Partial Movie Review: Argo's Opening Scene

Did you notice something a little surprising and unsettling at the beginning of the movie Argo? For about the first two minutes, a narrator speaks over graphic novel drawings, explaining how the United States, in 1953, led an overthrow of Iran’s democratic government and installed a dictatorship under the Shah - a brutal regime that lasted for about 25 years, until the Islamic Revolution. The opening provides much needed context but is easily drowned out by the dramatic story that follows. 

The percentage of the film devoted to the troubling historical factors is similar to the media coverage of other events. Take, for example, coverage during the Arab Spring - the recent popular democratic uprising in the Middle East. When it first started, newscasters and commentators sometimes briefly mentioned that the US had propped up dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, and other countries for many years, and that we continued to support these rulers right up until they were toppled. Did you catch that? If you blinked, you probably missed it. Some of the newscasters themselves even seemed baffled by the information after reading it off the tele-prompters. But before long, the media was able to cast the story along the usual tired partisan lines.  

It turns out, sadly, that US support of undemocratic governments - and even direct overthrow of democratic governments - has been common. And support of unsavory governments is still happening to this day, while the media coverage continues to be fleeting at best. (To find out more, check into the US relationship over time with countries such as Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Haiti, Guatemala, Panama, The Philippines, and many others, or just search on “US backed dictators” or something similar and look at whatever sources you trust). 

Of course, there have been important cases where the US has fought against tyranny and defended democracy, not the least of these being World War II. And I realize that sometimes in order to do good, you have to subscribe to the rule that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” After all, we partnered with Stalin to fight against Hitler, and it’s difficult to describe that alliance as morally wrong, when considering the bigger picture. 

But, after looking into this a little, I’m not at all convinced that our role in suppressing democracy has been a story of the ends (anti-communism and anti-terrorism being the most common rationale) justifying the means. I don’t think it’s the fault of a few poorly placed bad actors or the result of the occasional “mistake.” Notice, for example, that the CIA ended democracy in Iran soon after Muhammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister, took back control of their oil resources, as briefly mentioned in the Argo opening scene. There is a pattern. 

I’m bothered by what I’ve learned, but I do think there is hope. I believe Americans are generally good. We want our role in the world to be positive - a force for freedom, democracy, and security. I believe if people, whether from the left, right, or somewhere else, looked past the headlines and sound bites and into our actual history and current foreign policy a little, they wouldn’t support much of what is done in their name. 

Party Loyalty is Hypocrisy

Any pledge of loyalty to a political party is a pledge to be hypocritical and, more generally, intellectually dishonest. Politicians, pundits, and ordinary citizens associated with these groups not only take positions on issues that conflict with their supposed principles, but often take different positions on the very same proposals from one year to the next, depending on who is advancing them. These hypocritical positions are not anomalies that can be easily dismissed. They are pervasive and are at the center of most major issues and at the very core of stated party philosophies. 

Here are just a few of the hypocritical views of Republicans:

• “Obamacare,” by other names, of course, was invented by Republicans, and advocated by party leaders even at the national level (see “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans” by the Heritage Foundation), including the mandate to purchase health insurance (marketed as a way to get free riders to pay their own way) and increased subsidies for the poor. Yet, when proposed by Democrats, this same program was condemned by Republicans as a "goverment takeover of health care" and a severe restriction on freedom.
• As an alternative to Obamacare, Republicans promote the idea of tort reform, limiting the risk of health care providers, which takes power away from the free market they claim to support and puts that power in the hands of a distant government through regulation.
• Republicans promote special tax incentives and subsidies for businesses while denouncing entitlements as “taking from some to give to others.”  
• Although military spending typically makes up about 20% of the federal budget, and the US spends almost as much as the entire rest of the world put together on defense, this is rarely brought up by Republicans when complaining about the deficit, debt, and our “spending problem.” Agreeing with a particular role of government does not make it free. 
• Republicans usually include Social Security and Medicare when denouncing “redistribution of wealth,” even though they are paid for with payroll taxes, which is much more regressive (meaning that low income earners pay a higher percentage of their income than high income earners) than the income tax system. And as a way to reduce spending, Republicans promote “means testing” for these programs, even though this idea would, in fact, change the programs to be redistributive, and increase bureaucracy and government power in the process.

