RSS Feed
The Joe Six-Pack Doctrine
I am not in the Joe Six Pack crowd. As my friends and family will attest, if I drink more than two beers, I fall asleep. Moreover, when I do drink, I usually choose beer from exotic places like Germany, Britain (I love Guinness), or even Japan. I also like many microbeers from the good ol' USA. But read my lips: I won't drink a Schlitz. If that makes me an elitist who doesn't grasp the realities of Wasilla Main Street, so be it.
The notion that Washington needs a dose of Wasilla intrigues me.
American politics has long been animated by a populist tradition that views the inner workings of the nation's capital as far removed from the lifeblood of "real America." While Congress's legislative record might sometimes seem to justify such views, there is far more to the story than that. Born and raised in DC, I have seen the sacrifices our public servants make every day. These men and women, who come from every state in the Union, are joined by some half a million Washingtonians in the public and private as well as non-profit sectors, struggling like the rest of the country to balance work and family and to make ends meet. We have our soccer moms (and dads) and PTA meetings; we are deeply involved in our churches, synagogues and mosques, and we participate in and are affected by local politics of every shape and form. In a city denied the democratic rights enjoyed by the vast majority of Americans, we cope every day with a myriad of urban problems, all of which have been exacerbated by a widening gap between rich and poor and black and white.
These realities are blotted out by a reckless manipulation of stereotypes. Disdain for Washington constitutes a kind of geographic and cultural racism that is invoked (and manipulated) during every presidential election season. No amount of folksy kidding around can hide the ugliness of Washington bashing, despite the fact that some of our leading bashers have lived here for decades.
Washington bashing also has troubling implications for America's foreign relations. Lurking behind the notion that Washington is alien and disconnected is an inchoate anxiety that the rest of the world is even more foreign and menacing. Though ours is a nation of immigrants, it is also a land where suspicions run deep about the "true loyalties"
of the "foreign policy establishment," particularly among those most attracted to the fantasies and prejudices of American populism.
Certainly, U.S. intervention in Iraq fed such fears. Someone or something must have been behind this gambit, the thinking goes. Was it big oil companies, Gulf Arab Sheiks, neo-conservative intellectuals, the Israel lobby, or some weird alliance of all of four? The fact that President Bush, who in an earlier incarnation was something of a Joe Six-Pack himself, eventually embraced a neo-Wilsonian nation-building project only reinforced the belief that some nefarious cabal had turned the administration inside-out, leading it to abandon what populist credentials it once had in the sand and dust of Iraq.
Such fears of course were greatly exaggerated. Indeed, those who backed the invasion of Iraq took a page out of the populist, anti-Washington playbook. American Middle East policy, they declared, would no longer be defined by an elite of State Department Middle East experts and career diplomats who--they implied--had betrayed American values by cozying up to Arab autocrats. While this harsh judgment was, at best, a caricature of US foreign policy, the populist thinking that inspired it provided a key pretext for the disastrous decision to reject--indeed sweep under the carpet--all of the careful planning for post-invasion Iraq that had been set out in the State Department's Future of Iraq Project.
Against this backdrop, one can almost forgive Governor Sarah Palin, who before her fellow Wasilla churchgoers, prayed that "there is a plan" for Iraq and "that plan is God's plan." In the absence of any other planning, perhaps her appeal to a Higher Authority made sense. Moreover, it tapped into religious themes that constitute one other ingredient in the brew of American populism. Talk of an American "crusade" in the Middle East may have faded long ago, but the desire to convert the world to this or that creed endures in a Joe Six-Pack/Neo-Wilsonianism that Palin has only recently embraced.
This urge to proselytize is troubling. Whether Barack Obama or John McCain wins, I hope that the U.S. will advance a new vision of democratic reform in the Muslim world--one that is deeply ethical and steadfastly realistic. Can we have a foreign policy that is inspired by religious values, but does not claim to be guided or sanctioned by God? I think so. This would be a policy that Republicans and Democrats could call their own. Indeed, Joe and Josephine Six-Pack might well endorse it, thus defying the "us versus them" stereotyping that is at the heart of anti-Washington populist ideology.
By Daniel Brumberg |
October 6, 2008; 2:01 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: "Religulous": Cinematic New Atheism |
Next: 5 Observations on Last Night's Debate
Posted by: Lee G. in Irvine | October 10, 2008 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Brumberg,
I liked your article.
