COMMENTS: 101
Inverted Totalitarianism: A New Way of Understanding How the U.S. Is Controlled
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
It is not news that the United States is in great trouble. The pre-emptive war it launched against Iraq more than five years ago was and is a mistake of monumental proportions -- one that most Americans still fail to acknowledge. Instead they are arguing about whether we should push on to "victory" when even our own generals tell us that a military victory is today inconceivable. Our economy has been hollowed out by excessive military spending over many decades while our competitors have devoted themselves to investments in lucrative new industries that serve civilian needs. Our political system of checks and balances has been virtually destroyed by rampant cronyism and corruption in Washington, D.C., and by a two-term president who goes around crowing "I am the decider," a concept fundamentally hostile to our constitutional system. We have allowed our elections, the one nonnegotiable institution in a democracy, to be debased and hijacked -- as was the 2000 presidential election in Florida -- with scarcely any protest from the public or the self-proclaimed press guardians of the "Fourth Estate." We now engage in torture of defenseless prisoners although it defames and demoralizes our armed forces and intelligence agencies.
The problem is that there are too many things going wrong at the same time for anyone to have a broad understanding of the disaster that has overcome us and what, if anything, can be done to return our country to constitutional government and at least a degree of democracy. By now, there are hundreds of books on particular aspects of our situation -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bloated and unsupervised "defense" budgets, the imperial presidency and its contempt for our civil liberties, the widespread privatization of traditional governmental functions, and a political system in which no leader dares even to utter the words imperialism and militarism in public.
There are, however, a few attempts at more complex analyses of how we arrived at this sorry state. They include Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, on how "private" economic power now is almost coequal with legitimate political power; John W. Dean, Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, on the perversion of our main defenses against dictatorship and tyranny; Arianna Huffington, Right Is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, on the manipulation of fear in our political life and the primary role played by the media; and Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, on Ten Steps to Fascism and where we currently stand on this staircase. My own book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, on militarism as an inescapable accompaniment of imperialism, also belongs to this genre.
We now have a new, comprehensive diagnosis of our failings as a democratic polity by one of our most seasoned and respected political philosophers. For well over two generations, Sheldon Wolin taught the history of political philosophy from Plato to the present to Berkeley and Princeton graduate students (including me; I took his seminars at Berkeley in the late 1950s, thus influencing my approach to political science ever since). He is the author of the prize-winning classic Politics and Vision (1960; expanded edition, 2006) and Tocqueville Between Two Worlds (2001), among many other works.
His new book, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, is a devastating critique of the contemporary government of the United States -- including what has happened to it in recent years and what must be done if it is not to disappear into history along with its classic totalitarian predecessors: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia. The hour is very late and the possibility that the American people might pay attention to what is wrong and take the difficult steps to avoid a national Gtterdmmerung are remote, but Wolin's is the best analysis of why the presidential election of 2008 probably will not do anything to mitigate our fate. This book demonstrates why political science, properly practiced, is the master social science.
Wolin's work is fully accessible. Understanding his argument does not depend on possessing any specialized knowledge, but it would still be wise to read him in short bursts and think about what he is saying before moving on. His analysis of the contemporary American crisis relies on a historical perspective going back to the original constitutional agreement of 1789 and includes particular attention to the advanced levels of social democracy attained during the New Deal and the contemporary mythology that the U.S., beginning during World War II, wields unprecedented world power.
Given this historical backdrop, Wolin introduces three new concepts to help analyze what we have lost as a nation. His master idea is "inverted totalitarianism," which is reinforced by two subordinate notions that accompany and promote it -- "managed democracy" and "Superpower," the latter always capitalized and used without a direct article. Until the reader gets used to this particular literary tic, the term Superpower can be confusing. The author uses it as if it were an independent agent, comparable to Superman or Spiderman, and one that is inherently incompatible with constitutional government and democracy.
Wolin writes, "Our thesis is this: it is possible for a form of totalitarianism, different from the classical one, to evolve from a putatively 'strong democracy' instead of a 'failed' one." His understanding of democracy is classical but also populist, anti-elitist and only slightly represented in the Constitution of the United States. "Democracy," he writes, "is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos -- "a politically engaged and empowered citizenry, one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all branches of public office." Wolin argues that to the extent the United States on occasion came close to genuine democracy, it was because its citizens struggled against and momentarily defeated the elitism that was written into the Constitution.
"No working man or ordinary farmer or shopkeeper," Wolin points out, "helped to write the Constitution." He argues, "The American political system was not born a democracy, but born with a bias against democracy. It was constructed by those who were either skeptical about democracy or hostile to it. Democratic advance proved to be slow, uphill, forever incomplete. The republic existed for three-quarters of a century before formal slavery was ended; another hundred years before black Americans were assured of their voting rights. Only in the twentieth century were women guaranteed the vote and trade unions the right to bargain collectively. In none of these instances has victory been complete: women still lack full equality, racism persists, and the destruction of the remnants of trade unions remains a goal of corporate strategies. Far from being innate, democracy in America has gone against the grain, against the very forms by which the political and economic power of the country has been and continues to be ordered." Wolin can easily control his enthusiasm for James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, and he sees the New Deal as perhaps the only period of American history in which rule by a true demos prevailed.
To reduce a complex argument to its bare bones, since the Depression, the twin forces of managed democracy and Superpower have opened the way for something new under the sun: "inverted totalitarianism," a form every bit as totalistic as the classical version but one based on internalized co-optation, the appearance of freedom, political disengagement rather than mass mobilization, and relying more on "private media" than on public agencies to disseminate propaganda that reinforces the official version of events. It is inverted because it does not require the use of coercion, police power and a messianic ideology as in the Nazi, Fascist and Stalinist versions (although note that the United States has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison -- 751 per 100,000 people -- of any nation on Earth). According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism has "emerged imperceptibly, unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political traditions."
The genius of our inverted totalitarian system "lies in wielding total power without appearing to, without establishing concentration camps, or enforcing ideological uniformity, or forcibly suppressing dissident elements so long as they remain ineffectual. A demotion in the status and stature of the 'sovereign people' to patient subjects is symptomatic of systemic change, from democracy as a method of 'popularizing' power to democracy as a brand name for a product marketable at home and marketable abroad. The new system, inverted totalitarianism, is one that professes the opposite of what, in fact, it is. The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
Among the factors that have promoted inverted totalitarianism are the practice and psychology of advertising and the rule of "market forces" in many other contexts than markets, continuous technological advances that encourage elaborate fantasies (computer games, virtual avatars, space travel), the penetration of mass media communication and propaganda into every household in the country, and the total co-optation of the universities. Among the commonplace fables of our society are hero worship and tales of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, action measured in nanoseconds, and a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose adepts are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge. Masters of this world are masters of images and their manipulation. Wolin reminds us that the image of Adolf Hitler flying to Nuremberg in 1934 that opens Leni Riefenstahl's classic film "Triumph of the Will" was repeated on May 1, 2003, with President George Bush's apparent landing of a Navy warplane on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.
On inverted totalitarianism's "self-pacifying" university campuses compared with the usual intellectual turmoil surrounding independent centers of learning, Wolin writes, "Through a combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly integrated into the system. No books burned, no refugee Einsteins. For the first time in the history of American higher education top professors are made wealthy by the system, commanding salaries and perks that a budding CEO might envy."
