Credit: Creative Commons
I will leave it to trained historians to figure out which presidents and first ladies would fall into the category of “Couple-in-Chief for the Exploitation of Wounded Soldiers for Political Gain.”
For now, I nominate Barack and Michelle.
At the close of his 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama drew the attention to Sergeant Corey Remsberg, who received severe brain injuries from a roadside bomb on his 10th tour in the war in Afghanistan – a war most Americans categorically reject, much less wish to get paid for. Mr. Remsberg, seated next to First Lady Michelle Obama, received a two minute standing ovation – the longest during the whole state of the union speech – from the very members of Congress who, year after year, fund the for-pay U.S.military enlistment system, which entices some young men like Mr. Remsberg to engage in state-directed violence, not to defend the country from real threat, or serve as foreign peacekeepers, but mainly to line the pockets of the bigwigs in the military-industrial-complex.
The question I’d like to ask is this: Putting aside the obvious gains that the CEOs et al. of the military-industrial-complex are receiving from the feigned affection of members of Congress for wounded soldiers, what do average Americans get out of this form of false worship of any humans, particularly the false worship recipients du jour, namely this for-pay soldiery that keeps us locked in pointless wars and, in turn, skews our sense of global realities?
Below is an essay I wrote after Michelle Obama’s speech at the 2012 DNC convention, in which the First Lady of the United States made, in my view, some extremely manipulative remarks about U.S. soldiers returning from combat.
Old habits die hard, as the 2014 State of the Union address has proven. In this case, the now very old habit is that of the first couple exploiting wounded returning soldiers as a deliberate political means to shore up their “patriotism brand.”
Here’s the piece from summer 2012:
Filling Up Our Senses With Senselessness
In his classic 1974 single Annie’s Song, the late John Denver drew vivid portraits of nature to describe his love for his wife, Annie:
“You fill up my senses like a night in a forest
Like the mountains in spring time
Like a walk in the rain
Like a storm in the desert
Like a sleepy blue ocean”
John Denver in nature. Credit: Creative Commons
The poetry reaches its climax with “Come let me love you, Come love me again.” If ever there was ever an American song to make you appreciate love and senses in life’s sadder moments, it’s Annie’s Song.
Reflecting upon First Lady Michelle Obama’s speech to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, memories of Annie’s Song came flooding back, precisely because the “American spirit” the First Lady was describing went in the polar opposite direction of the spirit of Annie’s Song.
Speaking about the so-called American spirit of “service and sacrifice” Michelle Obama told the convention, “I’ve seen it in our men and women in uniform and our proud military families…in wounded warriors who tell me they’re not just going to walk again, they’re going to run, and they’re going to run marathons.”
Alright, so maybe her husband did not turn out to be the peacemaker many Americans had hoped he would be, but certainly, using her platform before the nation to give praise to paralyzed soldiers confident they will walk again, one could set aside the disappointments and simply appreciate the indomitable American spirits of the wounded soldiers Michelle Obama spoke of. Then came the stunner, sordid and twisted as it was revelatory about our times.
Mrs. Obama said she found the American spirit, “in the young man blinded by a bomb in Afghanistan who said, simply, ‘…I’d give my eyes 100 times again to have the chance to do what I have done and what I can still do.’
How did one’s sacrifice of one of their senses, in this case sight, for a war that most Americans want absolutely nothing to do with, come to define the “American spirit” itself, at least according to the First Lady of the United States?
The senses, like rights themselves, come from the Creator, however one chooses to define the Creator. The senses are sacred, a choreography designed by God not only to guide our way in the world, but to enable us to witness the majesty of creation – mountains in springtime, deep blue oceans, or John Denver’s voice and guitar.
That any grown man or woman, a political figure or not, would characterize a young man’s loss of one of his senses through violence, in this case war, as anything other than a profound tragedy is deeply disturbing.
