides himself on having never requested one. CNN ran a report yesterday saying it's true. Actually I'm surprised he hasn't played this up more, since I think it could hurt Obama. I'm still voting Obama, but finding out about his earmark requests has pissed me off and I'd like to hear him address it and address this corruption. He need to walk the walk on this one.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    The Rolling Stone piece was quite good, but in the end, Taibbi is still smitten with Obama — mostly because Obama sounds like he really believes what he's saying on the stump.

    As far as violence and religion go … none of the major religions in the world are immune to being inconsistent in promoting peace and advocating violence, and that's probably because the duality of human nature is reflected in the texts.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    When you read the book, you'll see that while not all the Truthers are nuts, there is one major guy in the movement who is just insane — and Taibbi gets into it with him.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    I don't think Obama has been hiding from requesting earmarks. In a case of “I'll show you mine, if you show me yours” Obama was critical of Hillary Clinton during the primaries because she wouldn't reveal the earmarks she tucked into bills, while he did: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/1

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    And just a couple more for fun:

    Wall Street Journal has an interesting story on campaign claims and earmarks: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143893857134

    And CQ Politics looks at what constitutes pork barrel requests: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&d

  • mojo

    Excellent discussion.

    I like Taibbi, although sometimes I think he conceives himself as “Gonzo heir” or “Gonzo 2.0–less drugs, more sense.” Is that unfair?

    At any rate, having grown up in an old-skool Mennonite church where half the members walked out to form their own charismatic mega-church…and remembering how it divided families (real rage happened in kitchens and living rooms for months on end…Kurt Cobain had nothing over these people in the angst department) and crushed friendships…I find it hard to believe that they are some sort of uniting political force.

    These places–and I am not familiar with Cornerstone specifically, just in general terms–are kind of islands unto themselves.

    I am a hardcore lefty now. Unapologetically so, to the ire of some of the family back in Ohio.

    But sometimes I cry “BS” on my own kind when I smell conspiracy theories against either righties or lefties that don't ring true. I will have to read Taibbi's book now and judge for myself, but it just seems that it's easy for us to pile on the right sometimes and it smells a little like that is going on.

    Dw., excellent commentary here. I'm right there with you on most of your points.

    Meaningless aside: Am I the only one tired of the micro discussion of the candidates' positions and strategies? I mean, with me it boils down to Obama is 60/40 good-bad and McCain 40/60. Both will have to wear some amount of lipstick if you know what I mean. Personally I may come out a few dollars ahead voting for one or the other but to me the election is summarized thus: One man wants to build up people and the other wants to build up people's wallets. What kind of person are you?

    I think I know for whom Jesus would have me vote.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    I'm not asking anyone to accept it. I am just hopefully providing understanding of the concept for those who find the attitudes of Evangelicals a mystery. I might not have even explained it well, from their point of view. I only explained it from my point of view. :)

    As for Iraq, the intelligence was bad. Maybe other motives were bad. The plan was bad, or at least incomplete. Do you agree with the incursion in Afghanistan, though? Most Democrats seem to be saying they are/were unapologetically gung ho for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. I don't know what the position of the religious left is, even though I subscribed to Michael Lerner's Tikkun for a year. My guess is their response would be wave the white flag.

    (I hope that in the present day, no one is waging war to spread the gospel. That's not my impression.)

    I don't think there is any “negotiate” option with terror. We must continue to fight, but do it smarter. And cheaper. We simply can't afford what we're doing now.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    “One man wants to build up people and the other wants to build up people's wallets. What kind of person are you? “

    Build up people. Yes. Is government the tool to use for this job? Michelle Obama thinks there is a “hole in our souls.” And her husband is the only one who can “heal” us. Sorry, but that's not what government is about. I hope that's not what it is going to come to. That's rainbows and unicorns kind of talk. If that's the way it's going, our Republic is dead.

    In one sense, the question is kind of academic. We're heading into crisis. Which team will be better crisis managers? There ain't gonna be no building up wallets or people. It may come down to which one can help us avoid the most hurt. Which arrangement of deck chairs on this Titanic would you prefer?

  • mojo

    Wait, wait, is Michelle Obama on the ticket? I must not have been paying attention? Now I have to take her into consideration as well?

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I like Taibbi, but you're spot-on. He does fancy himself as Thompson's heir.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    On the stump, you're not going to get answers from either candidate besides a blurb here or a blowhard threat there (i.e., “Fire Chris Cox of the SEC). However, the debates may provide a glimpse of how well McCain and Obama will handle the current downward spiral.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I like Taibbi, but you're spot-on. He does fancy himself as Thompson's heir.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    On the stump, you're not going to get answers from either candidate besides a blurb here or a blowhard threat there (i.e., “Fire Chris Cox of the SEC). However, the debates may provide a glimpse of how well McCain and Obama will handle the current downward spiral.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    I'm not asking anyone to accept it. I am just hopefully providing understanding of the concept for those who find the attitudes of Evangelicals a mystery. I might not have even explained it well, from their point of view. I only explained it from my point of view. :)

    As for Iraq, the intelligence was bad. Maybe other motives were bad. The plan was bad, or at least incomplete. Do you agree with the incursion in Afghanistan, though? Most Democrats seem to be saying they are/were unapologetically gung ho for Afghanistan, but not Iraq. I don't know what the position of the religious left is, even though I subscribed to Michael Lerner's Tikkun for a year. My guess is their response would be wave the white flag.

    (I hope that in the present day, no one is waging war to spread the gospel. That's not my impression.)

    I don't think there is any “negotiate” option with terror. We must continue to fight, but do it smarter. And cheaper. We simply can't afford what we're doing now.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    “One man wants to build up people and the other wants to build up people's wallets. What kind of person are you? “

    Build up people. Yes. Is government the tool to use for this job? Michelle Obama thinks there is a “hole in our souls.” And her husband is the only one who can “heal” us. Sorry, but that's not what government is about. I hope that's not what it is going to come to. That's rainbows and unicorns kind of talk. If that's the way it's going, our Republic is dead.

    In one sense, the question is kind of academic. We're heading into crisis. Which team will be better crisis managers? There ain't gonna be no building up wallets or people. It may come down to which one can help us avoid the most hurt. Which arrangement of deck chairs on this Titanic would you prefer?

  • mojo

    Wait, wait, is Michelle Obama on the ticket? I must not have been paying attention? Now I have to take her into consideration as well?

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I like Taibbi, but you're spot-on. He does fancy himself as Thompson's heir.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    On the stump, you're not going to get answers from either candidate besides a blurb here or a blowhard threat there (i.e., “Fire Chris Cox of the SEC). However, the debates may provide a glimpse of how well McCain and Obama will handle the current downward spiral.