REVISITING "AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM:" HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI (an August 5, 2017 repost)

Harry Targ

Continued study and research into the origins of the folk music of various peoples in many parts of the world revealed that there is a world body-a universal body-of folk music based upon a universal pentatonic (five tone) scale. Interested as I am in the universality of (hu)mankind-in the fundamental relationship of all peoples to one another-this idea of a universal body of music intrigued me, and I pursed it along many fascinating paths. Paul Robeson, Here I Stand, 1959.

America’s destiny required the U.S. “…to set the world its example of right and honor…We cannot retreat from any soil where providence has unfurled our banner. It is ours to save that soil, for liberty, and civilization….It is elemental...it is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth.” Senator Albert Beveridge, Indiana, Congressional Record, 56 Congress, I Session, pp.704-712, 1898).

In these early August days we reflect on the decision to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. The official explanation for the use of these horrific new weapons was that they were required to end the World War in Asia. But subsequent historical research has indicated that the United States chose to drop the bombs to threaten the former Soviet Union and as a result to facilitate the United States construction of a post-war world order that would maximize its economic and political vision.

United States foreign policy over the last 150 years has been a reflection of many forces including economics, politics, militarism and the desire to control territory. The most important idea used by each presidential administration to gain support from the citizenry for the pursuit of empire is the claim that America is “exceptional”. 

Think about the view of “the city on the hill” articulated by Puritan ancestors who claimed that they were creating a social experiment that would inspire the world. Over three hundred years later President Reagan again spoke of “the city on the hill.” Or one can recall public addresses by turn of the twentieth century luminaries such as former President Theodore Roosevelt who claimed that the white race from Europe and North America was civilizing the peoples of what we would now call the Global South.  Or Indiana Senator Beveridge’s clear statement: “It is elemental….It is racial.” From the proclamation of the new nation’s special purpose in Puritan America, to Ronald Reagan’s reiteration of the idea, to similar claims by virtually all politicians of all political affiliations, Americans hear over and over that we are different, special, and a shining example of public virtue that all other peoples should use as their guide for building a better society and polity.

However, the United States has been involved in wars for 201 years from 1776 to 2011. Ten million indigenous people had been exterminated as the “new” nation moved westward between the 17th and the 20th centuries and at least 10 million people were killed, mostly from developing countries, between 1945 and 2010 in wars in which the United States had some role. In addition, world affairs was transformed by the use of the two atomic bombs; one dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 instantly killing 80,000 people and the other on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 killing another 70,000.

Comparing the image of exceptionalism with the domestic reality of American life suggests stark contrasts as well: continuous and growing gaps between rich and poor, inadequate nutrition and health care for significant portions of the population, massive domestic gun violence, and inadequate access to the best education that the society has the capacity to provide to all. Of course, the United States was a slave society for over 200 years formally racially segregated for another 100, and now incarcerates 15 percent of African American men in their twenties.

Although, the United States is not the only country that has a history of imperialism, exploitation, violence, and racism US citizens should understand that its foreign policy and economic and political system are not exceptional and must be changed.

Finally, a better future and the survival of humanity require a realization, as Paul Robeson suggested, that what is precious about all people is not their differences but their commonalities. Exceptionalist thinking separates people and facilitates decisions like the dropping of the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sharing what we have in common as human beings, both our troubles and our talents, is the only basis for creating a peaceful and just world.

Indiana Lt. Governor Attacks Diversity At a Major University

 Harry Targ

 

 The Lt. Governor Micah Beckwith posted on July 30 the following as part of his ideological and religious fundamentalist  critique of Purdue University:

“Received this from a potential Purdue University parent after their tour of the campus. Why are state schools in Indiana the worst?? Do yourself a favor, send your kids to Hillsdale College where woke indoctrination won’t happen. “Just got done with my kids Purdue tour. They made a point to include the cultural clubs “including the award winning LGBTQ club” in the main video. Then on tour had to point out their diversity tree. Then one of the Muslim guides made sure to proudly mention that she was part of the MSA Muslim student org. Had to explain to my kid that’s the org that caused all of the violence and hate on campuses everywhere. I hate colleges altogether I think.” https://www.reddit.com/r/Purdue/comments/1vb0w2x/lt_governor_beckwith_attacks_purdue_today/

What the Lt. Governor Does Not Know About Purdue University History

Purdue University is a Big Ten university, a land grant institution and one of two large and well-known public universities in the state of Indiana (there are several public and private universities in the state). It has been known historically for strong programs in agriculture and engineering.  To its credit and largely because of the nationwide ferment in the 1960s the university committed itself to create vibrant programs in other disciplines, many in the College of Liberal Arts.

