> -----Original Message----- > From: Davd Brin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PS... I really do want to drop all this. The > bitterness is not something one wisely sinks into with > an otherwise liekable band of fans. >
Ohh don't worry, we thrive on bitterness, partisan polemics and unjustified personal assaults on each others integrity, so its only fitting you join in now and then :) And its understood that none take it personally. It's a forum for healthy debate, which I an sure would contain less seeming rancour if we had it over a beer, rather them behind our disparate keyboards. > Still, I need to share the following. It is just a > draft and I ask you NOT to copy it elsewhere. An interesting and scary idea, my only comment would be that you could expand more on the destruction of personal freedoms and the basic principles of liberty and the right to privacy and free speech which such a candidate may find useful in undermining that which made America great. And the elimination of checks and balances on government power which has made it the the stable, sane, champion of democracy it is. Such a candidate may even find ways to halt the democratic process entirely, by postponing elections... Thankfully, as you say, its just a movie. > > Herein, I do NOT try for evenhandedness. We are long > past the genteel opposition I felt toward Goldwater & > Dole, or even Reagan and Nixon. > > The following is true at one level, or it is true at > another. > > Please thrive, all. And bless you all. > Pray for civilization... > > ==== > > > The Manchurian President > > > The coming remake of The Manchurian Candidate > (starring Denzel Washington in a role made famous by > Frank Sinatra, four decades ago) cannot help but > provoke disturbing thoughts. Given our penchant for > conspiracy theories and frantic rumors, what could be > more chilling during an election year than to imagine > some dark enemy design, aimed at planting a hostile > operative in the highest office of our land? Short of > an impacting asteroid, what could be worse than for a > secret foe, concealing a hidden agenda, to take over > the most powerful job on Earth? > Of course the scenario for The Manchurian Candidate > was distilled from the refined essence of paranoia > suffusing American life during the 1950s and 1960s, an > ambiance that was captured far more cogently, and > hilariously, by a spoof called The President's Analyst > (starring James Coburn.) Whether serious or satiric, > however, such tales generally rely on two cliches, so > overused by Hollywood that they have grown tedious. > First, assume villains that are competent to a > superhuman degree. > Second, portray the American people as a herd of > easily-manipulated sheep. > Take The Manchurian Candidate, for example. Having > achieved spectacular success at brain-washing - > leaping far beyond anything remotely grasped by the > scientifically advanced West - a tiny cabal of overseas > tyrants master the art of adeptly programming human minds, > just like computers, so well they can overcome all personal > inclinations, deeply-held values, and even survival > instincts. Then, in support of this premise, it is further > assumed that voters will reflexively fall prey to the scheme > by embracing a Trojan Horse candidate whose homely American > nostrums conceal a cynical agenda, one whose deeper goals run > counter to everything the people hold dear. > In the classic version of The Manchurian Candidate, > individual heroism (naturally) overcomes many > obstacles -- enemy brainwashing, the inertia of > officialdom, and the complacency of bleating masses -- > in order to foil infiltration by a mole into the > office of the Presidency. In the nick of time. > A happy ending then? Well, of course. > > But let's play a little mental game. Suppose such a > scenario ever came into play... and succeeded. By > what signs might we tell that an enemy agent had taken > over the highest office in our land? He certainly > would not announce it openly! > Remember that our system of laws, procedures, checks > and balances can severely hamper a President. We've > seen it stymie those with genuine and honorable > vision. It would certainly do the same to anyone > trying to wreak harm from within. Anything too > blatant would be noticed and blocked by tens of > thousands of good and wise men and women, from > politicians and civil servants to the highly educated > and imaginative members of our senior officer corps... > all the way to active citizens on the street. > When you stop and think about it, the task that our > mole would face is a daunting one, so let's make it a > fascinating mental exercise. How would you severely damage > the United States of America, assuming that you had in your > hands all of the reins of influence and power that radiate > from the Oval Office? > > Well, to start with, you would need to protect > yourself by covering all of your acts of sabotage with > theater. This calls for the best camouflage of all. > The flag. > Oh, certainly not all patriotism is the refuge of > scoundrels. (I always resented that aphorism.) > Indeed, most of it is honest and sincere, expressing > devoted love of both a united country and a vivid, > diverse people. On the other hand many scoundrels do > use a kind of indignant jingoism to shield themselves. > If you were the covert operative in question - our > Manchurian President - wouldn't you? > By the very logic of your mission, you must become > the biggest flag-waver of all. > > Under that shield, you would then proceed to undermine > American strengths and exploit our weaknesses, right? > So lets work our way down the list. > > Military preparedness would have to be your number > one target. Without question you must reduce the > readiness of US armed forces. > But how? With so many skilled and perceptive > officers, officials and legislators watching - > constantly striving in the opposite direction - there > is only one way that a President could quickly and > effectively sabotage America's defensive strength... > ...by ordering the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines > into a series of draining adventures, expending > stores, scattering divisions, withdrawing brigades > from strategic positions, using up reserves, eroding > morale, dissipating unit cohesion and generally > ensuring that the military is less ready for a sudden > crisis than at any point since Pearl Harbor. > If a "Manchurian" president were in office, that is > certainly high on the list of things he would do. > > Next? Well it would also be crucial to undermine > alliances. > After all, what good is it to weaken American > readiness if dozens of doughty and loyal friends are > prepared to step up, standing shoulder-to-shoulder > with us whenever we need them? Our nation earned > that loyalty the hard way, and not only with past > courage or sacrifice. Allied friendships were nurtured > by generations of hero-diplomats like George Marshall, > who labored patiently, listening to others with > heedful respect instead of hectoring insistently. > Because of their efforts, a reserve of goodwill toward > America runs very deep. > But never fear. It is well within your power, as > leader of the Free World, to corrode it all away, > turning America into a bogey man in the eyes of much > of the world. You can begin by mocking foreign > leaders, inflaming overseas public opinion, and making > shrill demands based on flimsy evidence, insisting > that your policy prevail without compromise, then > striving relentlessly to exasperate, irritate and > sicken those who formerly trusted us. > The effect overseas will be more immediate on the > young, planting poison seeds for the future. But older > folk... and even the British... might be driven off > with the right technique -- for example by playing the > super-patriotism card at home, chanting triumphalism > reminiscent of the Pax Brittanica rallies of 1912, while > ridiculing and blaming our incensed allies for every setback. > > Okay, your initial acts of "manchurian candidate" > sabotage are obvious. You have weakened American > readiness, power and moral authority in the world. > What next? > > Well, how about the U.S. economy ? Its engine > stimulated the world for three generations, pioneering > new technologies and new industries while lifting > Europe and most of Asia into a new age. That must > stop. But how? > Well, first you must encourage spendthrift ways. > Ending all hope of budgetary restraint, you'll foster > gigantic deficits, and give most of the money to a > narrow social elite who are the very least likely to > spend it on anything other than competing to rise > higher on the Forbes 400 List. And if this ploy > eventually leads to class warfare, as it almost did 70 > years ago? All the better. > > By all means, do whatever you can to undermine small > business. That driver of creativity has to go, of > course. And so does energy independence. You would > do everything in your power to discourage research and > development of alternative or renewable sources, or > (especially) conservation. The more dependent we > become on foreign oil, the better. Especially, you > would favor dependence on certain oil-rich countries > that teach their young to hate and destroy us. Turn > our self-indulgence into their bankroll, by all means. > > > Of course, none of this damage will be anywhere near > enough. Americans are agile, diverse and inquisitive. > We tend to seek pragmatic solutions among ourselves, > even... especially... when government obstructs. This > was demonstrated on September 11, 2001, a day when > every important measure that proved effective against > evil was achieved by private individuals, acting > independently and in ad hoc groups, with the kind of > self-reliant resiliency that has been a hallmark of our > culture. (See: > http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowe > rment.htm) > Above all, a way must be found to stymie the American > genius at finding practical and consensus solutions, > the way we wrestled and dealt with vexing issues like > racism, and have begun handling threats to the > environment. The way we keep inventing new businesses > and new creative ventures. > Fortunately -- for our Manchurian Candidate > president -- there is a solution. > > Polarization. You can split us apart. Divide us. > Set us at each others' throats. > Use outdated, silly metaphors - like the archaic and > stupid left-vs-right political axis, a piece of > ill-defined rubbish inherited from the 1789 French > Assembly. In concert with your worst adversaries, > promote ideology as a substitute for discourse. > Within Congress, extol partisan obstinacy and bilious > hatred to replace deliberation. Use surrogates to > spread oversimplifications, so that both sides wind up > screaming at strawman caricatures, instead of honestly > negotiating while looking the other guy in the eye. > By claiming a mandate when you had none, you may get > your followers to head down the all-or-nothing road > that divides and weakens great nations, instead of > uniting them toward common goals. > > Oh, I could go on. So could you, I bet. There are > dozens of ways that a planted agent could deliberately > use the powers of the Oval Office to help undermine > this incredible civilization, sapping its strengths > and exposing its weaknesses. > You might even help to spread a millennialist belief > that we are approaching a prophesied End Of Days, so > why bother thinking about the next decade or century, > since none of our children will reach old-age, anyway? > Whether or not they are "left behid." > Talk about a confidence-destroying, downer message! > One that undermines the deepest American notion of a > brighter future, built by the effort of all hands. > But then, even the Manchurian Candidate scenario has > its limits. What U.S. President would dare to openly > declare such a belief? > No, that's tipping over from science fiction into > pure fantasy. It couldn't happen. > Could it? > > Of course, this whole mental exercise has only been a > bit of fun. A day dream, taking off from the theme of > a summer film -- the remake of a paranoid classic. > Anyway, if a president did all of these things, he'd > get caught, right? > People would surely notice. > > So call it a mere what-if fable, suitable for > Hollywood. Certainly no more plausible than any of > the other weird premises that spin out of that Capital > of Myths, where actors routinely become governors > and... well... presidents. > But loyal ones. > Whatever else you might say... those actors were > loyal. > > As for the Manchurian Candidate scenario, well, it > can't really happen, after all. > Not here. > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
