|
March
11, 2008
Plumbing the
Depths
How the
Gears Turn
by Fred Reed
Common delusions notwithstanding, the United
States, I submit, is not a democracy -- by which is
meant a system in which the will of the people
prevails. Rather it is a curious mechanism artfully
designed to circumvent the will of the people while
appearing to be democratic. Several mechanisms
accomplish this.
First, we have two identical parties which, when
elected, do very much the same things. Thus the
election determines not policy but only the
division of spoils. Nothing really changes. The
Democrats will never seriously reduce military
spending, nor the Republicans, entitlements.
Second, the two parties determine on which
questions we are allowed to vote. They simply
refuse to engage the questions that matter most to
many people. If you are against affirmative action,
for whom do you vote? If you regard the schools as
abominations? If you want to end the president's
hobbyist wars?
Third, there is the effect of large
jurisdictions. Suppose that you lived in a very
small (and independent) school district and didn't
like the curriculum. You could buttonhole the head
of the school board, whom you would probably know,
and say, "Look, Jack, I really think
." He
would listen.
But suppose that you live in a suburban
jurisdiction of 300,000. You as an individual mean
nothing. To affect policy, you would have to form
an organization, canvass for votes, solicit
contributions, and place ads in newspapers. This is
a fulltime job, prohibitively burdensome.
The larger the jurisdiction, the harder it is to
exert influence. Much policy today is set at the
state level. Now you need a statewide campaign to
change the curriculum. Practically speaking, it
isn't practical.
Fourth are impenetrable bureaucracies. A lot of
policy is set by making regulations at some
department or other, often federal. How do you call
the Department of Education to protest a rule which
is in fact a policy? The Department has thousands
of telephones, few of them listed, all of which
will brush you off. There is nothing the public can
do to influence these goiterous, armored,
unaccountable centers of power.
Yes, you can write your senator, and get a
letter written by computer, "I thank you for your
valuable insights, and assure you that I am doing
all
."
Fifth is the invisible bureaucracy (which is
also impenetrable). A few federal departments get
at least a bit of attention from the press, chiefly
State and Defense (sic). Most of the government
gets no attention at all -- HUD, for example.
Nobody knows who the Secretary of HUD is, or what
the department is doing. Similarly, the textbook
publishers have some committee whose name I don't
remember (See? It works) that decides what words
can be used in texts, how women and Indians must be
portrayed, what can be said about them, and so on.
Such a group amounts to an unelected ministry of
propaganda and, almost certainly, you have never
heard of it.
Sixth, there is the illusion of journalism. The
newspapers and networks encourage us to think of
them as a vast web of hard-hitting,
no-holds-barred, chips-where-they-may inquisitors
of government: You can run, but you can't hide. In
fact federal malefactors don't have to run or hide.
The press isn't really looking.
Most of press coverage is only apparent.
Television isn't journalism, but a service that
translates into video stories found in the
Washington Post and New York Times
(really). Few newspapers have bureaus in
Washington; the rest follow the lead of a small
number of major outlets. These don't really cover
things either.
When I was reporting on the military, there were
(if memory serves) many hundreds of reporters
accredited to the Pentagon, or at least writing
about the armed services. It sounds impressive: All
those gimlet eyes.
What invariably happened though was that some
story would break -- a toilet seat alleged to cost
too much, or the failure of this or that. All the
reporters would chase the toilet seat, fearful that
their competitors might get some detail they
didn't. Thus you had one story covered six hundred
times. In any event the stories were often
dishonest and almost always ignorant because
reporters, apparently bound by some natural law,
are obligate technical illiterates. This includes
the reporters for the Post and the
Times.
Seventh, and a bit more subtle, is the lack of
centers of demographic power in competition with
the official government. The Catholic Church, for
example, once influentially represented a large
part of the population. It has been brought to
heel. We are left with government by lobby -- the
weapons industry, big pharma, AIPAC, the teachers
unions -- whose representatives pay Congress to do
things against the public interest.
Eighth, we are ruled not by a government but by
a class. Here the media are crucial. Unless you
spend time outside of America, you may not realize
to what extent the press is controlled. The press
is largely free, yes, but it is also largely owned
by a small number of corporations which, in turn,
are run by people from the same pool from which are
drawn high-level pols and their advisers. They are
rich people who know each other and have the same
interests. It is very nearly correct to say that
these people are the government of the United
States, and that the federal apparatus merely a
useful theatrical manifestation.
Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the
schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that
can't vote wisely. Just as trial lawyers don't want
intelligent jurors, as they are harder to
manipulate, so political parties don't want
educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass
gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity
contests modulated by the state of the economy. One
party may win, yes, or the other. But a TV-besotted
electorate doesn't meddle in matters important to
its rulers. It has never heard of them.
To disguise all of this, elections provide the
excitement and intellectual content of a football
game, without the importance. They allow a sense of
Participation. In bars across the land, in
high-school gymns become forums, people become
heated about what they imagine to be decisions of
great import: This candidate or that? It keeps them
from feeling left out while denying them power.
It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not
even exist. A presidential candidate consists of
two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach,
ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of
focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the
handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up
his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican
voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a
Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will
report this calculated transformation. Yet it
works. You can fool enough of the people enough of
the time.
When people sense this and decline to vote, we
cluck like disturbed hens and speak of apathy.
Nope. Just common sense.
Reed
Archive
Copyright 2008 by Fred Reed and reproduced here by
permission of the author.
About
the Author (by the author):
Fred Reed is a Marine combat veteran, police
reporter, amateur biochemist, former long-haul
hitchhiker, and part-time sociopath living in
Mexico. Fred, a keyboard mercenary with a
disorganized past, has worked on staff for Army
Times, The Washingtonian, Soldier of Fortune,
Federal Computer Week, and The Washington
Times. He has been published in Playboy,
Soldier of Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The
Washington Post, Harper's, National Review, Signal,
Air&Space, and suchlike. He has worked as a
police writer, technology editor, military
specialist, and authority on mercenary soldiers. He
is by all accounts as looney as a tune.
Visit the "Fred
on Everything" website to read his previous
columns and sign up for his regular e-mail
feature.
|
The essays in A Brass Pole in
Bangkok, are sometimes wildly funny,
sometimes deadly serious, always merciless
in their unmasking of the pretenses and
charlatans of society. Fred, a former
Marine, subscribes to no ideology ("an
ideology is just a systematic way of
misunderstanding the world") but
exuberantly wreaks havoc on practically
everything, and delights in everything
else: the psychotherapy swindle, squalling
feminists, race racketeers, damn fool
wars, red-light districts in Asia, and
tequila fests in Mexico, where he
lives.
A
Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire To
Be, by Fred Reed
|
|
|
Buy Fred's new reprehensible book,
Nekkid In Austin! Another
collection of Fred's collected outrages,
irresponsible ravings, and curmudgeonry
from "Fred On Everything" and some
innocent magazines that, he says,
foolishly published him. Wildly funny,
sometimes wacky, always provocative essays
on the collapse of America.
Nekkid
in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a
Well, by Fred Reed
|
|
Because
The Radical Academy publishes essays and articles
on its website does not imply acceptance or
approval of the comments or opinions expressed by
the author of the material. Nor is the Academy
responsible for any misrepresentation of the facts
included. It is your job to be a critical
reader.
|