You wrote,
"Certainly, U.S. intervention in Iraq fed such fears. Someone or something must have been behind this gambit, the thinking goes. Was it big oil companies, Gulf Arab Sheiks, neo-conservative intellectuals, the Israel lobby, or some weird alliance of all of four?"
I think you've touched on the second most important question of the decade (after 'What happened to the economy?') which is;
"Why DID the United States spend over a trillion dollars to hand Iraq to Iran"
Your article touches on the trivialization of political discourse in the U.S.
Why is it that we never discuss key questions?
Instead of real policy debate we get sideshows like the absurd Weather Underground non-story.
I write as one of the many Americans who supported U.S. intervention in Iraq. To me, the use of chemical weapons, combined with the seemingly credible allegations by the U.S. Administration concerning nuclear weapons meant that the Hussein regime forfeited its right to exist.
We know now that the Adminisration knew that its 'evidence' was a "sexed up" curveball.
So the question, as you indicated, is;
- Given that the stated reason for the Iraqi intervention was discredited, what is the actual explanation?
The truth exists.
This was done for a reason, so, what was it?
You list four possibilities, I have come up with a total of nine.
Here they are:
1) Duped by Iran
NBC producer Aram Roston's book, "The Man Who Pushed America to War," details how Ahmad Chalabi was acting in Iran's interests.
This to me is the most plausable explanation.
2) Bush 41's Unfinished Business
This is the most common response I get, when, as I often do, I ask people, "Why did the U.S. intervene in Iraq."
3) The neo-conservative Agenda, Israel and pressuring other regimes
4) It's the Oil
5) The use of chemical weapons and Human Rights
This argument is still advanced by Christopher Hitchens
6) combatting/preempting terrorism and 9/11/2001
Although this seems absurd to those who do not regularly watch Fox News, in 2003 a significant percentage of the country believed this fallacy, which was deliberately propagated by the Administration's surrogates.
7) Making the Middle East Safe for Democracy
When the nulcear issue was discredited, the Administration fell back on this argument
8) To establish long term forward bases in the area
9) The nuclear Program
The Stated reason at the time of the invasion
One of these is the real reason. We owe it to ourselves to keep asking the important questions.
Posted by: Lee G. in Irvine | October 9, 2008 10:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Whalesounds,
Thanks for your thoughtful post! The us versus them, insider/outsider, Joe Six-Pack/Washington dualism that Palin and others invoke, is, as you say, a caricature of reality--a point I tried to make in my post. Perhaps I should have made this point clearer: Palin's talk of "Joe Six Pack" is itself a condescending stereotype that not only ignores Alaska's diversity, but also misrepresents Joe Six Pack himself. Best, DB
Posted by: DB | October 8, 2008 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As a 28 year resident of Alaska, I apologize for McCain's decision to involve our governor in the politics of this country, although I do earnestly believe that she thinks what she is doing is the "right" thing. Most of us here are not "Joe or Josephine Six-packs" though. We are a multi-cultural, multi-racial, and very mixed bag of people. Many of you "outsiders" would be amazed at how diverse we are as an artic population goes. We have chosen to live here because most have already lived "Outside", and became lost at some point in their lives, and came here to "check it out". We love the breathtaking scenery, the toxin-free air, the wild animals roaming about, etc. We will also fiecely protect our own, regardless of what party we belong to.
Posted by: whalesounds | October 8, 2008 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for the correction on the national origins of Guinness. This is certainly one of the most substantive comments I have ever received since starting the blog! I will make the correction.
Best, DB
Posted by: DB | October 8, 2008 4:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One very minor flaw in your article - Guinness is brewed in the Republic of Ireland (St. James Gate, Dublin specifically). Although the entire island is technically part of the British Isles, most common usage differentiates Great Britain from the Irish Republic. Hate to be a nit-picker, but this is an important distinction, at least to the Irish. (And also to those of us who, while not Irish, really enjoy a good Guinness from time to time.)
Posted by: antonio | October 8, 2008 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Just a one leetle addition to my main post below:
Here are the Top Ten possible explanations of why Iraq was invaded:
1) Duped by Iran/Chalabi
2) Surpassing Bush 41
3) Neo-conservatives / Israel
4) OIL, Oil, oil
5) Defense Industries Need a War
6) Use of Chemical Weapons & Abuse of Human Rights
7) Terrorism and 9/11/2001
8) Middle East needs Democracy
9) U.S. needs Military Bases
10) Clear & Present Nuclear Danger
The Stated Reason
LWG