Among the many programs developed over the last fifty years, many of which were destroyed by the current executive and legislative branches in Indiana, included a nationally recognized graduate program in American Studies, important programs, both undergraduate and graduate in African American and Gender and Women’s Studies, and programs of excellence in research and teaching in English, History, Sociology, Political Science, Philosophy, Communications, and Psychology, just to name a few. And even students who came to study engineering, computer science, agriculture, or business appreciated and enrolled in the many liberal arts courses mentioned above. And, of course, every administration and faculty from the 1960s til quite recently recognized the inextricable connection between STEM related fields of specialization and a broad liberal arts education.

In addition, administrators, faculty, and students recognized that the history of the nation, the state, and even the university and its community had inadequately served minorities. And it was the job to make higher education accessible to students who historically had been denied such education because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Former Purdue President Mitch Daniels said it well in a ceremony renaming residence halls to African American students of the 1940s who had been denied access to housing:

 “Purdue University and its land grant sisters around the country were put here more than a century ago to start lowering and removing barriers and promote the upward mobility of free peoples and that has been our history ever since,” Daniels said. “We’ve been too slow about it in many ways and many times, but the progress has always been forward. Sometimes, it takes courageous and resolved people, like the Parker sisters, to push things further – and thank God they did.”

 https://www.purdue.edu/vpsl/news/perspectives-stories/fall-2021/parker-halls-monument-to-sisters.php

Revisiting the Cuban Revolution

 Harry Targ

(Friends, I am writing with tears in my eyes and a profound sense of outrage after watching this 30-minute program below on Cuba's health care program at home and abroad and the brutal US imperial policies that are seeking to crush it. The program is rich with details about Cuba's health programs but also imply what socialism is about, helping needy people.

And implicitly it is a program about the real meaning of imperialism: starving people, depriving them of health care, increasing dramatically death and poverty. It speaks to our need to be in solidarity with Cuba, use all means at our disposal to combat imperialism, and to realize the centrality of constructing a healthcare system for all. (Most of us see our doctors as entrepreneurs but by contrast Cuban doctors are revolutionaries).

So let us watch the video and figure out ways, as best we can, to provide solidarity with the Cuban Socialist Project.

https://youtu.be/ezS0PTPw_iw?si=fSRCLfeEm5svbMPD )

(Most of the essay below was posted on The Rag Blog on July 5, 2012)

Cuban society has been an experimental laboratory... If one set of policies became problematic, the Cubans moved in different directions. Usually change came after heated debate at all levels of society. (2012).

I participated in the 2012 “Seminar on Socialist Renewal and the Capitalist Crisis” co-sponsored by the Radical Philosophy Association and the Institute of Philosophy, University of Havana. More than 40 U.S./Canadian/ Latin American scholars met in conference with at least 75 Cuban scholars in a five-day conference to discuss the political and economic changes occurring in Cuba and the United States.

I purposely entitled this essay “revisiting the Cuban Revolution” because I came away from this exciting conference convinced that the revolution was continuing. I saw no reason to revise what I wrote in 1992 about the Cuban Revolution (Cuba and the USA: A New World Order? International Publishers, 6):

...the Cuban revolution (even until this day) has constituted a living experiment that most progressive forces around the world identify with. Even though each society has its own history, class structure, level of development, and revolutionary potential, Cuba’s desire to create a government to serve its people and at the same time to transform them from a traditional consciousness to a revolutionary consciousness is shared by progressives everywhere. For progressives, Cuba is a laboratory, a grand social experiment that will provide knowledge for others as they seek fundamental change in their own societies... Cuba’s successes in the years ahead are successes of all progressive forces and, similarly Cuba’s defeats are defeats for all who wish to create egalitarian and humane societies.

The idea of “revolution” refers to a fundamental transformation of economic and political structures and peoples’ consciousness of their place in society and the values that should determine human behavior. Also, revolution is not a fixed “thing "but a process. That means that changes in structures, patterns of behavior, and consciousness are changing over time and in the case of revolution are moving toward, rather than away from, more complete human fulfillment.

