It's a Cultural Revolution! Who's Gonna Be the Chairman?

By John Ballard

There was no question who was in charge of China's Cultural Revolution. It was set in motion by Chairman Mao himself.

It was launched by Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China, on May 16, 1966; he alleged that liberal bourgeoise elements were permeating the party and society at large and that they wanted to restore capitalism. Mao insisted, in accordance with his theory of permanent revolution, that these elements should be removed through revolutionary violent class struggle by mobilizing China's youth who, responding to his appeal, then formed Red Guard groups around the whole country.

The movement subsequently spread into the military, urban workers, and the party leadership itself. Although Mao himself officially declared the Cultural Revolution to have ended in 1969, its active phase lasted until the death of Lin Biao in a plane crash in 1971. The power struggles and political instability between 1969 and the arrest of the Gang of Four in 1976 are now also widely regarded as part of the Revolution.

Iran went through a similar internal cleansing following the overthrow of Shah, the remnants of which have metastasized into one of the country's most powerful (if not the most powerful of) internal political forces. Like all countries Iran contains many internal power centers, but the IRGC maintains command and control.

Since its origin as an ideologically driven militia, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution has taken an ever more assertive role in virtually every aspect of Iranian society. Its expanded social, political, military, and economic role under president Ahmadinejad's administration � especially during the 2009 presidential election and post-election suppression of protest � has led many analysts to argue that its political power has surpassed even that of the Shiite clerical system.

I could go on citing a list of places where the political center of gravity has been concentrated under the banner of patriotism and with little or no opposition from the population they purport to represent. But the focus of this post is what is shaping up to be an American Cultural Revolution not unlike those mentioned. Citing patriotism and a "return" to traditional values, a disparate but growing number of mostly well-intentioned people, including some with deep pockets and a fairly clear political agenda, are seizing public narratives with the same zeal as those set in motion by Chairman Mao or Ayatollah Khomeini.

Ours being a representative republic, all that remains it for their leader to be selected, but as the last few national elections have shown whoever nominally occupies the seat of power is a proxy serving the aims and intentions of oligarchs and soulless "interests" which have little or nothing to do with the national mission statement as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It should be noted that when those noble words were written our less than perfect Union had not yet declared slavery unconstitutional, granted women the right to vote or enshrined into law any of the amendments following the first ten.

The mission statement has proved to be very pliable. As a nation we have decided that states can be added or divided, amendments once approved can be repealed and social norms too politically uncomfortable to discuss openly can be quietly ignored until, like pregnancy, they become so obvious that ignoring them becomes impossible. Depending on what party is in power (or to use a more accurate term, coalition of interests) we have learned that nothing is impossible with proper handling of the popular will.

Think of the slogans that have driven large numbers of people to action, up to and including sacrificing their lives. Libert��lit�fraternit�- Land, Bread, Peace! --My Country, right or wrong -- to believe, to obey, to combat (compare "Mussolini ha sempre ragione") -- Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori --and so on.

As I reflect on the implications of this day, 9/11, it seems clear that as a country the USA is on the way to becoming that which it hates, a growing population of mostly good people being misled by a handful of high-profile figures.The bell curve applies. Some are simply ignorant but sincerely believe the half-truths, false conclusions and outright lies they pass on. Some are media whores, more concerned with standing in a spotlight than saying or doing anything important while there. And a few at the top of the curve stand willfully in both camps, knowing that content need not be true to be effective, promulgating misinformation and lies only to serve themselves.

Peter Daou's comprehensive list covers the main issues animating the conversation. It all seems so clear for those of us who have been paying attention. But I recall how many people despised the Civil Rights Act of 1964, convinced in the deepest part of their hearts that it was the next step the country was taking on the way to a communist takeover, using poor, misguided Blacks and those standing with them as pawns in a sinister plot to control the country. The tragic part is not that they said it but that they believed it to be true. And the same applies today except the list is longer than a single issue and more is at stake.

The end of his post asks why those who advance such nutty arguments are not being laughed out of the room. He answers the question simply by observing that those who once would be "laughed out of the room" are now controlling our public discourse.

My post this evening was inspired by yet another excursion into the dark corners of suspicion and denial characteristic of an American Cultural Revolution. 

Like many solid publications, Nature Magazine (first published in 1869) has an online presence. This week they point sadly to the manner in which science itself is being scorned, distorted and politicized in an effort to serve non-scientific causes.

�The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.� It is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts � including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative 'Tea Party movement', called his opponent's acknowledgement of the reality of global warming �exhibit 'A' for why she needs to go�.

The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse � a suspicion of elites and expertise.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause c�bre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that �science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists�, has called climate-change science �the biggest scam in the history of the world�. The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research � which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama's promise to �restore science to its rightful place� seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country's future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers. Last month's recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.

If you want to see how far ignorance can be sustained up the food chain, go read the comments thread. There the reader will find almost as many anti-science arguments in the guise of science as supportive statements.

I already live in one of the thickest repositories of what passes for Conservatism these days, holding my tongue when I'm in the company of people I don't know. That is why I'm getting ready to find a retreat where I can be safe until the American Cultural Revolution runs it's course. Historically these trends eventually dry up and blow away. But I know history well enough not to expect it to pass during my lifetime.