The main social sectors promoting and reinforcing this modern Shangri-La are corporate power, which is in charge of managed democracy, and the military-industrial complex, which is in charge of Superpower. The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations, dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the New Deal. Its primary tool is privatization. Managed democracy aims at the "selective abdication of governmental responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry" under cover of improving "efficiency" and cost-cutting.
Wolin argues, "The privatization of public services and functions manifests the steady evolution of corporate power into a political form, into an integral, even dominant partner with the state. It marks the transformation of American politics and its political culture from a system in which democratic practices and values were, if not defining, at least major contributing elements, to one where the remaining democratic elements of the state and its populist programs are being systematically dismantled." This campaign has largely succeeded. "Democracy represented a challenge to the status quo, today it has become adjusted to the status quo."
One other subordinate task of managed democracy is to keep the citizenry preoccupied with peripheral and/or private conditions of human life so that they fail to focus on the widespread corruption and betrayal of the public trust. In Wolin's words, "The point about disputes on such topics as the value of sexual abstinence, the role of religious charities in state-funded activities, the question of gay marriage, and the like, is that they are not framed to be resolved. Their political function is to divide the citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters' attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace." Prominent examples of the elite use of such incidents to divide and inflame the public are the Terri Schiavo case of 2005, in which a brain-dead woman was kept artificially alive, and the 2008 case of women and children living in a polygamous commune in Texas who were allegedly sexually mistreated.
Another elite tactic of managed democracy is to bore the electorate to such an extent that it gradually fails to pay any attention to politics. Wolin perceives, "One method of assuring control is to make electioneering continuous, year-round, saturated with party propaganda, punctuated with the wisdom of kept pundits, bringing a result boring rather than energizing, the kind of civic lassitude on which managed democracy thrives." The classic example is certainly the nominating contests of the two main American political parties during 2007 and 2008, but the dynastic "competition" between the Bush and Clinton families from 1988 to 2008 is equally relevant. It should be noted that between a half and two-thirds of qualified voters have recently failed to vote, thus making the management of the active electorate far easier. Wolin comments, "Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism." It remains to be seen whether an Obama candidacy can reawaken these apathetic voters, but I suspect that Wolin would predict a barrage of corporate media character assassination that would end this possibility.
Managed democracy is a powerful solvent for any vestiges of democracy left in the American political system, but its powers are weak in comparison with those of Superpower. Superpower is the sponsor, defender and manager of American imperialism and militarism, aspects of American government that have always been dominated by elites, enveloped in executive-branch secrecy, and allegedly beyond the ken of ordinary citizens to understand or oversee. Superpower is preoccupied with weapons of mass destruction, clandestine manipulation of foreign policy (sometimes domestic policy, too), military operations, and the fantastic sums of money demanded from the public by the military-industrial complex. (The U.S. military spends more than all other militaries on Earth combined. The official U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2008 is $623 billion; the next closest national military budget is China's at $65 billion, according to the Central Intelligence Agency.)
Foreign military operations literally force democracy to change its nature: "In order to cope with the imperial contingencies of foreign war and occupation," according to Wolin, "democracy will alter its character, not only by assuming new behaviors abroad (e.g., ruthlessness, indifference to suffering, disregard of local norms, the inequalities in ruling a subject population) but also by operating on revised, power-expansive assumptions at home. It will, more often than not, try to manipulate the public rather than engage its members in deliberation. It will demand greater powers and broader discretion in their use ('state secrets'), a tighter control over society's resources, more summary methods of justice, and less patience for legalities, opposition, and clamor for socioeconomic reforms."
Imperialism and democracy are, in Wolin's terms, literally incompatible, and the ever greater resources devoted to imperialism mean that democracy will inevitably wither and die. He writes, "Imperial politics represents the conquest of domestic politics and the latter's conversion into a crucial element of inverted totalitarianism. It makes no sense to ask how the democratic citizen could 'participate' substantively in imperial politics; hence it is not surprising that the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates. No major politician or party has so much as publicly remarked on the existence of an American empire."
From the time of the United States' founding, its citizens have had a long history of being complicit in the country's imperial ventures, including its transcontinental expansion at the expense of native Americans, Mexicans and Spanish imperialists. Theodore Roosevelt often commented that Americans were deeply opposed to imperialism because of their successful escape from the British empire but that "expansionism" was in their blood. Over the years, American political analysis has carefully tried to separate the military from imperialism, even though militarism is imperialism's inescapable accompaniment. The military creates the empire in the first place and is indispensable to its defense, policing and expansion. Wolin observes, "That the patriotic citizen unswervingly supports the military and its huge budgets means that conservatives have succeeded in persuading the public that the military is distinct from the government. Thus the most substantial element of state power is removed from public debate."
It has taken a long time, but under George W. Bush's administration the United States has finally achieved an official ideology of imperial expansion comparable to those of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianisms. In accordance with the National Security Strategy of the United States (allegedly drafted by Condoleezza Rice and proclaimed on Sept. 9, 2002), the United States is now committed to what it calls "preemptive war." Wolin explains: "Preemptive war entails the projection of power abroad, usually against a far weaker country, comparable say, to the Nazi invasion of Belgium and Holland in 1940. It declares that the United States is justified in striking at another country because of a perceived threat that U.S. power will be weakened, severely damaged, unless it reacts to eliminate the danger before it materializes. Preemptive war is Lebensraum [Hitler's claim that his imperialism was justified by Germany's need for "living room"] for the age of terrorism." This was, of course, the official excuse for the American aggression against Iraq that began in 2003.
Many analysts, myself included, would conclude that Wolin has made a close to airtight case that the American republic's days are numbered, but Wolin himself does not agree. Toward the end of his study he produces a wish list of things that should be done to ward off the disaster of inverted totalitarianism: "rolling back the empire, rolling back the practices of managed democracy; returning to the idea and practices of international cooperation rather than the dogmas of globalization and preemptive strikes; restoring and strengthening environmental protections; reinvigorating populist politics; undoing the damage to our system of individual rights; restoring the institutions of an independent judiciary, separation of powers, and checks and balances; reinstating the integrity of the independent regulatory agencies and of scientific advisory processes; reviving representative systems responsive to popular needs for health care, education, guaranteed pensions, and an honorable minimum wage; restoring governmental regulatory authority over the economy; and rolling back the distortions of a tax code that toadies to the wealthy and corporate power."
Unfortunately, this is more a guide to what has gone wrong than a statement of how to fix it, particularly since Wolin believes that our political system is "shot through with corruption and awash in contributions primarily from wealthy and corporate donors." It is extremely unlikely that our party apparatus will work to bring the military-industrial complex and the 16 secret intelligence agencies under democratic control. Nonetheless, once the United States has followed the classical totalitarianisms into the dustbin of history, Wolin's analysis will stand as one of the best discourses on where we went wrong.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on May 19, 2008 12:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The lesson of Ralph Nader?
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: The lesson of Ralph Nader?
Posted by: jmndodge
» Yes, getting people's attention is a key.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on May 19, 2008 1:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When there are only two big players, both can see control just a few votes away. With even just three, no single organization could hope to wrest control for themselves. Italy has shown us the folly of having twenty parties and forming a goverernment (after the elections) comprised of something representing the diversity of opinion.