We have all known or know of people who have been dealt the horrible blow of losing one of their senses, from natural occurrences, accidents, or through violence, and who then manage, both practically and psychologically, to triumph over the loss. The life story of Helen Keller epitomizes that triumph.
Helen Keller as a young woman. Credit: Creative Commons
The young soldier Michelle Obama referenced in her convention speech certainly has every right to conclude that the war in Afghanistan was worth the loss of his sight, and still is worth that loss – a hundred times over. It ought to go without saying that neither that soldier, nor Michelle Obama, has any right to actually foist that formulation onto the rest of us and our lives, be we soldiers or not. But unfortunately, in these twisted times, from a cultural standpoint, it is no longer so clear-cut.
While not deliberately foisting the sight-for-war spirit onto us, without question, Michelle Obama, as First Lady of the United States, intended to give her imprimatur to that very spirit, and by extension the president’s as well.
Americans would do well to think more deeply before applauding, let alone embracing, this kind of imprimatur.
The question must be asked: Is the very definition of what we call the American spirit undergoing a major transformation right before our eyes, owing precisely to the hemorrhaging violence at home and abroad? It certainly seems that way, and it certainly seems that intrinsic to this new American spirit is the idea that Creator-given senses are a fair trade for personal and national pride.
In the last century, one American legend, John Denver, utilized his senses to the fullest, and in so doing elevated the consciousness of all who heard him bearing witness to the profundity of creation and the human experience. Another American legend, Helen Keller, stripped of her senses by nature, overcame her obstacles and bore witness to the profundity of creation and the human experience by becoming a peace and human rights activist.
The American spirit that defined those two American legends of the last century is, frankly, being replaced by a spirit of belligerence and pride, even stupidity.
Shifts in cultural trends, or spirits, take time. Here’s a good test for whether you have adopted the new American spirit:
Are you more emotionally moved by the tears of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ congressional colleagues as they talk about her progress after the Tucson massacre than you are frustrated with their constant kowtowing to the N.R.A. and its followers? If so, chances are you have already adopted the new American spirit articulated by Michelle Obama: namely, looking for valor in the violence suffered by others, all while accepting the same legal, constitutional, and cultural frameworks that led to the violence in the first place.
The new American spirit is, in a word, senseless. Indeed, it takes an awful lot of senselessness to valorize the needless death of the senses.
_
This song, and the man, need no introduction:
[youtube: video=HkGS263lGsQ]
Mountains in springtime. Credit: Creative Commons
That “American spirit” isn’t “new” its as old as the nation and its called “manifest destiny”—a toxic “savior complex” that justifies injustice…..
Dear Anon,
Without knowing more about your philosophy, I would generally share your sentiments about Manifest Destiny. And like many folks, I try to reconcile the enjoyment of our God-given blessings of this beautiful world, including the U.S., with past historical injustices – like genocides and the injustices inflicted on Native Americans for centuries.
What is striking about Barack and Michelle’s exploitation of wounded soldiers is how anti-liberal it is: it pushes public consciousness in a direction that degrades, instead of uplift, the universal sanctity of human life. War should always, always be a method of last resort. And that simply will not happen so long as hundreds of thousands of young Americans are willing to take a paycheck to engage in wars that the rest of the populace has already deemed unjust, wasteful, and pointless.
Moreover, this current military status quo, and its drain on just about everything, is in my view distorting our international moral obligations to protect innocent civilians from brutal dictators, like Bashar al-Assad who is, as we speak, using starvation techniques on the Syrian population.
That we would turn a blind-eye to that reality, rejecting even a no-fly zone strategy on Assad’s forces to help international aid workers get the food and medicine to the people, is proof positive that the ulitmate effects of the for-pay soldiery is totally skewing our sense of moral responsibility – at home and abroad.
I do not believe that to point out the problems to which Mr. Villareal refers is necessarily to deny or demean either the courage of soldiers as they face the horrors of combat, or the sincerity of the Obamas as they seek to recognize that courage.