And here are a few for the Democrats:  

• Democrats are supposed to be the party of peace, yet Democratic administrations have initiated or expanded some of our most controversial wars, conducted military operations without congressional approval – much less a declaration of war required by the constitution (the US has not declared war since World War II), and, like Republicans, have regularly supported ruthless dictators around the world. 
• Democrats promote the idea of smart and responsible regulation, yet they have been directly involved in the same kind of disastrous deregulation for which they regularly criticize Republicans. For example, Bill Clinton, supported by a significant majority of Democrats in congress, signed the deregulatory legislation most often implicated in the 2008 financial crisis (see Financial Services Modernization Act and Commodities Futures Modernization Act). Then, to add to the hypocrisy, Clinton even criticized Republicans in his speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention for wanting to get rid of “those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts” without, of course, acknowledging the role of Democrats leading up to the huge bailouts that have already occurred.
• Democrats claim to look out for the weak and defenseless, but they rarely acknowledge that those who are pro-life believe they are doing just that. Good people can disagree on this very sensitive subject, but not acknowledging the legitimacy of honestly held values here is hypocritical.

And libertarians deserve a special mention. (It’s probably more appropriate to think of libertarianism as a political ideology - really a pseudo-ideology - rather than a party, since many libertarians are members of other parties, particularly the Republican Party.) Although libertarians might fairly be considered more consistent than the major parties (libertarians promote a reduction in government that most mainstream Republicans would rarely agree with, at least in public, and they advocate such a massive reduction in military spending that any Democrat in agreement would be called naïve, weak, or anti-American), there are still deep hypocrisies and intellectual dishonesty at the heart of their ideas. Here are some examples:    

• They promote free markets, but rarely, if ever, acknowledge that the purpose of a corporation is to limit liability, with protection provided by the government, thus distorting the free market. People make more careless decisions when they don’t bear the risk of the results. That is, those decisions often impact others negatively (see “moral hazard”). If libertarians were consistent, they would want to eliminate the concept of a corporation and promote true private ownership of businesses. 
• If libertarians were to be consistent, which they are not, they would balance their proposed elimination of - or at least severe reduction in - regulations of products and services with a return to debtors’ prisons for people who can’t pay their liabilities, and they would advocate inheritance of debt the same as inheritance of assets so that, again, people would bear the full weight of risk inherent in their free market decisions, along with gaining the benefits. 
• Libertarians focus on the idea that every person acting in his or her own personal interest produces better results for all. When this doesn’t always work out, they often deny, ignore, or downplay the bad results (such as dismissing global warming as a hoax or not a serious concern) even though this also diminishes basic and undisputed concepts of economics (see “negative externalities”).
• Libertarians often twist logic to claim that civil rights, handicap access, food and drug safety, transportation safety, and many other aspects of society requiring regulation would be handled better by the free market. When you couple this idea with the risk-limiting concept of a corporation, you get, for example, managers in drug companies deciding, without an FDA, which drugs are safe to bring to market, without having to accept the full consequences of a wrong choice.

It’s often said that the major parties are simply too “ideological” to compromise, as if the people involved are just so passionate about their ideals and principles that any deviation is a sacrifice of what they feel is right. But this doesn’t make any sense, based on the evidence. It’s hard to be ideological without any clear principles we can identify.

Because of these inconsistencies, we are left in the uncomfortable position of not being able to rely on a label to figure out what’s right and wrong and which politicians and pundits to agree with on the issues. That is, we have no choice but to think for ourselves.

The Free Market vs. Democracy (or Plutocracy vs. Mob Rule)

One person's freedom is another person's tyranny. Take, for example, the concepts of of the "free market" and "democracy."

People who promote the benefits of the free market often say, "Let the market decide." For example, they say that it's better to maximize private ownership of property so that the people will decide, with their dollars, the best use of that property. Why should national parks exist? If the people decide that it's best to keep some parts of the country in a natural state, then admission fees to the parks will produce a higher profit than alternate uses of that land, thus representing the "will of the people." Other examples include non-smoking restaurants, nutrition labeling on food products, and transportation safety. If the public really wants these things, they will "vote with their dollars," and the products and services that best meet these needs will survive. In this view, the best way to reform government - which does not represent the will of the people the way the market does - is to simply take functions away from the government and put them in private hands. However, critics view excessive reliance on the free market as a form of tyranny, called "plutocracy," where the shape of society is determined disproportionately by people (and corporations) with the most money to spend. They believe that money is not the best vehicle to decide what is best for society since the free market approach benefits a minority at the expense of the majority.