What was most fascinating to observe about the Cuban Revolution is its constantly changing character. Cubans have debated and made decisions about gradual versus fundamental changes, the need to experiment with different ways to allocate scarce national resources and, most critical, how to respond to external economic, political, and military assaults.

Cuban society has been an experimental laboratory, changing public policies as contexts demand. If one set of policies became problematic, the Cubans moved in different directions. Usually change came after heated debate at all levels of society.

For example, after the 26th of July Movement seized power, the revolutionary regime launched programs to reduce rents for urban dwellers, established a nationwide literacy campaign, and after a cool U.S. response to the new government, put in place a large agrarian reform program. As United States hostility escalated Cuba established diplomatic and economic relations with the former Soviet Union. From that point U.S./Cuban hostilities became permanent.

In the mid-1960s, Cuba engaged in a great debate, to some degree unresolved, between those who wanted to move the Revolution along the path to “moral incentives,” that is creating a society in which people act because of their commitment to communist ideals, versus those who argued that in the short run “material incentives,” wages and benefits, needed to serve as the source of human motivation.

Later, the Cuban government embarked on a campaign to produce more sugar than ever before to earn scarce foreign exchange in order to advance the domestic economy. The 10 million ton sugar campaign failed with negative consequences for the sectors of Cuban society that were ignored. Then Cuba embraced the Soviet model of development, including joining the Eastern European Common Market.

By the 1980s, while the economy grew, Cubans saw a decline in the commitment to the Revolution. This recognition led to a campaign of “Rectification,” to reinstall in society and consciousness, the spirit of the Revolution. When the Socialist Bloc collapsed between 1989 and 1991, once again the Cuban Revolution had to adapt. “The Special Period” was instituted in the face of a decline in the economy of at least 40 percent. The Revolution survived, contrary to the predictions of outside experts.

In the 21st century, particularly after the United States established formal relations with Cuba in the era of the Obama administration, and despite devastating hurricanes, a global economic crisis, and the United States economic blockade, the Revolution continued. The Cubans embarked on a new set of policies that were designed to overcome economic stagnation, inadequate agricultural productivity, bureaucracy and corruption in government, and insufficient grassroots participation in decision-making, particularly at the workplace.

After extensive debate in the society at large, from the leadership of the Communist Party to virtually every workplace, neighborhood and village, the Cubans decided on new structures and policies.

The new policy guidelines included the expansion of a market in the production of goods and services. This expansion included a dramatic shift of employment from the state sector to self-employment. Emphasis was placed on developing cooperatives in manufacturing and services as well as in agriculture. In addition, Cuba fully embraced tourism and a vehicle for earning scarce foreign exchange.

In the agricultural sector efforts were being initiated to encourage a dramatic increase in those who can return to the land, increasing domestic food production while reducing the need to import food from abroad. New forms of grassroots participation in addition to revitalizing the mass organizations occurred. And the ration system of food distribution was replaced by the establishment of a safety net for those still in need of food. And where possible, enterprise autonomy, such as in the renovation of Old Havana, was encouraged and supported.

The new guidelines, over 300 in all, were designed to renovate economic and political institutions, stimulate local entrepreneurial enterprise, increase political participation, and overcome the continuing economic crisis that a small country such as Cuba found itself in as a result of natural and political disasters as well as a continued effort by the “Colossus of the North” to overthrow the regime.

Debate within Cuban society (and among our North American delegation at the 2012 conference) about these new guidelines was animated. Perhaps most basic was the concern about whether the economic reforms would undermine the Socialist character of Cuban society after over 60 years of struggle. Some worried that the introduction of markets would undermine the spirit of compassion and revolutionary consciousness that was inspired by the heroic Che Guevara and the band of scruffy revolutionaries who overthrew a neocolonial regime in 1959.

Still others debated about whether cooperatives constituted a productive and yet inspirational step in the long history of building Socialism and Communism. And what about youth, people asked. Was the revolution ancient history for young people, a youthful population that had access to a rich educational experience and lived a healthful life. Will they have the same fervor for the Revolution that their elders and foreign friends have had?

