Vidal was correct that the re-arming during World War Two was largely responsible for ending the Depression. John Ralston Saul in his 1992 book, "Voltaire's Bastards" makes the same point, generalised across the West, arguing that 'we are living in the midst of a permanent wartime economy.'
Describing our current moment as Vidalian is pretty accurate, if not unflattering. (I'm not sure Biden has opened a 9/11 investigation so much as directed the declassification of the documents generated during the investigation.)
I do think it should be noted, at least for posterity's sake, that Vidal was likely a lunatic who was often right in the way a broken clock is. He fell into the silly pseudo-Marxist trap of believing that the American economy is essentially a "war economy" which necessitated the fabrication of foreign enemies in order to keep dollars flowing to defense contractors.
This is flawed for a couple of reasons. The West will never need reasons to invent enemies--The Soviet threat was a genuine threat to global security; 9/11 was a genuine attack on America perpetrated by religious fanatics; and if China emerges as a geopolitical crisis, you can rest assured it will be the result of the acts of the Chinese Communist government--not manipulative American insiders who aren't nearly as clever and competent as the conspiracy theorists believe.
Vidal always ignored periods of tremendous American economic growth that occurred in times of peace (such as between 1870 and 1914, or during the Clinton years) and he omitted the fact that the Afghan and Iraq Wars were a small part of federal expenditures in the last two decades. No credible economist believes that American middle class is the most robust in history because the Pentagon makes war.
The guy who ended up being Right from the Beginning was Patrick James Buchanan, whose political relevance was unfortunately undermined by some of his socially conservative views that can reasonably seen as bigoted.
By the way, Angela, I completely agree with you about Hitch. I loved the guy and miss his voice, and he would have a field day mocking Wokery.
But he really did miss the mark in his two great causes--American led nation-building and the removal of religious faith from our culture and discourse. I now find myself siding with his brother much more these days. Hitch overvalued secularism and was ridiculously dismissive in the wonderful things that can come from religious faith. His God is Not Great book felt like grad school amateurism; Terry Eagleton was correct in reducing his arguments to "school-yard atheism."
20 years old and depressingly prescient as the USG gears up for Domestic War on Terror v.2.
I politely disagree with Aivlys that "the West will never need reasons to invent enemies." The invention or fomentation of enemies is its house style. The Crusades? The British Empire (ask the Irish, among others, about this one)? The USA's genocide of Native Americans? etc. ad in.
Agreed on PJB though; someone with bedrock principles. Even when I disagree with him I don't doubt his sincerity. Paraphrasing Hunter S. Thompson (I believe it's in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"): "I tried really hard to hate Pat Buchanan but I couldn't. I just liked the guy."
Vidal was correct that the re-arming during World War Two was largely responsible for ending the Depression. John Ralston Saul in his 1992 book, "Voltaire's Bastards" makes the same point, generalised across the West, arguing that 'we are living in the midst of a permanent wartime economy.'
Describing our current moment as Vidalian is pretty accurate, if not unflattering. (I'm not sure Biden has opened a 9/11 investigation so much as directed the declassification of the documents generated during the investigation.)
I do think it should be noted, at least for posterity's sake, that Vidal was likely a lunatic who was often right in the way a broken clock is. He fell into the silly pseudo-Marxist trap of believing that the American economy is essentially a "war economy" which necessitated the fabrication of foreign enemies in order to keep dollars flowing to defense contractors.
This is flawed for a couple of reasons. The West will never need reasons to invent enemies--The Soviet threat was a genuine threat to global security; 9/11 was a genuine attack on America perpetrated by religious fanatics; and if China emerges as a geopolitical crisis, you can rest assured it will be the result of the acts of the Chinese Communist government--not manipulative American insiders who aren't nearly as clever and competent as the conspiracy theorists believe.
Vidal always ignored periods of tremendous American economic growth that occurred in times of peace (such as between 1870 and 1914, or during the Clinton years) and he omitted the fact that the Afghan and Iraq Wars were a small part of federal expenditures in the last two decades. No credible economist believes that American middle class is the most robust in history because the Pentagon makes war.
The guy who ended up being Right from the Beginning was Patrick James Buchanan, whose political relevance was unfortunately undermined by some of his socially conservative views that can reasonably seen as bigoted.
By the way, Angela, I completely agree with you about Hitch. I loved the guy and miss his voice, and he would have a field day mocking Wokery.
But he really did miss the mark in his two great causes--American led nation-building and the removal of religious faith from our culture and discourse. I now find myself siding with his brother much more these days. Hitch overvalued secularism and was ridiculously dismissive in the wonderful things that can come from religious faith. His God is Not Great book felt like grad school amateurism; Terry Eagleton was correct in reducing his arguments to "school-yard atheism."
For anyone who hasn't read it yet, Vidal's "The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh": https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109
20 years old and depressingly prescient as the USG gears up for Domestic War on Terror v.2.
I politely disagree with Aivlys that "the West will never need reasons to invent enemies." The invention or fomentation of enemies is its house style. The Crusades? The British Empire (ask the Irish, among others, about this one)? The USA's genocide of Native Americans? etc. ad in.
Agreed on PJB though; someone with bedrock principles. Even when I disagree with him I don't doubt his sincerity. Paraphrasing Hunter S. Thompson (I believe it's in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"): "I tried really hard to hate Pat Buchanan but I couldn't. I just liked the guy."