But where is the two-minute ovation for, say, a Department of Peace? Our priorities are indeed terribly unbalanced, and the results of that lack of balance are cascading down on our heads.
There is an old saying: “The only sin is ignorance.” We are almost entirely ignorant about the most important questions in life: “What am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going? What’s going on?” Lacking that essential information we blunder on with exponentially increasing power to affect each other and our environment until we reach the state we’re in today.
It’s time to awaken to the fact that we can answer these Four Great Questions, and that the answers are wonderful. As is the role that the United States of America can still play in that awakening. Should it be of interest, for more thoughts on this matter see “Of Thee I Sing; The American Experiment and How It Can Still Succeed” (Google it).
Dear Mr. Childs,
As far as I know, the Department of Peace idea was first proposed by former congressman and presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich.
I share the sentiment, but we as a citizenry already have two very under-utilized tools to push for peace: the U.S. State Department, and even more fundamentally, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which enables us to think about, and speak about, the sociological factors that lead to unjust war – namely, like the political class’ rank exploitation of the for-pay soldiery, and how it is we, regular citizens, who give a moral pass to young men risking their lives, limbs, senses, and mental health for wars the vast, vast majority of us, rightly, won’t touch with a ten foot pole.
Make no mistake: WE, along with Barack and Michelle, are the ones who demean them by giving such moral pass. And to cover up for our own truly chronic degradation of the sanctity of the lives of these young men and women, we pull out the flags, do the standing ovations, the “We support our troops” mantras, etc. etc.
What we should be telliing these young men and women is that their lives are sacred, a precious gift from God Almighty. So too are the lives of all the innocent civilians who have been killed in the pointless wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.
God wants all of his children to live in the valley of love and delight, not give each other medals for killing each other in combat. For pete’s sake.
Pete Seeger? Amen!
Dear Mr. Childs,
That really wasn’t what I meant, but I understand your point.
I think it’s always a fine line between drawing inspiration from the deceased, and stating that he/she would support your own point of view. For example, I have no idea if John Denver or Helen Keller would agree with my take on the dangers of the for-pay soldiery of current times, or to stop Bashar al-Assad from slaughtering the people of Syria, or any other matters.
All we can do is draw upon the deposit of love and generosity that they left us, put it into our hearts, and go from there. Folks are already doing that with their remembrances of Pete Seeger.
That said, it’s not just famous singers whose memories we must draw upon: it’s the non-famous masses, like 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, whose deposit must always dwell in our hearts as well, as we cope with the realities of the world.
“…is in my view distorting our international moral obligations to protect innocent civilians from brutal dictators, like Bashar al-Assad who is, as we speak, using starvation techniques on the Syrian population.”
—perhaps you too have unknowingly bought into the toxic savior complex….Yes Asad, Saddam and plenty of others were/are bad—no more or less than the U.S. -(U.S. sanctions that killed and starved almost half a million Iraqi Children—or the disaster in Falluja where Depleted Uranium use is causing deformities and cancers in children as we speak!!!) What gives the U.S. or its people any moral right to go about condemning others? Before going about “saving” others—perhaps it might be of benefit to the whole world if America cleaned up its own house first?
What is so toxic about a savoir complex? The premise that there is a VICTIM.
A Savior paradigm splits the scenario between a hero/savior (who is intelligent, has all the solutions and is powerful) and a VICTIM who is helpless, powerless, and cannot chart its own destiny. That is why the “Afghan girl” was so iconic—the perfect image of the helpless victim in need of saving. So what does the heroic U.S. do…?… goes in with guns ablaze killing all and sundry in order to “save” a supposed victim!!!
The better way—-Is to acknowledge that all human beings have the right, the means, and the intelligence to chart their own destiny and find the solutions that are right for them. This means MUTUAL RESPECT. There is no hero and victim. Human beings acknowledge their brotherhood and help to empower each other for the pursuit of justice.