And, in fairness to the young, how could the Revolution be preserved while serving the lives of people whose historical experiences were different from their elders?

There were no easy answers to these questions; no guarantees of success; no convincing narratives of a linear development from a contradictory present to a utopian future. But, as I clearly saw in 1990 when I started attending meetings of U.S. and Cuban scholars, there was reason for hope. The Cuban Revolution survived, given so much to the world, and continued to intrigue progressives everywhere. 

The Trump Presidencies and US Policy Toward Cuba

"With God’s help, a free Cuba is what we will soon achieve. … I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba. ( “Trump Outlines New Cuba Policy in Speech in Miami’s Little Havana.” USA Today, June 16, 2017).

With these words, President Trump announced the return to the almost 60-year Cold War against Cuba, a war that has cost the people on the island and their relatives in the United States dearly. The efforts to resume travel restrictions, limit trade and investment on the island, and to punish US citizens who travel to Cuba on their own seemed motivated primarily by Trump’s promises to a dwindling sector of Cuban Americans in the Republican Party (and a few Democratic politicians as well). Although economics, geopolitics, and white supremacist ideology long shaped United States foreign policy, narrow and short-term political calculations seemed to have motivated the reversal of modest US openings to Cuba that had been put in place during the Obama Administration.

Only the counter-revolutionaries in critical electoral states such as Florida criticized the new openings to Cuba. And, as would become clear after the 2016 election, policy reversal would be motivated by the new president as a gesture to reverse any and all Obama foreign and domestic policies. The strong and vocal Cuban American lobby, which had supported presidential candidate Trump’s opponent Senator Marco Rubio, immediately gained legitimacy in the new administration.

And now, during Trump's second term, Marco Rubio is Secretary of State and the US has extended Cuba being on the list of states sponsoring terrorism, launched a full economic blockade of the island, threatens Cuba with war on almost a daily basis, and has dramatically impaired Cuba's world renowned health care system, created starvation and initiated a worldwide blockade ensuring Cuba cannot receive any oil, and if possible, any humanitarian assistance. In short, since the onset of Trump's second term, US policy toward Cuba has become similar to Israel's policy toward the people of Gaza, genocide in character. And now, just this week, the State Department has issued a warning about sponsors if "state terrorism" internationally and supporters of "state terrorism" within the United States. The latter includes a list of US peace and solidarity groups who advocate for better US/Cuban relations and/or transmit material aid to Cuba, food, medical supplies, and other desperately needed items for the Cuban people to survive. 

In short, given the long history of the Cuban peoples' struggle to survive and build their own society, they face now their greatest threat, and activists everywhere must continue all efforts to help the Cuban people and their revolution survive.

US LEADERSHIP BASED ON "ORGANIZED VIOLENCE" NOT DELUSIONS

 (An earlier version was reprinted in Portside by Harry Targ and Stephen David)

American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it’s just not worth it…We are, as my friend Madeleine Albright said, the indispensable nation. (Joe Biden, New York Times, October 19, 2023).

America’s destiny required the U.S. “…to set the world its example of right and honor…We cannot retreat from any soil where providence has unfurled our banner. It is ours to save that soil, for liberty, and civilization….It is elemental...it is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth.” Senator Albert Beveridge, Indiana, Congressional Record, 56 Congress, I Session, pp.704-712, 1898).

The brutal war in Ukraine continues. The US supports the continued Israeli genocidal policy against the Palestinian people. The US (and Israel) has launched a never-ending war on Iran. The US kidnapped the president of Venezuela and now is starving the Cuban people.

Meanwhile military spending in the United States and Europe increase at the expense of desperately needed social programs and transformations from economies based on fossil fuels.

Spokespersons from the United States government and the US corporate media particularly have produced and disseminated stories about aspects of the Ukraine war and US wars and interventions globally that together constitute a series of interconnected "delusions" about the context and causes of such US supported wars and their long-term impacts on international affairs. A delusion is "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument."

If one goes beyond the US/Western corporate media and if one gives serious thought to the historical logic of such narratives it would be clear that core premises of US policies are delusional.

For example, there are at least seven kinds of delusions that are broadly accepted and/or articulated by the US government and the corporate media.