Promoters of democracy think differently about what the "will of the people" means. Instead of the "one dollar, one vote" rule of the market, they prefer the idea of "one person, one vote." Government, then, is simply the necessary mechanism that we use to create a society that people actually want. The best way to reduce government corruption, in this view, is to reduce the influence of big money (and the special favors it buys, like government purchases, subsidies, and so on) and to increase the participation of ordinary people in making the rules. If the majority of people want national parks (or smoke-free restaurants, nutrition labels on food, or transportation safety) that the market does not produce on its own, then citizens will express this with their individual voices, without regard for how much money they are willing or able to spend on the issue. Critics view extreme forms of democracy as a tyranny (or "mob rule") because it gives undue influence of the majority over the minority. These critics believe that individuals will selfishly vote for what is in their personal interest that others are forced to pay for.

Although in individual cases, we may have to choose one or the other approach, they are not mutually exclusive ideas for society as a whole. Most people would say they believe in the free market and democracy. Maybe the answer is that some things are best left to the market and others are best left to government, with understandable disagreement and debate on the criteria for each.

Understanding Narratives

A narrative is a generalization that helps us understand how the world works. Narratives can be useful – they allow us to begin to comprehend social and political phenomena that are too complex to understand in full detail, especially given a limited amount of time to analyze them. But narratives are also dangerous. They can lead to what psychologists call “confirmation bias,” which means that once we have selected our favorite narratives we can use them as filters to notice more and more evidence that our narratives are the right ones while we ignore or minimize evidence to the contrary.  It can be intellectually and emotionally satisfying to believe that we “get it,” while those who have not been adequately exposed to our selected narratives do not.

Here are some popular narratives:   

• People who accept government assistance are lazy and expect others to take care of them.
• People who do not support government entitlement programs care only about themselves.
• People who support government entitlement programs are selfish or naïve.
• Government is not effective since it has no competition and can stay in business by force.
• Government is not effective because it is controlled by rich people and corporations who fund political campaigns.
• Charity is less effective than government because people and corporations with the most money disproportionately decide how much is contributed and how it is spent.
• Poor people are poor by choice. They can pull themselves up if they really want to. 
• Poor people are poor due to circumstances beyond their control.
• Rich people are rich because they are lucky or dishonest.
• Rich people are rich because they work hard.
• Journalists, educators, and bureaucrats have an inflated sense of their own importance and feel they have the right to tell others how to live their lives. Ordinary people who accept their propaganda are unthinking lemmings.
• Rich people and corporations use their money and sophisticated psychological techniques to gain an unfair advantage in the battle of ideas. Ordinary people who accept their propaganda are unthinking lemmings.
• Since the mainstream media is made up of large corporations and is supported by other large corporations in the form of paid advertising (and donations to public television and radio), they have a predictably pro-corporate agenda.
• The mainstream media is liberal.
• The mainstream media is jingoistic.
• Political correctness prevents us from communicating openly about the real causes of social issues.
• Political correctness prevents us from communicating openly about the actual role of the United States in the world.
• Political correctness prevents us from telling the truth about Islam (just read The Koran).
• Political correctness prevents us from telling the truth about Judaism and Christianity (just read The Bible).
• The United States promotes freedom and democracy around the world because it is right and it is in our national interest.
• The United States suppresses freedom and democracy around the world because it is in our national interest.
• We fight wars for moral reasons.
• We fight wars for economic reasons, masked by patriotic and fear-inducing pretenses.
• Strength promotes peace.
• Empathy promotes peace.

Which of these narratives are true? They are all true. And they are all false. It is simply a question of how much, how often, by whom, and under what circumstances. Even the narratives that seem to be opposites are true at the same time. That is, they are not mutually exclusive.

I am not saying that all of these narratives have equal merit. They don’t. And I certainly have my own favorites. But recognizing these narratives and others like them can help us become conscious of and challenge our own biases and, more important, begin to understand – if not agree with – the people we interact with. Pitting one set of narratives against another makes for entertaining television, but does little to promote much needed understanding among ordinary citizens.