But there has to be something between two and twenty. In fact, three would do. Three to five big parties and a host of hopefuls would eventually solve most of our other problems.
We have what I consider to be a constipated process that engenders apathy and simplification of all issues. Voters are not much inclined to think any more compex than the slogan of the day. We can win the war, but can we win the peace? Who else hates that mentality?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How about destroying the myth of a two party system?
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: How about destroying the myth of a two party system?
Posted by: kiatoa
» It's not a myth, it's a fact.
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Ross Perot
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: The two party system is not the culprit
Posted by: Julian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on May 19, 2008 1:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the Corporatocracy and the Military-Security Industrial Establishment about to give up their hold on Washington? Is the Main Stream Media about to start printing the truth? I'm with Chalmers, I don't see it.
With financial disaster looming the only question I might ask is what comes after. My curiosity is whether we, the United States will go out with a bang or a whimper, that is, will we implode into another Great Depression or will we explode and initiate wars that engulf the Middle East and then probably the entire world.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Real Debate: Is it Too Late for the United States?
Posted by: Phr2
» RE: The Real Debate: Is it Too Late for the United States?
Posted by: peridot
» RE: The Real Debate: Is it Too Late for the United States?
Posted by: freedem
» The last sentence in your last...
Posted by: bobtr900
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skizum on May 19, 2008 2:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Socially benevolent political solutions might be possible one day if we start dealing foremost with the objective truth and reality about our own human behavior. Whereas, our human behavior can be described as the inherent characteristics of our human nature (see partial list here) as influenced by our experiences and nurture.
Every decision, communication, declaration and action in the world is influenced by human behavior, yet we as individuals know little of this subject and consequently, how to manage it. It’s actually quite ridiculous if you think about it…
We, as individual citizens (of the world), must start learning understand the fundamentals of our own human behavior and how we can satisfactorily fulfill our most basic human needs. It’s the simplest and most obvious answer. It means speaking power to truth not manipulative rationalizations. It means having the courage to acknowledge and own all of our faults; not creating excuses or finding fault in others. It means being open to understanding, telling and accepting the objective truth of who we are.
Is it possible for us to gain an understanding of ourselves, our relationships to each other and our relative purpose in the world based on a truly objective set of unifying principals that are more basic than religion, politics and local culture etc? If we could develop such a unifying set of principals, would that give us a reasonable basis from which to reevaluate our current political, religious, legal and social institutions. After all, there is nothing more fundamental to us all than being human and wanting to live a humane life.
Perhaps after this point it makes sense to focus on democracy, as a system that can help manage human behavior towards achieving a sustainable and peaceful society….but, only if we adhere to the objective truths of reality.
"Democracy is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos -- a politically engaged and empowered citizenry," one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all branches of public office." - Wolin
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Prerequisite To Better Politics...
Posted by: mmckinl
» No Mattrer How Bad It Gets...
Posted by: skizum
» RE: Ways to Fall
Posted by: Mimi
» The need to dominate is not a human a natural human trait
Posted by: Cathyc
» How about expropriating the rich?
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on May 19, 2008 2:44 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing right now is as bad as things were under the Democrats during the Vietnam war. Back then, when America's liberals were in power and pushing through their equal rights legisaltion and making 'war on poverty', they were carpet bombing Vietnam, using toxic chemical sprays on the country, and getting at times 800 GIs killed a week. We are nowhere near close to that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This Vietnam vet begs to differ . . .
Posted by: Moonray
» Some More Suggested Reading:
Posted by: skizum
» RE: Some More Suggested Reading:
Posted by: CJC
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: freedem
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: TJAlex
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: TJAlex
» You seem to forget...
Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: talkville
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: cyrena1987
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Persephone8 on May 19, 2008 5:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The problem is that there are too many things going wrong at the same time for anyone to have a broad understanding of the disaster that has overcome us and what, if anything, can be done to return our country to constitutional government and at least a degree of democracy. "
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence
and our Unalienable Rights are the Supreme law of the land.
This idea that " we need to return our country to a constitutional
government OR AT LEAST A DEGREE of DEMOCRACY" is exactly the tragic issue.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights and our Unalienable rights are NON-
NEGOTIABLE. That IS the point.We are witnessing the betrayal of civil
liberties, sovereignty and individual and the rights of sovereign citizens around the world..
This is not a spectator sport. This is not random.
This attempt to amend, negotiate find loopholes in The Constitution and Bill of Rights is what is causing the attempt to destroy them.
In case you haven't noticed, fascists and totalitarians don't negotiate.
We are watching an orchesrated global effort to undermine sovereignty
and constitutional governments world wide. It is not random.
These people are not going to be a little bit fascist. They will not give us "a degree" of freedom if it is lost.
Look at the regimes of Hitler and Stalin if you have any question about where this is heading ,unless we reclaim what is ours- and
God given.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If you never cared about the rights of others, why do you care about America going broke
Posted by: warble
» Re-establishing National Boundaries won't solve the problems caused by Globalization
Posted by: yellow
» Great to see this argument, thanks.
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Burma’s right to say No????
Posted by: Julian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 19, 2008 5:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: callejero on May 19, 2008 7:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need to do is KEEP CONTROL in OUR HANDS by letting the politicians know how we feel. We have got to stop using Pollsters and elections for this purpose.
I have proposed (and it's been knocked down without explanation by the elite foundations whose support I've sought) that we create a website that organizes our mandates and accurately conveys them to our officials. Please see The[peoples]lobbyist for details.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on May 19, 2008 7:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is becoming increasingly clear to me, unstated in Chalmers Johnson's review, is that inverted totalitarinism is the child of the marketing/advertising (propaganda) industry. We can talk all we want about creating a new "demos" and reinventing democracy but if we do not get a handle on what constitutes free speech (i.e. political) and how it is different from marketing speech (i.e. propaganda) we will forever be trapped by the inverted totalitarian state.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: warble on May 19, 2008 8:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author also argues that ” The problem is that there are too many things going wrong at the same time” but perhaps they were always wrong and this war is only exacerbating the failure of this nation. I notice that Americans are paying for this war not only through taxes, social security and everything of value, but they are also paying for it at the gas tank and energy. America robbed the greatest oil fields in the world when it seized Iraq but for some reason or other, not explained by our media or our government, we are paying through the nose twice. Is it that the Iraqi Oil fields are not producing oil for America? But more importantly, does anyone care that we are robbing and perpetrating a crime against the Iraqi people and the Middle East?
The author also cites a variety of books from Naomi Klein on down but no one mentions the Milton Friedman gang of rapesters [Capitalism & Freedom] who destroyed the old system of economic checks and balances that were instituted during the Roosevelt years and went around the world undermining the old economic order. Fortunately, he states the premise of the Republican Party.The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations, dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the New Deal” In other words, with the Republicans, private wealth and corporations were king and Communism and socialism were thoroughly disgraced. Naomi Klein argues that everything is up for grabs now. The entire wealth of any nation could be sold to the highest bidder at an auction. All the oil wells and mines of the former USSR were sold to certain fat cats for $100, 000 rubles. That was cheaper than going to war. In Pennsylvania, the governor even wanted to sell the roads. I am sure if he could have gotten $50,000.00 for them, he would have been happy. Every public utility is now up for sale including the libraries, the prisons, the roads, the water systems, the electric systems etc. We don’t even own the rights to plant corn, seeds, etc. Everything is up for grabs. Next week, a utility will be charging us to breathe. A whole group of Robber Barons have stolen America and we are their slaves. George Bush leads that gang. And still people sing the praises of America and Democracy. This Democracy is Imperialism and the whole people are paying for their folly. We no longer own anything unless we pay the piper, Uncle Sam. At least before Bush and others, we could enjoy the blessings of clean water, safe streets, public libraries etc.