Delusion number one is that the United States can reproduce the coalition of hegemonic forces that existed after World War 2. It is clear that the US Cold War international system cannot be replicated. After World War 2, the United States, the overwhelmingly hegemonic economic and military power,  institutionalized a world order based upon economics (the Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, the subsequent development of the European Economic Community and the European Union),  military dominance (from the construction of the NATO alliance to a worldwide network of alliances, bilateral treaties, and military bases), and an ideology (the “free world versus communism” or in our own day “democracy” versus “authoritarianism”). While this hegemonic goal - economics, military and ideological - was never fully achieved it has been whittled away by multiple poles of economic power (particularly the rise of the Chinese economy), a declining ability of the United States to control the world militarily (as evidenced historically by military defeats from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in the Western hemisphere), and growing global skepticism about what the United States means by “democracy.”

Delusion number two  suggests that the United States can remain the global hegemon. Here again any number of writers, and more importantly key leaders from countries in Europe, Asia, and throughout the Global South see the United States as a declining power economically, militarily, and politically. As the Ukraine crisis has unfolded many voices from the Global South have evidenced indifference to what appears to be a “white people’s war” that is being  used  to increase demands for fundamental changes in global economics and politics. Many around the world see the conflicts in Eastern Europe as a manifestation of the breakdown of North American and European power and control of what goes on in their countries. The most significant takeaway from the United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian intervention in Ukraine is the fact that 35 countries abstained in the vote; not only African and Asian countries but several from the Western Hemisphere. The population of those countries constituted about one-third of the population of the world. Not too long ago a loose coalition of big powers, the BRICS, began dialoguing about making modest demands for changes in power dynamics in global institutions and practice. Witnessing greater underdevelopment in developing countries instead of the promise of development, BRICS began charting a course not entirely dependent on the World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organizations. Some modest redistribution of decisioning power in major international institutions is in the air.

Delusion number three is that the United States can intimidate China. Since the 1980s, China has steered an economic course that involves encouraging foreign investment, utilizing technologies derived from these investments, and adopting an economic development model incorporating advanced capitalism and appropriate state controls. Not only is China about to surpass the United States in its gross domestic product but in its progress it has lifted 700 million Chinese out of poverty. And in terms of China’s global presence, it is establishing more attractive economic relations with nations all across the globe. Through its Belt and Road Initiative for example, China has already become the largest trading partner with the countries of Latin America. In this context, media reports of US threats if China maintains economic ties with Russia are matters of bluster and of little consequence.

Delusion number four is that the countries of the global south support the United States. Given the declining relative power of the United States on the global stage, the rising economic influence of China on the world stage, and the history of United States interference, (from sanctions to soldiers) in the affairs of other countries and peoples, nations of the Global South see the United States as the latest, perhaps last, imperial power. As V J Prashad pointed out, “all war is criminal” - both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ wars. Therefore, economic exploitation and political interference in the  Global South is increasingly viewed with disdain and discomfort. Again, this disdain is suggested by the number of countries that refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the recent General Assembly vote. Yet despite such clear signs the US media continues to praise US sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and now Russia, without discussing the horrific impacts these sanctions have on ordinary people in these countries. Nor does the media report that the United States and the European Union currently have some kind of sanctions imposed on 39 nations. Sanctions alone make it very unlikely that victimized people from the Global South regard the United States with respect and admiration.*And alternative forms of payment and paths for international trade will be the logical outcome of weaponizing trade and the banking system.

Delusion number five is that the United States remains the ‘indispensable nation,” the “last resort,” the model of democracy and market economies for the world. For the reasons suggested above and the demonstrable racism, violence, environmental disasters more frequently associated with the United States itself (while admired for certain achievements such as in education and science) most global citizens regard the US as a failed state, surely one not to emulate. More recently the overbearing, unfair, and restrictive moves against Chinese competitive strength in the form of banning Huawei’s 5G technology and Tiktok compromises the notion of free-market fairness and a just global economic world order. The “American Dream” begins to morph into a hollow specter in the global context. Together they mark an unmistakable decline.

Delusion number six is that the United States cannot learn from others: Cuba, China, peoples on the Africa continent and elsewhere. It has historically been central to the consciousness of the hegemonic actors in the world, the imperial powers, that they are and can be the exemplars and teachers; and, the countries that have been conquered and/or been impoverished have nothing to teach the powerful and only have to follow. Meanwhile examples of alternative healthcare delivery systems, adaptations to the natural environment, or forms of workplace democracy in less powerful nations are ignored.

