A Single Imperial Class: Political and Media

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Sunday, April 20, 2025 15:57
VIEWED: 4605
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

FURTHURCAT

Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:51 AM

howard as in zinn? wot's up with you? it's like i'm listening to me talk, but there's no sound coming out of my mouth. thanks for the great posts. do you think you could attack religion next ;-)

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:17 PM

I think we're (that is the majority of the western world, lead by the 'land of the free') moving into a potentially very dark time.
The parallels between the days before the Nazis came to power in Germany and the current political climate of the US are staggering.

Quote:
Yesterday and Today: Nazis and the Righteous Right
If we take a look at pre-WWII Germany, we notice it has some things in common with the United States now. Start with the concept of exceptionality. Nazi ideology grew out of Germans’ belief that their country was uniquely privileged because it was uniquely valuable. This made them an exception to rules and norms. The average “Proud to Be an American” bumper-sticker-buyer believes the same thing. (I’m still waiting for some churchgoing patriot to notice that being born American is a gift of grace and to begin marketing “Humble to be an American” decals.) A belief in your country’s exceptionality takes you way out beyond the warm self-appreciation of patriotism; in naming your heritage “exceptional,” you cut your ties to the family of nations and set yourself above the rules. Our belief in our own exceptionality erodes the walls that hold back human greed, fear of otherness, and violence. Exceptionality makes the unthinkable possible, even reasonable.
…
Another family resemblance between Germany of the ‘20’s and ‘30’s and the Righteous Right of today is the feeling that somebody done us wrong. For Germany, the sense of being aggrieved was related to the famously vindictive Treaty of Versailles that settled the overt hostilities of World War I but left Germans with smoldering bitterness against what they saw as injustice and injury. The core resentment that energizes the swing toward right-wing “Christian” totalitarianism is the confusing, painful panic at seeing The Way and The Truth become one of many ways and many truths. As one pulpiteer expressed it, “having our culture become a subculture” is felt as a wound, an assault. On September 11th, the cultural assault on our inner landscape then manifested as a physical attack on our outer landscape, echoing the unsolved burning of the Reichstag building in 1933. Then, as now, terrorism coupled with an effective propaganda machine helped those in power to bring the country together while separating it from its civil rights. Once we feel ourselves to be under attack, are there any limits to what we will permit in the name of “self-defense?”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8735.htm

Other Interesting articles:
Hunger for Dictatorship
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html
The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

I’m not saying that America is, or defiantly will be, a fascist state, btw. But the warning signs are there, for all to see, just as they were in the 1920’s/30’s.

Consider:
A nation that has indulged in state sponsored ‘witch trials’, interned innocent civilians in concentration camps, censors the media and peoples right to publicly question it’s leaders and has consistently shown disregard to Human rights through her foreign policy during the latter ¾ of the twentieth century. A nation that openly tortures her ‘enemies’.
What nation am I talking about?
Hitler’s Germany?
Stalin’s Russia?
Mugabe’s Zimbabwe?
No.
America. The ‘Land of the Free’. All these things have been done by the American nation over the last century.

It is only blind ignorance that assumes America has done no good in the world, as it is only blind ignorance that assumes America has done no bad, that her system represents ‘pure’ democracy, and that she really does have uncompromised freedom of speech.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:50 PM

ANY system can be corrupted, but the extent and depth of today's putrefaction should be shaking people.

This is more than just "moths around the flame of power" or deference to the poll numbers or wanting to be invited to DC dinner parties. Even now, when the President's poll numbers are tanking and indictments have been made or are in the works, the Dems are remarkably silent and the media is solicitous to the President. Perhaps the best way to determine the root of the problem is to try to find a way to fix it. And I don't think that "public opinion" is the fundamental problem. I can name you three instances where the will of the people didn't move the media or politics, and one instance where the will of the people was manipulated:

1) President Clinton's impeachment. A large majority of people polled said it was much ado about nothing, and they gave Clinton high approval ratings. Nonetheless, we were treated to "all Monica all the time" coverage and the Capitol was consumed for months with the circus.

2) President Bush's war. Most people now believe that the war was a mistake. Nonetheless, there is a noticeable lack of hard questions from the Dems or hard reporting by the media.

3) The Presidential elections. TWO elections were clearly thrown, the second more obviously than the first. But only statisticians and wonks have commented; the Dems and the media are silent as the grave.

4) The build-up to invading Iraq. We were treated to the specter of thousands of liters of anthrax and the mushroom cloud, the close link between Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists. Frankly (and no matter what the bushies on this Board say) it was all a bunch of deliberate hogwash designed to stampede the public into supporting an invasion of a nation that posed absolutely no threat to us.

I suggest that while the public is gullible and manipulable, and while about 30% have their heads stuck up George's *ss, the vast majority of the American public are NOT the problem with American policy.

