Mendacity as "Hidden Truth"

Some subjects have become so completely surrounded by emotional clouds they cannot be discussed without arousing suspicions of mendacity (in one of its forms). Just take a look at poor Joe Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut. He faces almost certain defeat in the Democratic Party's primary next week, and the man who will win that election is -- in my opinion -- not quite half the man Joe Lieberman is.

Now you might think Joe's losing has something to do with a broad disregard on his part of liberal principles, but that's not so. He's voted the party line 90% of the time, opposing the president's programs right down the line. He voted against the current occupant's tax cuts for the wealthy, against the CO's attempts to "privatize" Social Security, and against . . . well, against everything the CO has tried to foist on the American people as "good" policy . . . everything, that is, except the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman has stood shoulder to shoulder with the CO and his flock of neocon henchmen on that debacle. And that's why Joe's gonna lose.

I haven't listened as carefully as I might have to the way Joe explains his stand on this issue that is so unpopular with Democrats, but from what I have heard he has been just as uncommunicative as the administration. He has mentioned the "war on terrorism," the virtue of "staying the course," and "stabilizing the middle east," the same drivel we've heard from Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the various press secretaries hired by the CO. Joe could have done it differently. He could have admitted that a victory in Iraq would go a long way toward shoring up the backside of Israel's defenses. A strong American presence in Iraq would severely disrupt the lines of communication and supply between Iran and its allies, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. Joe could have explained himself on the war by simply taking a pro-Israel position.

This stand would have taken the high ground away from his opponent. He could have made the case that for him, a Jew, to turn his back on a strategy that might save Israel as a nation would have been to betray his faith in God. With clever phrasing, he could have shown how he could understand other people's feelings about the war, but that the stand he has taken was the only one possible for him as a Jew and as a man.

But you see, Joe could not take that position without running a two-fold risk, one, that the inbred anti-semitism of the fundamentalist American people would be brought out into the open, and the war then would be opposed for a more-or-less ignoble (and thus more effective) reason; and two, that he, like the CO, would be labelled -- perhaps justifiably -- as a man parading his religious persuasions as a political ploy. But more importantly, he couldn't take this approach because it just ain't done. We do not do or say anything that might call into question our commitment to Israel.

Forget it that the reason Israel exists as "Israel" and not "Palestine" traces to an old book in which the "God" of a nomadic tribe granted them a piece of already-occupied real estate. Forget it that Israel exists because a guilt-ridden bunch of delegates to the UN, having "permitted" Germany to slaughter 6,000,000 Jews decided to follow through on "God's" orders and, once again, give the persecuted Jews a land occupied by others. Forget it that Israel is stolen land. Weren't the crusades designed to steal the same land from the Muslims and give it to Christians? Theft is not unjust when it can be justified as "the will of God" or "manifest destiny." (I saw that last one trudged out last week in the local paper as justification for the Tex-Mex war and other land grabs perpetrated on the Mexican people who are now illegal immigrants on the land grabbed from them.)

We can forget anything we choose to forget when the fogetting fits neatly into our idea of "the world as it ought to be." We've burnt witches, chopped the toes off runaway slaves, shot labor organizers and their wives and children, and"relocated" whole nations of Native Americans. No big deal. We even put up for three years or so with the lies and distortions of Joe McCarthy, not doubting him for a minute until he stepped over the line and questioned the patriotism of the US Army itself. We can abide horror so long as we call it by a more palatable name.

Joe can't be a Jew and an American at the same time. That's not necessarily a fact fact, but it is a political fact. The people of Connecticut -- good Americans all -- will never let Joe's allegiance to his "foreign" religion work as a justification for his unpopular stand on the war. Hey, I think the war's a shitbag, too. I also understand exactly why Joe Lieberman disagrees. It just doesn't seem fair to judge a loyal and experienced Democrat on this one issue, when his atand can be understood as a religious affair. For the life of me, I cannot see how the people of any liberal state cannot see it the same way. But maybe that's just me, and "they" won't let me vote in Connecticut anyhow.