Let us understand what really happened to America? First, the government instituted a government wide blackout on information. Then it attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. Finally, because it was cocky with success and joined at the hip with Israel, it flexed its superpower muscles and roared like an imperialistic bull throughout the world, because as the NEOCONS claimed, they would never get another chance to exercise their superpower muscles again. Beneath the surface, they made a grab for oil around the world and terminated the UN.
Perhaps, our poverty and our pain will wake us up. Rev. Wright tried to show us what was wrong. We shouted him down. Perhaps Wotan will get our attention.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leemiller38 on May 19, 2008 8:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1492, Europeans found a new world chock full of natural resources and a relatively weak indigenous people who didn't have steel, the right germs, or guns. The rest is history.
Having bred like fertile rabbits in this new environment and having the cleverness and freedom to come up with all manner of energy and material consuming gadgets, and having squandered this windfall of resources, it has become necessary to destroy the rest of the planet in a similar manner to keep the capitalist monster going, but we are rapidly running out of planet too.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich tried to awaken the nation and world from its overpopulated state in the 60's, but apparently to no avail as evidenced by the Mother's Day recognition given to the parents of 18. They should be ostracized as social parriahs. We are still paving over farmland like there will be no tomorrow while waving the flag and praying to an imaginary friend who is allegedly looking out for us. However, The Collapse that is coming will get here - we just don't know which straw will do the job. I just hope it is not the military one with nuclear bombs destroying everything.
Here again is my favorite poem. It contains so much truth in so little space. Note the date. Our problems are certainly not new, but as old as the eroded hillsides of the Mediteranean.
Conservationist’s Lament
By Kenneth Boulding
In: Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, 1956
University of Chicago Press, p. 1087
The world is finite, resources are scarce,
Things are bad and will be worse.
Coal is burned and gas exploded,
Forests cut and soils eroded.
Wells are dry and air’s polluted,
Dust in blowing, trees uprooted,
Oil is going, ores depleted,
Drains receive what is excreted.
Land is sinking, seas are rising,
Man is far too enterprising,
Fire will rage with Man to fan it,
Soon we’ll have a plundered planet.
People breed like fertile rabbits,
People have disgusting habits.
Moral: The evolutionary plan went astray by evolving Man.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sawdust on May 19, 2008 8:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the sad comment near the end is the one we should start worrying about the most: the bulk of the people on both far ends of the spectrum will never read this stuff or pay it much heed. That tunnelvision is a large part of how we got into this mess in the first place.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on May 19, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate big money folks control the media and therefore control the discussion and the minds of most. So they'll just produce another video news release that says everything is peachy.
It's too late folks. No election is going to restore the democracy we were all taught about in elementary school.
America was NEVER a perfect democracy by any stretch of the imagination. No amount of flags on the set of FOX news will change that.
Today, this country is SO FAR OFF course that there is no turning back without a huge fall and then a restructuring.
I think we need a second constitutional convention to rewrite and update our systems. The electoral college (and the entire presidential voting process) is a joke. Of course none of this is going to happen unless the USA falls completely into bankrupcy and anarchy in the streets. THEN, MAYBE something productive will be done. But until then, Sean Hannity's America is on and he's telling me the problem is those dirty liberals!
VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pessimist - They Will give the money up
Posted by: bruceslog
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 19, 2008 8:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ho-hum - a book I probably won't bother to read.
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: Ho-hum - a book I probably won't bother to read.
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Ho-hum - a book I probably won't bother to read.
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ibolyap on May 19, 2008 8:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look around. Only consumerism is promoted.
People are voting against self-interest because they think that they have control. They don't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: American Political System Broken
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: American Political System Broken
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gogm on May 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real official ideology of the USA is Capitalism. The Republican Party and conservative Democrats such as Bill Clinton are its high priests. The mass media proclaim the word along with the politicians. Many classic religions are tolerated and promoted, so long as they do not clash with Capitalism, much as Japan tolerated Buddhism because it did not clash with Shinto.
The only solution to any problem is the market, competition, the profit motive, or Capitalism. This is the same as in the USSR where only Communism was the solution to any problem.
When adherence to an ideology is as rigid as it is here, it is no longer just an "official ideology." It is dogma.
Dogma killed the USSR. It is destroying the USA.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Surely you jest. Reagan's arms build up at a time when the USSR floundered is a massive failure...
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: We have been broke for several years but we are still around
Posted by: warble
» RE: We have been broke for several years but we are still around
Posted by: leemiller38
» RE: Surely you jest. Reagan's arms build up at a time when the USSR floundered is a massive failure...
Posted by: TJAlex
» RE: I suspect US agents destroyed Chernobyl
Posted by: warble
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on May 19, 2008 9:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, on the other hand, the most paralyzing & crippling response towards great injustice, is docile acceptance. THAT is what the American political system & their apologists are all about — getting you to somehow resign yourself to corporatists & warmongering imperialists, who however (like Obama) are skilled in the use of ‘uplifting’ language.]
OK, now the meat. We are at a time in our nation’s history where the political system is breaking down. It is no ordinary time. Mechanisms that have sufficed since the 1930’s are now failing.
There is zero chance that our system can be fixed through the officially-approved mechanisms. Whether overtly recognized or not, there’s a war going on — the US ruling class against all the rest of us. It’s essentially a class war. The rulers want you to remain a Democrat, because the D’s are a ruling-class institution, whose job is guiding the Dem half of the populace in paths that are safe for the rulers. To remain a Dem voter, and to swallow whatever slop the party dishes up, is to passively assent to this arrangement.
Therefore, ones primary focus should be on resisting & criticizing the system, not on adapting yourself to it. You should be talking with your friends & family about the very real things that are wrong. You should be trying to make whatever contribution you can to elevating political consciousness. Accepting the slop of the Dem Party is the opposite of all that: it deadens political consciousness, & only makes your enemies stronger.
Voting for candidates only works when there are decent candidates — but that’s not our situation. We betray ourselves if we fail to recognize that.
Well, looking at it historically, the “solution” has to be a break from the officially-approved mechanisms. It must have the form of a broad movement based on the interests of the bottom 80-90% of the population, rather than on the interests of the top 1%. It has to be what they call “radical” politics — something that big business and the media are definitely not going to like, any more than they like Kucinich or antiwar protestors.
The 2 parties are really just a mechanism of social control. They’re not a way for “the people” to express their will; they’re a way for rulers to control the people — partly by making them believe that they (the peeps) have some say (which they don’t). Building a movement to oppose this takes time. But its sine qua non is political consciousness — the type that socialists understand & try to cultivate; and that the big-business parties & media try to suppress & eradicate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, we are stuck with trying to make our system work for us.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Yes, we are stuck with trying to make our system work for us.