---------------------------

More later

Please don't think they give a shit.

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

2) President Bush's war. Most people now believe that the war was a mistake. Nonetheless, there is a noticeable lack of hard questions from the Dems or hard reporting by the media.

The Dems really shot themselves in the foot here when the war first began, and I think that has prevented them from speaking out about it now. Let me clarify-

When 9/11 first happened, the Dems (similar to the rest of the nation) got caught with their pants down. Suddenly, through nothing Bush even did on his own, the Pres was looking at an approval rating hovering in the 90%'s. The Dems didn't know what to do. They were already hurting from the election results, and there were a few seats up in 2002 just around the corner. So, they did a very stupid thing - they voted to go along with whatever was popular at the moment (i.e., Bush's war machine) even though it went against their beliefs and sheer common sense.

Now, the war has gone and become a miserable failure, which anyone with even an ounce of sense could see coming. But what can the Dems do now? Any line of really hard questioning that they do will eventually come back on them to "wait a minute, you voted for it too!" Currently, the GOP political machine is in total freefall (DeLay, Frist, Rove, etc.) and Bush is losing his political capital. It isn't in their best interests to hammer Bush on the war - not yet at least. Because they need the GOP machine to break down in order to insure a Dem advantage in the White House.

That's why I think the Dems have been quiet. Which, IMO, is a complete mistake. Now, when the country need real leaders who can stand up and say "yeah, we screwed up; time to fix it," they aren't getting them because the Dems are too timid. But I think that may turn around. A few of them are beginning to come around, and I think that if Hammer Tom goes down, or Rove gets indicted, you'll see a lot more bravery. And I think the media is starting to wake up also. I saw a lot of good things from them during Katrina, and if you check out this site:

http://www.newshounds.us/

you'll notice that Fox news is doing some heavy backpedalling.

I would LOVE the Dems to suddenly unload with a massive shot of political courage, but I don't think it'll happen for awhile, and I really do think that is a leftover from 9/11 and the war push.

Just 7%'s 2c.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
John Kerry voted for the war not because there
were no alternative available ideas or
information.

I disagree. I think (as I just posted a few mins ago) there wasn't enough alternative information to make him question his political career against a President with a 90% approval rating. Which was a mistake, and I think if you asked him about it today he'd tell you the same. And technically he didn't vote for the war, he authorized force when all options were played out, which he later changed his vote on when Bush went a different way thatn what he believed his vote implied. That act in and of itself invalidates your theory. It became the case Bush used against him as a flip-flopper.

Quote:
He voted for the war because he
is a loyal servant to the empire

Is he John Kerry or Grand Moff Tarkin? See his changing vote, in my above response.

Quote:
and wanted
to show his class based loyalty to the commander
in chief. While keeping his corporate lobbyists
well satisfied.

Lobbyists are a fact of American politics. I believe you are British? So you might not understand how the system works (for good or ill). Lobbyists try to get you to vote their way, often having the very problematic side effect of bringing good things to your state. Look at this example. Lets say State A and State B are both heavily forested states. The timber lobby wants to build a logging camp somewhere, but it will be bad for the environment. How does a Senator from State A vote? If he no-votes it, the timber industry goes to State B, and he has cost his state valuable jobs (which his opponents in the next term will use against him). If he yes-votes it, he becomes a "puppet of the timber industry" to the environmentalists, who use that against him in the next election.

Is that right? No, but that's how it works. To be critical of a politician for working with lobbyists is unfair. That's why they have rules for it (which, IMO, should an elected official be caught violating, he should be immediately removed from office, not just handed a fine or removed from a committee).

I don't think class comes into this in the way that you suggest. I think that elected officials share commonalities based on social class (and there is a class war in the US, I don't disagree), but I don't believe social class had anything to do with Kerry's support for GWB on this issue.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

JUBELLATE

Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:35 PM

Quote:
It is only blind ignorance that assumes America has done no good in the world, as it is only blind ignorance that assumes America has done no bad, that her system represents ‘pure’ democracy, and that she really does have uncompromised freedom of speech.

believe it or not, free speech is not a requirement for pure democracy, because pure democracy allows for tyranny of the majority. Now the US is not a pure democracy because of some technical issues regarding a constitution, but what I meant in my statement is that people's overall will is not thwarted by government. Indeed many decisions are made in response to public outcry or approval.

Elitism suggests that people's desires are ignored in favor of upper class goals, which is not the case in most situations.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JubelLate:
believe it or not, free speech is not a requirement for pure democracy

I never said it was.

Quote:
because pure democracy allows for tyranny of the majority.

As opposed to tyranny of the minority, corporate tyranny? Locking innocent civilians up in concentration camps?
But who says the American system isn't open to Tyranny of the majority?