Cuban doctors travel around the world to help cure pandemics.

And delusion number seven suggests that global hegemony can be maintained or achieved without major (indeed nuclear) war and/or climate disaster. This is the most dangerous delusion because it suggests that the powerful countries can proceed with their drive to dominate without increasing the risk of nuclear war or speeding up the destruction of nature.

Therefore, one project the peace and justice movement in the United States and hopefully with peace and justice activists around the world can do is to challenge the delusions articulated by American and European leaders as suggested by Professor Huntington above and to challenge the mythologies that are deeply embedded in the corporate media.  

*Countries facing economic sanctions include: 1. Afghanistan, 2. Belarus, 3. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4. Burundi, 5. Central African Republic, 6. China (PR), 7. Comoros 8. Crimea Region of Ukraine> 9. Cuba, 10. Cyprus, 11. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12. Guinea, 13. Guinea Bissau, 14. Haiti, 15. Iran, 16. Iraq, 17. Kyrgyzstan, 18. Laos, 19. Lebanon, 20. Libya, 21. Mali 22. Mauritania 23. Moldova 24. Montenegro 25. Myanmar, 26. Nicaragua, 27. North Korea - DPRK, 28. Palestinian Territories, 29. Russia, 30. Rwanda, 31. Serbia 32. Somalia, 33. South Sudan, 34. Sudan, 35. Syria, 36. Tunisia 37. Venezuela, 38. Yemen, 39. Zimbabwe. https://sanctionskill.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/39SanctionedCountries3.pdf

 

AN OLD NOVEL ABOUT A UNIVERSITY AND THE THREAT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM

 Harry Targ

 

 

Years ago, I read a little-known novel written by Howard Fast, one of over 70 novels, called Silas Timberman.  It impressed me at the time because the novel was about the era of McCarthyism and an apolitical English professor at a university in Indiana, much like Indiana University.

Today we see a brutal assault and destruction of the diversity of scholarship and education at Indiana University by a MAGA governor and state legislature. While less visible, the same efforts to destroy higher education are occurring at the other major Hoosier university, Purdue. The state legislature a year ago passed a law that requires annual reviews of all instructors to see that they include all perspectives in their teaching. Even tenured faculty, tenure a long-honored commitment to protect faculty from capricious attacks on their teaching and research, may be disciplined  if they do not meet the criteria of “fairness and balance,” (which presumably would require faculty to present the pluses and minuses of Hitler’s Germany or the Spanish Inquisition). The legislation also required these institutions to take complaints seriously from any student, even anonymously, concerning their professors on any number of things, without providing proof.

In addition, Indiana University, which has been known for its multiplicity of language programs must shut them down if they do not have enough majors. About 40 such language programs have been eliminated. Both universities have been encouraged to eliminate humanities programs, interdisciplinary programs, and programs that address diversity, equity, and identities. The universities have shifted their resources to artificial intelleigence, collaboration with the military and large pharmaceutical companies, and generally, to prioritize so-called STEM education.

Legislators and university administrators claim that the only salient measure of university success is whether college graduates get jobs. (ironically some data suggests that many STEM college graduates are not finding jobs and employers in the corporate sector are mostly interested in hiring graduates who write well, have analytical skills, and have a sensibility about the world outside the workplace).

All of these changes are occurring at the same time that both universities have acted in various ways to repress dissenting voices and actions regarding policies pertaining to the national and state governments on race, gender, and support for US wars. At Indiana University, for example, police with weapons were called on campus in response to protests of US support for Israel’s genocide against Palestinians.

In sum, the state government, college administrators, and the federal government are seeking to roll back higher education to its historic role of training young people to serve the society as is and to socialize them to accept the legitimacy uncritically policies and US institutions. Perhaps the most egregious of these policies is to reduce or eliminate course work and research that address the underside of US history such as the experiences of slavery and war.

Therefore, as I reread Silas Timerman this time, the novel seemed uncomfortably relevant to today. The lead character, Timberman, is an English professor who pays little attention to national and international politics. He chooses to see his life as almost solely about his family, wife and children, and what goes on in his classroom. As a World War Two veteran he has misgivings about the onset of the Korean War (the novel takes place in 1950) but he does not speak out about the war.