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: A Wake-Up Call
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: A Wake-Up Call
Posted by: buzzsaw
» RE: A Wake-Up Call
Posted by: chlamor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: roncypert on May 19, 2008 9:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on May 19, 2008 10:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: otto
Posted by: FSadley
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on May 19, 2008 11:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnatra on May 19, 2008 11:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like I have read it before.Called "1984"
So the question comes down to this one as then, the one indisputable challenge:How can 98% of the people take back their country from the 2% who control it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: rn
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on May 19, 2008 11:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd suggest watching the whole thing, and then I'd sit down and think very carefully about what will happen when this kid reaches, say, my age.
"Are you a friend, or are you an enemy? I may just be a kid today, but tomorrow will be different."
Based on everything I know about people, I'd say that in the interests of basic self-preservation, people take this kid's side - because if you think I'm pissed off, you haven't seen anything yet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: izzyK on May 19, 2008 12:17 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is another example of another American liberal (although as a deference to Johnson, he wasn't always a liberal) trying to square the circle. How is it that we could be ruled in such a blatantly undemocratic way when the constitution is such a pure and wonderful declaration of all the principals we hold dear. every modern person save for a few Paleocons and Fareed Zakaria knows that as democracy withers away civil liberties and civil rights are scrapped as well. So the question that is asked now is, what made the US become so increasingly undemocratic?
Their answer, as Chalmers Johnson, Naomi Wolf, and a host of others seem to think is that our "Great Republic", handed down by demigods we call the Founders has been 'corrupted', and that if checks and balances aren't working well gosh-darn-it we better get some more checks and balances!
Johnson complains about the electoral college, and acts as though we moderns have somehow conjured it up out the constitution, rather than it being set down, like the unrepresentative senate, like the house (controlled by the petty state govt's so only 1/10 of the seats are elected) by the Founders.
And herein lies the real problem: these were, for all intents and purposes, set in stone, and guarded by an amending clause that makes the original undemocratic document increasingly difficult to modernize.
As far as our sacred "checks and balances", why might we ask why do governments like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Japan etc. Have no checks and balances whatsoever. Are these places hotbeds of tyranny? Of course not! They are simply modern governments based on a clear and simple principle One-Person, One-Vote majoritarianism .
In absence of this it becomes unsurprising that the most priviledged and powerful special interest of all--the wealthy will gain an increasingly tight grip on power.
It is equally unsurprising that given our plan of government the President is the one world leader in the 21st century who acts instinctively like a cartoon version of a 19th century empire builder, a Kaiser or Czar seeking to gain national wealth by dominating over land and trade through arms-- rather than, say, investing in the development of the nation's own citizens, (but thanks to checks and balances he pathetically can't even pass Health-care reform).
This is all only natural in what is basically an old aristocratic republic from the 1790's.Better things have happened since then people. It's high time we Americans woke up to this, and reconstructed our government accordingly, rather than clinging like overgrown children to same rotten form we have.
I'm ranting at this point, i will say no more.
I would recommend reading the Velvet Coup or The Frozen Republic by Dan Lazare, or anything by Sanford Levinson.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Johnson wasn't a liberal?
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Johnson wasn't a liberal?
Posted by: izzyK
» RE: Johnson wasn't a liberal?
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quasar on May 19, 2008 12:34 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Infants can be brutal.
Like Vonnegut prophesied: our brains are just too damn big. We cannot handle all the things it tells us. We are not wise enough to harness its power. We are too weak to resist – too wicked to not give in.
It’s like the “7 day forecast”: What is it for? It only has meaning if you live in the Doldrums. Horse Latitudes. And what fun is that? No weather at all. No worries. Paradise baby.
Tha answer is simple: wake up. shut up. grow up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» When growing up is simple, wake me up.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Idiot wind
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: backyardbbq on May 19, 2008 1:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amacd on May 19, 2008 7:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This diagnosis of the problem of corporatist control of our democracy differs from the exact words that Al Gore employs in his fabulous new book, "The Assault on Reason", but exactly comports with his view when he states that our country has been taken over by a "radical right-wing 'corporatist faction', which holds in utter contempt the very concept that such a thing as 'a public interest' even exists."
I would only differ and add to Chalmers, Wolin, and Gore by combining Wolin and Gore's 'corporatist faction' with Chalmers' laser focus on empire, and calling the cancer on our democracy a 'corporatist Empire' --- which is hiding behind the facade of this two-party 'Vichy' government.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hambone on May 19, 2008 8:51 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe these old fossils confined to the dustbin of history had something to say after all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» They did.
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: They did, but nobody knows it
Posted by: davidg
» Lenin & his "Bolshevik" Coup (not Revolution) was Bankrolled by Fascists
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
» Is this nonsense relevant?
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davidg on May 20, 2008 5:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: twoten on May 20, 2008 9:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on May 20, 2008 7:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How else could an entire Washington-MSM system railroad a 9/11 cover-up to go virtually unchallenged straight into sham 9/11 "war on terror" of a thousand lies ?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lrondrunkard on May 21, 2008 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In One Market Under God, he details the rise of the corporation as a political force and the elevation of the "free market" to an indisputable law of nature. Frank shows that if you want to truly understand the forces driving a capitalist society, you damn well better understand the corporation and its culture, something that, unfortunately, most social, cultural, and economic critics fail miserably to do.
Lastly, in What's the Matter with Kansas Frank was the first to systematically address how those in power have used the culture wars to divert attention, and political impulse, away from economic and towards social issues.
I'm sure Mr. Wolin's book is a good read, but I doubt it's all that groundbreaking.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: L. Ron Drunkard
Posted by: davidg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sre on May 24, 2008 9:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on May 29, 2008 12:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To its proponents, "inverted totalitarianism" is not the desired end state, but a tactic used to reach it. I think the author misses this point, and draws an erroneous conclusion that American totalitarianism is fundamentally different from those forms seen elsewhere. In reality, it's different only in its method of acquiring and consolidating its grip on power.
For example, he sees no concentration camps, but he isn't looking in the right places. KBR has constructed a number of "detention camps" (thus far not in use) and it was in the news recently that Blackwater signed a billion dollar contract to staff them "on a contingency basis." Hundreds of thousands of additional prison beds are represented in these camps. The most expansive estimate of the number of Al-Queda terrorists is in the neighborhood of 20,000 - and we aren't about to catch them all. It should not take a genius to grasp that those camps aren't needed for terrorists. They're needed for dissenters.
This is the difficulty with evaluating a phenomenon that is underway but incomplete. One sees how power is being wielded, compares it to mature totalitarian regimes elsewhere, and finds differences (such as lip service to democratic institutions) - but the differences are transient. The end state desired by its planners is the same as in other totalitarian nations: a ruling elite unchallenged by the citizenry and ruthlessly controlled. The appearance of democracy will give way to the very ordinary face of totalitarianism as we've seen it in other settings, if it is permitted to proceed.
Aside from that, I think the author has contributed a very able analysis to the national debate. I only hope that his, and other, warnings are not ignored by the citizenry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on May 19, 2008 12:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The lesson of Ralph Nader?
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: The lesson of Ralph Nader?
Posted by: jmndodge
» Yes, getting people's attention is a key.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on May 19, 2008 1:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When there are only two big players, both can see control just a few votes away. With even just three, no single organization could hope to wrest control for themselves. Italy has shown us the folly of having twenty parties and forming a goverernment (after the elections) comprised of something representing the diversity of opinion.