Quote:
In this essay Mill also warns of a second danger to liberty, which democracies are prone to, namely, the tyranny of the majority. In a representative democracy, if you can control the majority (and get them to vote for, and elect, your candidates) then you can control everyone (because your candidates, once "democratically elected", will pass whatever laws are needed for this, as was done by Hitler's agents in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and seems to be happening today in the U.S.A.).

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

Quote:
IT is in the examination of the exercise of thought in the United States that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority surpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe. Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny. At the present time the most absolute monarchs in Europe cannot prevent certain opinions hostile to their authority from circulating in secret through their dominions and even in their courts. It is not so in America; as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason for this is perfectly clear: no monarch is so absolute as to combine all the powers of society in his own hands and to conquer all opposition, as a majority is able to do, which has the right both of making and of executing the laws.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm

Quote:
Elitism suggests that people's desires are ignored in favor of upper class goals, which is not the case in most situations.

A particularly 'intelligent' way of doing it would be to make the populace 'want' the upper class goals (thats the real meaning of tyranny of the majority)

.
Just throwing that out there, more as a cautionary measure, rather than anything else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:02 AM

Quote:
Elitism suggests that people's desires are ignored in favor of upper class goals, which is not the case in most situations.

I just gave you three examples of how a people's wishes were exactly ignored. Can you give me relevant examples to the contrary? I'm having a hard time understanding your statement.

Please don't think they give a shit.

JUBELLATE

Sunday, October 23, 2005 2:55 PM

[quote[ I just gave you three examples of how a people's wishes were exactly ignored. Can you give me relevant examples to the contrary? I'm having a hard time understanding your statement.

Anti-Trust Laws
Regulation
minimum wage

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 23, 2005 3:53 PM

Mmm... okay. but you said "in MOST situations". So, here are several more where the will of the people was screamingly ignored at the Federal level:

Globalization (GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA)- Not sure how old you are, but Ross Perot got 20% polling numbers- and rising- on an anti-NAFTA campaign.

Illegal immigration. Most American? AGAINST.

Environmental protection. People are against the Bush rollback. They know that "Clean Skies" and "Heatlhy Forests" mean the opposite. They oppose Alaskan and coastal drilling and they worry about global warming.

Coporate executives pillaging their own companies: Corporations scamming their investors (Enron), ducking pension obligations (UAL), and funneling money upwards really stick in the craw.

Deregulation: De-regulation has been for the most part a fiasco with power companies and the media and a mixed experience for telecomm and airlines. Where such moves have been open to public comment (for example, the FCC under Michael Powell) they have received a torrent of objections which were promptly... ignored.

Eminent domain for private (corporate) projects: People are so strongly against this concept that a number of states promptly created laws barring this action after the Supreme Court decided in favor.

Sexual health care: Most people are for them, but our Federal government is strongly against.
www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp

------------------------------------
BY the way, this is what people currently think of the three things you pointed out:

Anti-trust laws:
In the exemplar of DOJ v. Microsoft settlement, many states rejected it as too lax www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/02/BU77981.DTL as did comments to the DOJ by a vote of 2:1 www.computeruser.com/news/02/02/20/news1.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-847355.html

Regulation: By a margin of more than 2:1, people think that environmental regulation should be increased. (Harris poll Oct 13 2005, I can't get the link to work)

The minimum wage: The Senate just denied a raise in minimum wage which remains at 5.15 an hour, the official rate since 1997. It is now 4.15 an hour in today's dollars. www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html Here is what Americans are thinking-

Quote:
In November 2004, voters in both Florida and Nevada approved constitutional amendments to increase the minimum wage to $6.15, with automatic cost-of-living increases. In both cases, the measure was approved by substantial margins: 71 to 29 percent in Florida and 68 to 32 in Nevada. Nationally, a 2001 poll for the Christian Science Monitor found that 75 percent of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage. A 2002 Lake Snell Perry poll reported that 77 percent of likely voters support raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $8 per hour, and 79 percent favor regular cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage.

www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/MinimumWage.xml

-------------------
I don't believe you've made your case that the government follows the will of the people in most instances. But we could exchange tit for tat and not get anywhere. What I really found striking just looking up these poll numbers is that I nver saw many of them in the press. For example, did it ever make the news that the Senate voted against a minimum wage increase or that people are strongly in favor? Somehow people manage to hang on to their views (on Clinton, globalization, environmental protection, minimum wage, sexual health services, monopoly-busting etc.) despite the torrent of advertizing, "news", think-tank opinion and government/ corporate spin in the opposite direction. Despite the fact that we see almost no reflection of our concerns and views in the media. Since we're discussing media, corporations and the government I think it would be more revealing to look at cases where the media and the government have failed to reflect our will.

Please don't think they give a shit.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE