"Not much has changed since the 1950s"

Gosh, Mr. Bones, what a stable jungle it is out there in Tertiary Education! "Not much has changed since" about the time when Aristotle or Bacon or somebody wrote the Gorgias of Plato. Here's Dr. Kettel reviewing Professor Pott's book Total Cold War: Eisenhower’s Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad, a bit of e-flotsam that just washed ashore over chez Ardvaark :

Not surprisingly, [Prof. Pott] concludes, 'Virtually every aspect of American life—from political organizations and philosophical ideals, to cultural products and scientific achievements, to economic practices and social relationships—was exposed to scrutiny in this total contest for the hearts and minds of the world’s peoples.' Not much has changed since the 1950s. [Affirms Dr. Kettel.] Like the Cold War, the American war in Iraq must be fought on all fronts if it is to have any chance of success."

I should think Dr. Kettel's modus operandi will be found a bit off-putting by anybody who still likes Ike. The distinguished golf enthusiast of yesteryear almost vanishes into the sandtraps of GOP-assisted Mesopotamia, a striking feature of the modern international landscape, no doubt, yet also one that dates only from the fourth decade after General Eisenhower's funeral. On the other hand, students of hyperpowerful prosurgency must think it odd and probably displeasing to have to listen to so much about the 1950's in order to learn about Dr. Gen. Petraeus and Party Proconsul Crocker.

Kettel is around the bend and out of sight altogether if she[1] thinks that to narrate one of her not-much-changèdnesses is as good as to narrate the other. Never mind that, though; it is dementation enough to be getting on with that anybody thinks the case of Eisenhower v. Stalin et al. strongly comparable to the extremist Republicans’ now War on Global Tourism.

On the other hand, Dr. Kettel scribbles as if she has some definite notion what the phrase "any chance of success" means in conjunction with Peaceful Freedumbia, a mystery that defeats ordinary mortals. What promises does she extend to Boy and Party and Ideology, then, in return for fightin’ on all fronts?

Oddly enough, she doesn't ever exactly say. Oddly enough.

Whether she says anything final even about Ike is hard to tell. What do you think, sir, of the Kettelian peroration?

[Dr. Pott's] is an excellent book. Unlike many histories, it presents tangible lessons for today’s world. In this sense, it offers is a cautionary note for psychological warriors in Iraq. Propaganda and psychological warfare operations are rarely enough. As the Jackson Committee pointed out in 1953, “Mere words [can] only accomplish so much; they need to be harmonized with deeds…. [What the U.S. does] will continue to be vastly more important than what [they] say.” [2] So while Eisenhower Administration successfully executed a coherent propaganda campaign, “where every man became an ambassador”, American deeds did not always live up to the rhetoric. Indeed, I believe that the success of Ike’s psychological campaign probably contributed, in part, to the disillusionment with American foreign policy that occurred in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. In the Cold War world, American actions never lived up to the ideals that it advertised. Thus in no small measure the Eisenhower Administration’s propaganda can be understood, in part, as the architect of “America’s” demise.[3] It sold the American people and the international community an image, which included— “protecting the rights of the individual, limiting the power of the state, extending the benefits of capitalist production to all, and advancing the principals of freedom and democracy” — images that were impossible to maintain in the face of perceived strategic interests. Then and now, it is important that the U.S. government not promise more than it can deliver.

Any puzzle fan would be happy to stumble across that passage. Ike "successfully executed a coherent propaganda campaign" but failed to attain some larger, meta-Goebbelsian objective, which remains shrouded in impenetrable mist and darkness -- unless, indeed, the Ultimate Objective amounted to no more than really bein’ as wunnerful as the Ike GOP made Wunnerful US out. The lady believes, or pretends to believe, "that the success of Ike’s psychological campaign probably contributed, in part, to the disillusionment with American foreign policy that occurred in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate." That looks like more cause-follows-effect anachronism, but since Dr. Kettel did stick in "in part" proviso, one is at liberty to suppose that she considers Vietnam and Watergate to have had something to do with "the disillusionment with American foreign policy that occurred in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate." She does not actually affirm that wild and crazy proposition, but her language is patient of being interpreted so.

Meanwhile, over in the bushogenic sandtraps of 1429/2008, where "not much has changed since the 1950s," can it be that all those military and civilian operatives of Republican Party extremism struggle in the path of "protecting the rights of the individual, limiting the power of the state, extending the benefits of capitalist production to all, and advancing the principals [sic] of freedom and democracy"? There is little good to be spoken of the Big Management Party stumblebums, but all the same it is shamelessly unwarrantable defamation to accuse them of such behaviour as that![4]


____
[1] "Review by Sarah-Jane Corke, Dalhousie University" (The lady is attached to a Department of History , although her mindset seems blatantly social-scientistic.)


[2] "United States" still construed as a plural in Century XV/XXI? Wow, talk about "provincial archaism"!


[3] Exaggerated rumours on this score must be current in darkest New Scotland.


[4] That condemnation can be mitigated around the edges a little in two respects. (1) A certain sort of concern for "the rights of the individual" is responsible for that wretched botch of a Khalílzád Konstitution, and (2) the AEIdeological squad certainly wanted to "extend the benefits of capitalist production to all" of the Occupyin’ Party's neo-Iraqi subjects, though they signally to achieve anythin’ much beyond an inundation of cellular telephones.

Both of these faint silver linings to the aggression are to some extend what Prof. Kaufman used to call ‘mischievements’ -- the Konstitution being perhaps the single most serious obstacle to political pacification of the indigs, and the cell phones an obvious boon for developers of IED's.

Alternatively, an Aynrandite or Nozickian doctrinaire might praise the Big Party stumblebums for havin’ done an excellent job of "limiting the power of the state" -- especially thanks to that same amazin’ Konstitution! -- tactfully omitting to mention that they're sorry now they did it.