Identity Issues

Issues of identity once again took center stage in last night's episode of "The Sopranos." This has proved a dicey avenue of discussion for the series, the embarrasingly bad Columbus Day installment of several seasons back being a prime example. Yet for anyone who has paid more than passing attention to the Italian American experience, identity insecurity is never very far below the surface. Thus "The Sopranos" is obligated to examine it, no matter the risks (risks like earnestness, preciousness, over-simplification, or simple misguidedness).

But the concise, post-romancin' roundelet between Meadow and Finn really hit the mark. Meadow expresses respect for the white-collar scam the firm for which she is interning is prosecuting (forget med school or law–the girl's got organized crime in mind). Finn dismisses her romanticism of the "impoverished mezzogiorno" while expressing legitimate fears for and of the man he's officially outed. Meadow castigates her prospective father-in-law for his dumb Italian jokes. Meadow's name is Meadow. Finn's is Finn. What kind of Italians are these?

Which is exactly the point. Anyone who says "The Sopranos" stereotypes Italian Americans (and in the experience of Epictetus, it's Italian Americans who say this the most) is wrong. The opposite is true. If "The Sopranos" stereotypes anyone, it's human beings–all the behaviors of man/woman are examined under a bright, but not always harsh, light. It's what keeps everyone watching. The Italian Americans of the show are tribal and clannish and exhibit similar surface behaviors, but really they're individuals representing all types, creeds, colors, ethnicities.

Identity is also at play in the shifting dynamic between Carmella and the other ladies who lunch. "She's seeming not like one of us, but one of them," is the comment from Rosalie Apriele as they witness the transformation of Pussy's widow from helplessness to ruthlessness. Carmella rubs vitamin E into Tony's scar–the almost pathetically good wife–while awaiting her husband's special kind of help with the building inspector. It's anther typically on-target update of the old stereotype (yes) of the American housewife.

Consider too the reactions of various characterize to Vito's homosexuality. Chris basically laughs; Tony is uncomfortable but pragmatic (Vito is a good earner)–and even shows some signs of kindness. Paulie sees it in terms of himself ("how much more betrayal can I take?"). The others inhabit various points on the spectrum, from disgust to rage to confusion. There is no monolithic belief or prejudice or opinion among this group–except that maybe getting ahead is what counts. Their common faith is capitalism, and even "Qaedas" (as Tony calls them) have a place if they're helping the marketplace work its magic. It's a restatement of traditional conservative ideals, leavened with Clinton-era DLC global villagism.

Speaking of which: While it would be nice for Vito to live out his days in blissful, liberated immersion in Americana, the thinking here is that paradise will offer limited shelter. Philly Leotardo asks Vito's wife where he might have gone, and though the question goes unanswered, doesn't it stand to reason that she knows he has/had cousins in New Hampshire? "Live free or die" works well as a motto, but if you think New Hampshire has always literally practiced the sentiment engraved on its license plates, think again. Epictetus sees it as ironic foreshadowing.

Crisis and Delusion

Plagued by nightmares sparked by Seymour Hirsch's terrifying New Yorker story on Bush's messianic plotting, Epictetus awoke (groggily) in search of comforting words. The finely architected sentences that comprise "The Ambassadors" helped speed the subway ride, but for some reason, Henry James's descriptions of Paris did surprisingly little to dispel the dread this time.

So, on to Juan Cole, who does his usual in reminding all and sundry of reality. Read him if you want to know how far off Iran is from being a threat (and it's far). He even allows that Bush may be engaged in traditional sabre rattling–since he, like the Irani ruling faction, is suffering such dismal approval numbers. But don't look for any comforting words on whether Bush will actually hold back. This president, as succinctly summed up by Lady Epicteta over wine last night, "is delusional. And you know what? I blame him less than those people who voted for him."

Prime Targets, Informed Comments

There's an allegory waiting to happen when officials named "Rice" and "Straw" are dispatched Iraq to douse the ongoing fires, especially if their mere appearance amounts to spraying gasoline on the flames. Iraqi politicians say their arrival has only hardened opposition and proven immensely counterproductive. Epictetus will leave it to the modern satirists (Christopher Buckley, maybe…?) to write the definitive, skewering account that seems tailor-made for Swift or Waugh or maybe Voltaire.

Funny how a Joe Klein could spin gold from the chaff of one incorrigible horn-dog's misadventures and triangulations, but there's no one willing–or perhaps able–to take apart these guys for such arrogantly public acts of immorality perpetrated on the public they were elected to serve. On the other hand, maybe it's that unapologetic transparency that makes them unripe subjects for satire. Someone recently said satirists actually have to like the targets of their poison pens–have to be won over by their foibles and personalities. Fact is, the Cheney/Bush crowd is just plain unlikable, and their foibles are not recognizably human. Perhaps, then, their story is better left for telling in a war crimes court?

Thousands of Mistakes, or Just One Big One?

In January 2003, Epictetus purchased from a sidewalk vendor an orange button about the size of a silver dollar and inscribed with the words, "No War in Iraq," written in black. Simple, bold, and highly visible from its position of display–pinned to the side of a messenger bag–it expressed all Epictetus wanted to express about the impending invasion of a sovereign country that neither had attacked us nor represented an imminent threat. And in the face of the prevailing attitude of bloodlust at the time, it seemed no timid gesture.