Then a confluence of factors leads to his changed circumstances, an insular professor becomes a public and hated figure. Silas’ department head asks professors to volunteer to do civil defense duty. Silas, although apolitical, regards a national civil defense program as destabilizing, leading to the increased probability of nuclear war. So, he tells his Head that he would not participate. 

Meanwhile in his Introduction to American Literature class he presents a syllabus that suggests that the paradigmatic American writer is Mark Twain. And he assigns his students read a Twain short story called “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.” In this short story a bag of gold is distributed to a bank in Hadleyburg requesting that the gold be returned to its rightful owner. The self-righteous citizens of Hadleyburg show up in mass to claim the gold. The thrust of the short story is the hypocrisy of the town and the citizens pursuit of gold.

The combination of Silas’ refusal to volunteer for civil defense duty coupled with the short story suggested to a few students that Professor Timberman was a “communist.” The ridiculous confluence of the public processing of the professor’s actions led to his personal and political transformation. He was attacked publicly in the college newspaper and becomes a public target, attacked by some members of the university community for being a “communist,” By the end of the novel he is forced to appear before a McCarthy-like committee. As he refuses to answer some questions, he was cited for contempt and at the novel's end is handcuffed and taken off to jail for a three year sentence.

When I first read the novel some twenty years ago, I processed the novel as a kind of ancient history. McCarthyism, as I taught in classes on US foreign policy, had a significant impact on American culture and politics. The vibrancy of intellectual life on college campuses convinced me that the 1950s were relevant about the past but could/would not occur again.

But reflecting on contemporary efforts to destroy higher education in Indiana, Florida, Texas and virtually everywhere suggest that the experiences of Silas Timberman are occurring once again. And the same constellation of actors, national and state politicians, quiescent or intimidated professors, minorities of ill-informed students are recreating, only more so, the 1950s.

THE UNFOLDING OF THREE IDEOLOGIES TODAY

 Harry Targ

 

Perhaps the most useful definition of “ideology” is one that refers to a body of interconnected ideas or a system of thought about how the world works. These ideas often explain the meaning of life, how and why society is organized the way it is, and how it ought to be organized. However, ideas do not come from the ether. They come from class position and concrete interests, background, social status, and education by family, schools, peer groups, and popular culture. (Diary of a Heartland Radical, “The Three Ideologies in American Life,” September 20, 2015).

Ideologies are ways of explaining reality. They may not be presented in a systematic or mathematical or rigorous way but the careful listener can discern their underlying messages. And, of course, the messenger has a point of view that usually comes from his or her economic or political position. At base, ideologies are reflections of the interests of those who articulate them and believe in them. All this is becoming more important to understand and process during the 2026 election season.

One ideological pole is committed to what the world knows as the “neoliberal” ideology. It promotes a twenty-first century capitalist agenda. It supports financial speculation and privileges wealth and entrenched political power. To maintain profits austerity policies in neoliberalism’s name are imposed on working classes. War and preparation for war are necessitated by the resistance to the globalization of these policies. The application of this ideology domestically and internationally requires compliant support from most workers, women, and minorities. And critical to it, the neoliberal ideology presents itself as what it is not. It is not a perspective that represents the interests of the 99 percent. And to justify its perpetuation its supporters say what former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to proclaim; “there is no alternative.”

A second ideological pole has two variants. In the short run either of these may be more a danger to humankind than neoliberalism. The first variant is the “virtues of wealth” ideology. Wealth, however it is secured, is its own justification. The wealthy are virtuous. The wealthy are wise. And the wealthy therefore are ordained to rule. Since most workers, most people of color, most women are poor, by definition they are unworthy of respect as human beings. And masses of people the “virtues of wealth” ideology suggests, can trust the brash rugged individualist super-wealthy individual to rule because he does not represent traditional institutionalized economic or political power. The wealthy few are like deities to be revered and obeyed. And to be clear, this view is profoundly anti-human and justifies unlimited violence at home and abroad based on what the virtuous leader decides is necessary.