The shift from a savior complex, which has emotional appeal, to one based on mutual respect is not an easy one because it means giving up being the hero—giving up feeling good/less guilty about oneself by judging and condemning others. It means giving up the delusion that “yes we were bad—but they are worse”!. —but there is a better way…….
Dear Mr. Anon,
With all due respect to you as a human being, your entire thought process, if taken to its logical conclusion, would, in a historical context, read very much like this:
Because in the 1930′ and 1940’s the U.S. government, namely Congress and President Roosevelt, failed to rescue European Jews from the Third Reich, there is no moral distinction to be made whatsoever between the German and U.S. governments of that time period.
Perhaps some would agree with your moral assessment.
The rest of us would not agree and, in fact, are glad that we – apologies for being trite – are not speaking German right now.
As concerns your reference to Syria and Bashar al-Assad, I have a rather modern suggestion:
When Syrian men, women and children are being gassed with sarin gas, burned with napalm bombs, and starved to death by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and begging for the world to intervene and help them, send them a text message from your cell phone that reads a little somethin’ like this:
“Hey you Syrian people, I got a C+ in my Psych 101 class last semester, so don’t come cryin’ to me with all your damn sorrows. I’m so, so totally above and beyond that petty mental complex that we all know is called the savior complex. So, #*%* off, you Syrian people, and start scramblin’ for your little bread crumbs the best you can. Meantime, don’t come a blamin’ me for your sarin gas and napalm problems. That’s your freakin’ business, not mine, even though I’m a firm, firm, and very strong, believer in that principle called mutual respect.”
Third Reich—Not sure what you mean here, but I agree that both Germans and Americans are human beings—regardless of the different self-appointed labels of “German” or “American”—that means a person (human being) is both good and also bad. Yes, Germans mistreated their own people—and Americans also mistreated their own people (Native Americans and African Americans) One might argue the degree was different—which is true—but doesn’t change the fact that human beings can be bad…..but they can also be good. (for example, affirmative action programs in America attempted to rectify some of the injustices….as did the Nuremberg trials…..)
The Syrian people are also human beings—that they are suffering does not give anyone else the right to chart their destiny for them—by pretending to solutions. However, that also does not mean that one has to stand by and watch either. Mutual respect means empowering the people to chart their own destiny….just as you would want for yourself. But that means one has to stop seeing them as helpless and therefore in need of your help—and instead, giving them the respect as human beings that they have the dignity and the right to chart their own destiny and to come up with solutions that are right for them…even if that means it will lead to more struggle in Syria. Democracy did not come easily in the West either—if you recall.
Weapons of war—So are you saying that it is OK for Americans to use weapons of war and/or commit atrocities during war but not anyone else? or perhaps you are under the impression that Iraqi and Afghani people were having fun during the U.S. invasion? If you are concerned with weapons of war and their use—then work within your country to curtail the power of the military-industrial complex so that weapons of war are not exported to other countries…….Make it so there are international treaties so that the weapons manufacturing countries do not export their toys either….Economies need to be de-linked from war—as long as both the production and export of military products remain an important part of economic indicators—their sale will continue…. such long term solutions, will be better—even though it will not end conflict (because that is human nature)
It is natural to feel good when helping those already suffering—-but there is little recognition for those who go about trying to prevent suffering (unless one is a Mandela or Gandhi). Human beings have a lot of capacity for good and the creativity and imagination to come up with lasting solutions if we use our intelligence instead of our emotions—the feel-good savior complex is simply an ego trip.
Emotions are a core part of what makes us human. Given your quite obvious disdain for emotions, and simultaneous focus on what you perceive to be intelligence, you have no interest in being human, but rather something of a superhuman.
Oddly enough, you don’t seem to know what the Third Reich is. And yet, your pat commentary on pacifism notwithstanding, you’d fit right in.