But there has to be something between two and twenty. In fact, three would do. Three to five big parties and a host of hopefuls would eventually solve most of our other problems.
We have what I consider to be a constipated process that engenders apathy and simplification of all issues. Voters are not much inclined to think any more compex than the slogan of the day. We can win the war, but can we win the peace? Who else hates that mentality?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How about destroying the myth of a two party system?
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: How about destroying the myth of a two party system?
Posted by: kiatoa
» It's not a myth, it's a fact.
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Ross Perot
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: The two party system is not the culprit
Posted by: Julian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on May 19, 2008 1:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the Corporatocracy and the Military-Security Industrial Establishment about to give up their hold on Washington? Is the Main Stream Media about to start printing the truth? I'm with Chalmers, I don't see it.
With financial disaster looming the only question I might ask is what comes after. My curiosity is whether we, the United States will go out with a bang or a whimper, that is, will we implode into another Great Depression or will we explode and initiate wars that engulf the Middle East and then probably the entire world.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Real Debate: Is it Too Late for the United States?
Posted by: Phr2
» RE: The Real Debate: Is it Too Late for the United States?
Posted by: peridot
» RE: The Real Debate: Is it Too Late for the United States?
Posted by: freedem
» The last sentence in your last...
Posted by: bobtr900
Comments are closed-
Posted by: skizum on May 19, 2008 2:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Socially benevolent political solutions might be possible one day if we start dealing foremost with the objective truth and reality about our own human behavior. Whereas, our human behavior can be described as the inherent characteristics of our human nature (see partial list here) as influenced by our experiences and nurture.
Every decision, communication, declaration and action in the world is influenced by human behavior, yet we as individuals know little of this subject and consequently, how to manage it. It’s actually quite ridiculous if you think about it…
We, as individual citizens (of the world), must start learning understand the fundamentals of our own human behavior and how we can satisfactorily fulfill our most basic human needs. It’s the simplest and most obvious answer. It means speaking power to truth not manipulative rationalizations. It means having the courage to acknowledge and own all of our faults; not creating excuses or finding fault in others. It means being open to understanding, telling and accepting the objective truth of who we are.
Is it possible for us to gain an understanding of ourselves, our relationships to each other and our relative purpose in the world based on a truly objective set of unifying principals that are more basic than religion, politics and local culture etc? If we could develop such a unifying set of principals, would that give us a reasonable basis from which to reevaluate our current political, religious, legal and social institutions. After all, there is nothing more fundamental to us all than being human and wanting to live a humane life.
Perhaps after this point it makes sense to focus on democracy, as a system that can help manage human behavior towards achieving a sustainable and peaceful society….but, only if we adhere to the objective truths of reality.
"Democracy is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs." It depends on the existence of a demos -- a politically engaged and empowered citizenry," one that voted, deliberated, and occupied all branches of public office." - Wolin
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Prerequisite To Better Politics...
Posted by: mmckinl
» No Mattrer How Bad It Gets...
Posted by: skizum
» RE: Ways to Fall
Posted by: Mimi
» The need to dominate is not a human a natural human trait
Posted by: Cathyc
» How about expropriating the rich?
Posted by: Coleman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on May 19, 2008 2:44 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing right now is as bad as things were under the Democrats during the Vietnam war. Back then, when America's liberals were in power and pushing through their equal rights legisaltion and making 'war on poverty', they were carpet bombing Vietnam, using toxic chemical sprays on the country, and getting at times 800 GIs killed a week. We are nowhere near close to that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This Vietnam vet begs to differ . . .
Posted by: Moonray
» Some More Suggested Reading:
Posted by: skizum
» RE: Some More Suggested Reading:
Posted by: CJC
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: freedem
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: TJAlex
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: TJAlex
» You seem to forget...
Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: talkville
» RE: These books are hysterical and overstate the case
Posted by: cyrena1987
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Persephone8 on May 19, 2008 5:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The problem is that there are too many things going wrong at the same time for anyone to have a broad understanding of the disaster that has overcome us and what, if anything, can be done to return our country to constitutional government and at least a degree of democracy. "
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence
and our Unalienable Rights are the Supreme law of the land.
This idea that " we need to return our country to a constitutional
government OR AT LEAST A DEGREE of DEMOCRACY" is exactly the tragic issue.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights and our Unalienable rights are NON-
NEGOTIABLE. That IS the point.We are witnessing the betrayal of civil
liberties, sovereignty and individual and the rights of sovereign citizens around the world..
This is not a spectator sport. This is not random.
This attempt to amend, negotiate find loopholes in The Constitution and Bill of Rights is what is causing the attempt to destroy them.
In case you haven't noticed, fascists and totalitarians don't negotiate.
We are watching an orchesrated global effort to undermine sovereignty
and constitutional governments world wide. It is not random.
These people are not going to be a little bit fascist. They will not give us "a degree" of freedom if it is lost.
Look at the regimes of Hitler and Stalin if you have any question about where this is heading ,unless we reclaim what is ours- and
God given.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If you never cared about the rights of others, why do you care about America going broke
Posted by: warble
» Re-establishing National Boundaries won't solve the problems caused by Globalization
Posted by: yellow
» Great to see this argument, thanks.
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Burma’s right to say No????
Posted by: Julian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on May 19, 2008 5:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: callejero on May 19, 2008 7:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need to do is KEEP CONTROL in OUR HANDS by letting the politicians know how we feel. We have got to stop using Pollsters and elections for this purpose.
I have proposed (and it's been knocked down without explanation by the elite foundations whose support I've sought) that we create a website that organizes our mandates and accurately conveys them to our officials. Please see The[peoples]lobbyist for details.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on May 19, 2008 7:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is becoming increasingly clear to me, unstated in Chalmers Johnson's review, is that inverted totalitarinism is the child of the marketing/advertising (propaganda) industry. We can talk all we want about creating a new "demos" and reinventing democracy but if we do not get a handle on what constitutes free speech (i.e. political) and how it is different from marketing speech (i.e. propaganda) we will forever be trapped by the inverted totalitarian state.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: I must read this book
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: warble on May 19, 2008 8:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author also argues that ” The problem is that there are too many things going wrong at the same time” but perhaps they were always wrong and this war is only exacerbating the failure of this nation. I notice that Americans are paying for this war not only through taxes, social security and everything of value, but they are also paying for it at the gas tank and energy. America robbed the greatest oil fields in the world when it seized Iraq but for some reason or other, not explained by our media or our government, we are paying through the nose twice. Is it that the Iraqi Oil fields are not producing oil for America? But more importantly, does anyone care that we are robbing and perpetrating a crime against the Iraqi people and the Middle East?