Being firsthand witness to death on a mass scale nearly 14 months earlier hardened rather than weakened a moral opposition to war forged over a lifetime, and affirmed a standing aversion to any ideology of which violence is an explicit or implicit tenet. (Interestingly, many of those who lived through the event itself, rather than viewing it on television, are generally reported to have developed a similar distaste for and distrust in the espousal and stated motives of armed conflict.) Purchasing the orange-and-black button was as natural and necessary as holding the hand of my then six-year-old son so that he wouldn't get lost in the crowds surrounding us on that city sidewalk–a moral choice, and an instinctive one.

Epictetus is moved to reflect on this by the comments today of Secretary of State Rice, who is being quoted as admitting mistakes in Iraq ("thousands," she bravely confesses).

Faith-Based Fear–and Loathing

Damon Linker in TNR nicely eviscerates George W. Bush's favorite Catholic adviser, "Father Rich" Neuhas, while also tracing the regression of American faith and politics since the emergence of Falwell and ilk. Not surprisingly, the right's obessive need for "authority" (and consequent rejection of free thought) dovetails nicely with Neuhas's radical repudiation of free thinking, which Linker says promotes

an America in which eschatological panic is deliberately channeled into public life, in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country's political institutions and make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence, in which citizens flee from the inner obligations of freedom and long to subordinate themselves to ecclesiastical authority, and in which traditionalist Christianity thoroughly dominates the nation's public life. All of which should serve as a potent reminder–as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder–that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America's most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it.

Weinberger Dies Before Joining Iran-Contra Convicts in Bush Admin

Cap Weinberger, a central figure in the biggest subversion of Constitutional authority prior to the current Bush administration, has died.

Epictetus loves coincidence, not to mention the opportunity to comment on the mere appearance of impropriety. Other figures central to the Iran Contra scandal include Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, and John Poindexter, all of whom were appointed to high-level positions in the administration of George W. Bush. Poindexter's conviction on numerous felony counts–including defrauding the federal government–obviously made him uniquely qualified for the position of Bush's Director of the Information Awareness Office. (Epictetus, it must be said, also enjoys sarcasm.)

Dereliction of Duty

LBJ left a legacy of revolutionary policy-making. Reagan re-established in citizens a sense of American exceptionalism, for better or worse. Some presidents (FDR, Lincoln) managed to do both, even while saving the nation.

No one in their right minds ever expected George W. Bush to match those performances (his self-acknowledged incuriosity and lack of imagination cut off expectations early). But was anyone really so prepared for such unequivocal failure? It's hard to think of a single policy initiative in the past five-plus years that hasn't failed. Leave aside the major misadventure in Iraq for now. The prescription drug plan is a disaster. No Child Left Behind has propelled U.S. children to the world lead in test preparation but put them at the back of the pack in science and history (global and U.S.) and curtailed their exposure to art, music, and other creative endeavor. Immigration and Social Security reforms have foundered. By any reasonable standard of governance, this administration basically rates a zero.

But there's the rub. The very concept of "governance" is defined much differently by the current administration and its institutional and corporate backers than by ordinary citizens–or even by Republicans like Nixon. By their definition, government exists mainly to be dismantled–but not before it succeeds in dismantling perceived barriers to business (environmental regulations, consumer protections), to executive authority (congressional oversight as laid out in the Constitution), to the amassing of personal wealth at the uppermost levels (fair and progressive taxing), to the projection of military and economic imperialism (U.N. resolutions, international treaties).

Neil Bush and His Software “Investors”

Wow! Loyal reader Woodstein chides Epictetus for not seeing (or even ignoring?) the wheels within wheels. Yet maybe there is something to this whole "new world order" thing.

Just look at the list of backers for Ignite!, Neil Bush's software company (the exclamation point is part of the front's company's name, not a sign of exuberance on the part of Epictetus).

Aside from the "host of unnamed" "investors" from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the British Virgin Islands, there are loud and proud funders from such, um, disparate locales as Kuwait, Egypt, and Houston-by-way-of-Iran. And Maine: Ma and Pa Bush have apparently dipped into the petty cash jar that rests on the sill of their kitchen window. Neil is brother of U.S. figurehead  President George Bush.

In the News: Bush Family Profiteering

The AP reports that former first lady Barbara Bush gave relief money to a hurricane relief fund on the condition that it be spent to buy educational software from her son Neil’s company.

She’s not the only do-gooder in the family. Neil himself also raised money for a Houston school district, the only condition being that the district buy his software.

It did.

Fukuyama Mama

No need to buy Francis Fukuyama’s new book to enjoy his repudiation of hard-earned neo-con bona fides: Louis Menand gets to the heart of things here. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/060327crbo_books

Money snip from Fukuyama himself (which Menand later expounds on in depth):
 

But conceiving the larger struggle [so-called GWOT] as a global war comparable to the world wars or the Cold War vastly overstates the scope of the problem, suggesting that we are taking on a large part of the Arab and Muslim worlds. Before the Iraq war, we were probably at war with no more than a few thousand people around the world who would consider martyring themselves and causing nihilistic damage to the United States. The scale of the problem has grown because we have unleashed a maelstrom.