A second variant of this ideological pole, the “fundamentalist” ideology, rationalizes opposition to government in theological terms. The only way to rescue humanity, this ideology suggests, is to follow a particular god embedded in some kind of supernatural fundamentalism; a fundamentalism that regards opponents as monsters. While its current promoters portray the social order in terms of existent evil only to be saved by religious good, their political positions would continue to reward wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority and would lead to enormous violence against people everywhere, who are seen as infidels. Whether the leaders derive their legitimacy from their wealth or their special piety, it is their task to lead and the peoples to follow.

A third ideological pole, “building 21^st century socialism,” is based upon the proposition that all social institutions, including government, should serve the people, all the people. It is based upon the sanctity of human life and the belief that it is through society that every individual can achieve her/his potential. Concretely this means real economic justice, democracy, fairness in the law, and peace. The issues embedded in the 21^st century socialist vision involve education, health care, environmental sustainability, jobs, adequate income, and the development of programs to attack racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination. This third ideological pole asserts, as the World Social Forum proclaimed a long time ago, that “another world is possible.” 

From the vantage point of the radically different character of these ideologies, the 2026 election becomes very important. In the long run, given the growing danger of violence to nature and people, building 21^st century socialism offers the only possibility for building a just and environmentally sustainable world.

It is important to note that the continuation of or defeat of any of these will not be determined by the election of any one person. Victories and defeats are more about the power of political movements and the magnitude of electoral victories or defeats in the service of these movements. But there is no question that the momentum that emerges from the election battles of 2026 matters.

For those on the Left, the only real option for the survival of humankind is 21^st century socialism. And the achievement of it will require a long-term struggle for the consciousness of the people.

 

Remembering the Red Scare That Started the Cold War: The Emergence of the Anti-Communist Political Culture

Harry Targ

"Wasn't That A Time"

https://youtu.be/k-k0YzG2DFA?si=VhaoO6rmOaXdRGol

President Trump warned Friday that communism poses a “mortal threat” to the country during a speech at Mount Rushmore on the eve of America’s 250th birthday…. 

“A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of communism, there is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success" (Victor Nava,and Nicholas McEntyre, New York Post, July 3, 2026).

To foster support for the dramatic new U.S. foreign policies, the executive branch launched a campaign against "communism" from the beginning of the Cold War. President Truman issued Executive Order 9835 in March 1947 that instituted a federal loyalty program that required sworn statements by all federal employees that they had not been a member of the Communist Party of the United States or groups affiliated with it. This inspired similar loyalty oath requirements at all levels of government. The Truman Administration created the Attorney General's list, which was a list of suspect organizations believed to be affiliated with the Communist Party. Federal employees who had belonged to any of these groups would be subject to dismissal. Two thousand employees were fired from their jobs and over 200 resigned in anticipation of dismissal.

One of the most aggressive executive agencies in the struggle against communism was the Federal Bureau of Investigation, headed by J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI infiltrated groups, wrote books denouncing people with suspicious ideas (like giving support for racial justice), hounded suspected radicals in their homes and on their jobs and through the statements by Hoover linked every public criticism with foreign and subversive causes. 

Congress launched its own attacks on communism, in Hollywood, in the schools, in the public sector, in unions, through the technique of the Congressional hearing. From 1946 to 1954 there were 135 Congressional investigations of "communism" in Hollywood, the main activity organized by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). Individual Senators and Congresspersons began to build careers fighting Communism at home. Congressman Richard Nixon gained fame attacking former New Deal administrator, Alger Hiss. Senator Joseph McCarthy, for whom the whole anti-communist phenomenon was mistakenly credited, announced that there were hundreds of Communists in the State Department.  Of greatest importance to workers was the passage in 1947 of the Taft-Hartley Act which was designed to limit workers trade union rights. Union leaders had to sign anti- Communist loyalty oaths or their unions would get decertified. 

Not only would anti-Communism frame the understanding Americans had about the Soviet Union and China, but such a frame would pervade virtually all political consciousness: about class, race, and gender. Labor militants were labeled “Communists” to reduce their effectiveness in organizing. Further, people who defended government and community responsibility, or who criticized commercialism were attacked as being,  subversive, and  Communist. The bottom line for all this was that the anti-Communist impulse in American life served the interests and needs of capitalism by smearing social reform in postwar America. Particularly, anti-Communism was used to gain support for the emerging US foreign policy of economic and military dominance in the world  and to build domestic opposition to labor demands at home. The political conditions were being created to support the globalization of U.S. power and influence.