The author also cites a variety of books from Naomi Klein on down but no one mentions the Milton Friedman gang of rapesters [Capitalism & Freedom] who destroyed the old system of economic checks and balances that were instituted during the Roosevelt years and went around the world undermining the old economic order. Fortunately, he states the premise of the Republican Party.The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations, dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the New Deal” In other words, with the Republicans, private wealth and corporations were king and Communism and socialism were thoroughly disgraced. Naomi Klein argues that everything is up for grabs now. The entire wealth of any nation could be sold to the highest bidder at an auction. All the oil wells and mines of the former USSR were sold to certain fat cats for $100, 000 rubles. That was cheaper than going to war. In Pennsylvania, the governor even wanted to sell the roads. I am sure if he could have gotten $50,000.00 for them, he would have been happy. Every public utility is now up for sale including the libraries, the prisons, the roads, the water systems, the electric systems etc. We don’t even own the rights to plant corn, seeds, etc. Everything is up for grabs. Next week, a utility will be charging us to breathe. A whole group of Robber Barons have stolen America and we are their slaves. George Bush leads that gang. And still people sing the praises of America and Democracy. This Democracy is Imperialism and the whole people are paying for their folly. We no longer own anything unless we pay the piper, Uncle Sam. At least before Bush and others, we could enjoy the blessings of clean water, safe streets, public libraries etc.
Let us understand what really happened to America? First, the government instituted a government wide blackout on information. Then it attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. Finally, because it was cocky with success and joined at the hip with Israel, it flexed its superpower muscles and roared like an imperialistic bull throughout the world, because as the NEOCONS claimed, they would never get another chance to exercise their superpower muscles again. Beneath the surface, they made a grab for oil around the world and terminated the UN.
Perhaps, our poverty and our pain will wake us up. Rev. Wright tried to show us what was wrong. We shouted him down. Perhaps Wotan will get our attention.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leemiller38 on May 19, 2008 8:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1492, Europeans found a new world chock full of natural resources and a relatively weak indigenous people who didn't have steel, the right germs, or guns. The rest is history.
Having bred like fertile rabbits in this new environment and having the cleverness and freedom to come up with all manner of energy and material consuming gadgets, and having squandered this windfall of resources, it has become necessary to destroy the rest of the planet in a similar manner to keep the capitalist monster going, but we are rapidly running out of planet too.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich tried to awaken the nation and world from its overpopulated state in the 60's, but apparently to no avail as evidenced by the Mother's Day recognition given to the parents of 18. They should be ostracized as social parriahs. We are still paving over farmland like there will be no tomorrow while waving the flag and praying to an imaginary friend who is allegedly looking out for us. However, The Collapse that is coming will get here - we just don't know which straw will do the job. I just hope it is not the military one with nuclear bombs destroying everything.
Here again is my favorite poem. It contains so much truth in so little space. Note the date. Our problems are certainly not new, but as old as the eroded hillsides of the Mediteranean.
Conservationist’s Lament
By Kenneth Boulding
In: Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, 1956
University of Chicago Press, p. 1087
The world is finite, resources are scarce,
Things are bad and will be worse.
Coal is burned and gas exploded,
Forests cut and soils eroded.
Wells are dry and air’s polluted,
Dust in blowing, trees uprooted,
Oil is going, ores depleted,
Drains receive what is excreted.
Land is sinking, seas are rising,
Man is far too enterprising,
Fire will rage with Man to fan it,
Soon we’ll have a plundered planet.
People breed like fertile rabbits,
People have disgusting habits.
Moral: The evolutionary plan went astray by evolving Man.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sawdust on May 19, 2008 8:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the sad comment near the end is the one we should start worrying about the most: the bulk of the people on both far ends of the spectrum will never read this stuff or pay it much heed. That tunnelvision is a large part of how we got into this mess in the first place.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on May 19, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate big money folks control the media and therefore control the discussion and the minds of most. So they'll just produce another video news release that says everything is peachy.
It's too late folks. No election is going to restore the democracy we were all taught about in elementary school.
America was NEVER a perfect democracy by any stretch of the imagination. No amount of flags on the set of FOX news will change that.
Today, this country is SO FAR OFF course that there is no turning back without a huge fall and then a restructuring.
I think we need a second constitutional convention to rewrite and update our systems. The electoral college (and the entire presidential voting process) is a joke. Of course none of this is going to happen unless the USA falls completely into bankrupcy and anarchy in the streets. THEN, MAYBE something productive will be done. But until then, Sean Hannity's America is on and he's telling me the problem is those dirty liberals!
VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pessimist - They Will give the money up
Posted by: bruceslog
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 19, 2008 8:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ho-hum - a book I probably won't bother to read.
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: Ho-hum - a book I probably won't bother to read.
Posted by: e rice
» RE: Ho-hum - a book I probably won't bother to read.
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ibolyap on May 19, 2008 8:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look around. Only consumerism is promoted.
People are voting against self-interest because they think that they have control. They don't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: American Political System Broken
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: American Political System Broken
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gogm on May 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real official ideology of the USA is Capitalism. The Republican Party and conservative Democrats such as Bill Clinton are its high priests. The mass media proclaim the word along with the politicians. Many classic religions are tolerated and promoted, so long as they do not clash with Capitalism, much as Japan tolerated Buddhism because it did not clash with Shinto.
The only solution to any problem is the market, competition, the profit motive, or Capitalism. This is the same as in the USSR where only Communism was the solution to any problem.
When adherence to an ideology is as rigid as it is here, it is no longer just an "official ideology." It is dogma.
Dogma killed the USSR. It is destroying the USA.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Surely you jest. Reagan's arms build up at a time when the USSR floundered is a massive failure...
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: We have been broke for several years but we are still around
Posted by: warble
» RE: We have been broke for several years but we are still around
Posted by: leemiller38
» RE: Surely you jest. Reagan's arms build up at a time when the USSR floundered is a massive failure...
Posted by: TJAlex
» RE: I suspect US agents destroyed Chernobyl
Posted by: warble
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chlamor on May 19, 2008 9:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, on the other hand, the most paralyzing & crippling response towards great injustice, is docile acceptance. THAT is what the American political system & their apologists are all about — getting you to somehow resign yourself to corporatists & warmongering imperialists, who however (like Obama) are skilled in the use of ‘uplifting’ language.]
OK, now the meat. We are at a time in our nation’s history where the political system is breaking down. It is no ordinary time. Mechanisms that have sufficed since the 1930’s are now failing.
There is zero chance that our system can be fixed through the officially-approved mechanisms. Whether overtly recognized or not, there’s a war going on — the US ruling class against all the rest of us. It’s essentially a class war. The rulers want you to remain a Democrat, because the D’s are a ruling-class institution, whose job is guiding the Dem half of the populace in paths that are safe for the rulers. To remain a Dem voter, and to swallow whatever slop the party dishes up, is to passively assent to this arrangement.
Therefore, ones primary focus should be on resisting & criticizing the system, not on adapting yourself to it. You should be talking with your friends & family about the very real things that are wrong. You should be trying to make whatever contribution you can to elevating political consciousness. Accepting the slop of the Dem Party is the opposite of all that: it deadens political consciousness, & only makes your enemies stronger.
Voting for candidates only works when there are decent candidates — but that’s not our situation. We betray ourselves if we fail to recognize that.
Well, looking at it historically, the “solution” has to be a break from the officially-approved mechanisms. It must have the form of a broad movement based on the interests of the bottom 80-90% of the population, rather than on the interests of the top 1%. It has to be what they call “radical” politics — something that big business and the media are definitely not going to like, any more than they like Kucinich or antiwar protestors.
The 2 parties are really just a mechanism of social control. They’re not a way for “the people” to express their will; they’re a way for rulers to control the people — partly by making them believe that they (the peeps) have some say (which they don’t). Building a movement to oppose this takes time. But its sine qua non is political consciousness — the type that socialists understand & try to cultivate; and that the big-business parties & media try to suppress & eradicate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, we are stuck with trying to make our system work for us.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Yes, we are stuck with trying to make our system work for us.
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: A Wake-Up Call
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: A Wake-Up Call
Posted by: buzzsaw
» RE: A Wake-Up Call
Posted by: chlamor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: roncypert on May 19, 2008 9:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on May 19, 2008 10:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: otto
Posted by: FSadley
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on May 19, 2008 11:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnatra on May 19, 2008 11:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like I have read it before.Called "1984"
So the question comes down to this one as then, the one indisputable challenge:How can 98% of the people take back their country from the 2% who control it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: rn
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on May 19, 2008 11:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd suggest watching the whole thing, and then I'd sit down and think very carefully about what will happen when this kid reaches, say, my age.
"Are you a friend, or are you an enemy? I may just be a kid today, but tomorrow will be different."
Based on everything I know about people, I'd say that in the interests of basic self-preservation, people take this kid's side - because if you think I'm pissed off, you haven't seen anything yet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: izzyK on May 19, 2008 12:17 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is another example of another American liberal (although as a deference to Johnson, he wasn't always a liberal) trying to square the circle. How is it that we could be ruled in such a blatantly undemocratic way when the constitution is such a pure and wonderful declaration of all the principals we hold dear. every modern person save for a few Paleocons and Fareed Zakaria knows that as democracy withers away civil liberties and civil rights are scrapped as well. So the question that is asked now is, what made the US become so increasingly undemocratic?
Their answer, as Chalmers Johnson, Naomi Wolf, and a host of others seem to think is that our "Great Republic", handed down by demigods we call the Founders has been 'corrupted', and that if checks and balances aren't working well gosh-darn-it we better get some more checks and balances!
Johnson complains about the electoral college, and acts as though we moderns have somehow conjured it up out the constitution, rather than it being set down, like the unrepresentative senate, like the house (controlled by the petty state govt's so only 1/10 of the seats are elected) by the Founders.
And herein lies the real problem: these were, for all intents and purposes, set in stone, and guarded by an amending clause that makes the original undemocratic document increasingly difficult to modernize.
As far as our sacred "checks and balances", why might we ask why do governments like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Japan etc. Have no checks and balances whatsoever. Are these places hotbeds of tyranny? Of course not! They are simply modern governments based on a clear and simple principle One-Person, One-Vote majoritarianism .
In absence of this it becomes unsurprising that the most priviledged and powerful special interest of all--the wealthy will gain an increasingly tight grip on power.
It is equally unsurprising that given our plan of government the President is the one world leader in the 21st century who acts instinctively like a cartoon version of a 19th century empire builder, a Kaiser or Czar seeking to gain national wealth by dominating over land and trade through arms-- rather than, say, investing in the development of the nation's own citizens, (but thanks to checks and balances he pathetically can't even pass Health-care reform).
This is all only natural in what is basically an old aristocratic republic from the 1790's.Better things have happened since then people. It's high time we Americans woke up to this, and reconstructed our government accordingly, rather than clinging like overgrown children to same rotten form we have.
I'm ranting at this point, i will say no more.
I would recommend reading the Velvet Coup or The Frozen Republic by Dan Lazare, or anything by Sanford Levinson.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Johnson wasn't a liberal?
Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Johnson wasn't a liberal?
Posted by: izzyK
» RE: Johnson wasn't a liberal?
Posted by: lessbread
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quasar on May 19, 2008 12:34 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Infants can be brutal.
Like Vonnegut prophesied: our brains are just too damn big. We cannot handle all the things it tells us. We are not wise enough to harness its power. We are too weak to resist – too wicked to not give in.
It’s like the “7 day forecast”: What is it for? It only has meaning if you live in the Doldrums. Horse Latitudes. And what fun is that? No weather at all. No worries. Paradise baby.
Tha answer is simple: wake up. shut up. grow up.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» When growing up is simple, wake me up.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Idiot wind
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: backyardbbq on May 19, 2008 1:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amacd on May 19, 2008 7:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This diagnosis of the problem of corporatist control of our democracy differs from the exact words that Al Gore employs in his fabulous new book, "The Assault on Reason", but exactly comports with his view when he states that our country has been taken over by a "radical right-wing 'corporatist faction', which holds in utter contempt the very concept that such a thing as 'a public interest' even exists."
I would only differ and add to Chalmers, Wolin, and Gore by combining Wolin and Gore's 'corporatist faction' with Chalmers' laser focus on empire, and calling the cancer on our democracy a 'corporatist Empire' --- which is hiding behind the facade of this two-party 'Vichy' government.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hambone on May 19, 2008 8:51 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe these old fossils confined to the dustbin of history had something to say after all.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» They did.
Posted by: Coleman
» RE: They did, but nobody knows it
Posted by: davidg
» Lenin & his "Bolshevik" Coup (not Revolution) was Bankrolled by Fascists
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps
» Is this nonsense relevant?
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davidg on May 20, 2008 5:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: twoten on May 20, 2008 9:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on May 20, 2008 7:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How else could an entire Washington-MSM system railroad a 9/11 cover-up to go virtually unchallenged straight into sham 9/11 "war on terror" of a thousand lies ?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lrondrunkard on May 21, 2008 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In One Market Under God, he details the rise of the corporation as a political force and the elevation of the "free market" to an indisputable law of nature. Frank shows that if you want to truly understand the forces driving a capitalist society, you damn well better understand the corporation and its culture, something that, unfortunately, most social, cultural, and economic critics fail miserably to do.
Lastly, in What's the Matter with Kansas Frank was the first to systematically address how those in power have used the culture wars to divert attention, and political impulse, away from economic and towards social issues.
I'm sure Mr. Wolin's book is a good read, but I doubt it's all that groundbreaking.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: L. Ron Drunkard
Posted by: davidg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sre on May 24, 2008 9:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on May 29, 2008 12:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To its proponents, "inverted totalitarianism" is not the desired end state, but a tactic used to reach it. I think the author misses this point, and draws an erroneous conclusion that American totalitarianism is fundamentally different from those forms seen elsewhere. In reality, it's different only in its method of acquiring and consolidating its grip on power.
For example, he sees no concentration camps, but he isn't looking in the right places. KBR has constructed a number of "detention camps" (thus far not in use) and it was in the news recently that Blackwater signed a billion dollar contract to staff them "on a contingency basis." Hundreds of thousands of additional prison beds are represented in these camps. The most expansive estimate of the number of Al-Queda terrorists is in the neighborhood of 20,000 - and we aren't about to catch them all. It should not take a genius to grasp that those camps aren't needed for terrorists. They're needed for dissenters.
This is the difficulty with evaluating a phenomenon that is underway but incomplete. One sees how power is being wielded, compares it to mature totalitarian regimes elsewhere, and finds differences (such as lip service to democratic institutions) - but the differences are transient. The end state desired by its planners is the same as in other totalitarian nations: a ruling elite unchallenged by the citizenry and ruthlessly controlled. The appearance of democracy will give way to the very ordinary face of totalitarianism as we've seen it in other settings, if it is permitted to proceed.
Aside from that, I think the author has contributed a very able analysis to the national debate. I only hope that his, and other, warnings are not ignored by the citizenry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




