|
... first, that this political phenomenon in which we find ourselves has been sudden. What has happened recently is a confluence of forces that have been at work for sixty years. That is the nature of the national security state--all the tools necessary to impose authoritarian government are implicit in it--it only takes a president with the will to use them. Here's an example. Clinton chose to make government somewhat more open by encouraging his Justice Department to facilitate FOIA requests and to begin a process of declassifying and reclassifying classified documents and by setting up an appeal board to challenge classifications. All that was done by administrative fiat--the Executive Order. Bush, on the other hand, used the same administrative fiat to close down the FOIA process as much as possible and ordered new classified strategies which put many more (several million) documents out of reach of the public.
Second, as for those soccer moms, etc., knowing that they are insecure, I wonder. Precisely because they believe themselves to be economically secure (I'm not saying that their belief is founded upon a bedrock definition of economic security), they are inclined toward the authoritarian figure of Bush, who says to them, frequently and forcefully, "I'm the only person who can protect you from evil forces," forces which might take away their social and economic security. That was the same routine as with the communists in the `50s. As well, that's the overriding fear of the wealthy elite--that some outside or internal force will take their wealth from them and/or change the system which enables their wealth. That's a part of what I mean about the empathies and sympathies of the middle class. There is also the very human tendency to want to believe that life will go on just as it has, that the job will always be there, the raises to compensate for inflation will continue, that no one will get sick and that (as the Republicans have tried to stress for thirty years) the only forces to interfere in the operation of one's daily life are the government, first, and those nebulous outside threats, next.
Third, as for those figuring it out not making the changes, perhaps that goes back to the nature of the political system which has evolved in this country, as I mentioned. One of the characteristics of politics today that wasn't envisioned by the founders is the fractious nature of political parties. They always have been fractious--by definition--they are just much more so today. That fractiousness is now part of Congress. The Senate and House rules now accommodate that party system. It controls the committee structure, too.
There are many here who say, "why don't the Democrats do something?" Part, but not all, of that answer lies in the party system rules. We're faced with a current administration--like Nixon's--which will not produce documents and witnesses to Congress voluntarily. Subpoena power, however, rests only with the chairman of a committee (and therefore, his party). The situation today is unique compared to times past, with both houses of Congress, the Presidency and much of the courts controlled by one party. That makes it much more difficult to make changes in a country still presumably ruled by law. So, perhaps, it's not wholly a matter of those knowing what changes need to be applied not doing anything, but, rather, being hamstrung by the very system of rule of law they respect.
On the latter point, I emphasize that it's only part of the problem. The other part comes back to the system of money in politics and its corrupting influence--not only of those easily corrupted (the DeLays of the world)--but those who come into the system with high ideals, and once in it, find themselves mostly unelectable without that system. The latter group want themselves to be seen as they think they are, not what they have become. That's why they campaign as they do, but vote for bills antithetical to the causes they espouse when campaigning.
Maybe that last paragraph applies to what you are saying about some referring to others as the "them" that need to get it, finally. Information doesn't flow in neat, simple ways. Because of television, and the extreme stage-managing that goes into it, information and image get mixed together. George Bush has been able to get close enough to grab two elections because he's been (until recently) packaged to near-perfection. People are receptive to his message because it has been packaged well (no matter if the packaging is deceptive--that's the power of television advertising today).
There are many people, solid middle-class people, who, when asked if they approve of the details of Bush's plans, stripped of the hokum, are horrified by them. But, they're still taken in by the advertising. It was Joseph Bessimer, a con man of the 1880s, who said, "There's a sucker born every minute, but none of them die." People are taken in by the package.
Quite apart from the glitz of television campaigning, because of the party structure, we're often not able to vote for the best candidate (for example, in, I believe, thirty-seven states, one is not able to vote in a primary as an independent and, to vote at all, one must declare party affiliation just to receive a partisan primary ballot--at a crucial step in the electoral process, we're denied the opportunity to choose from the entire array of possible candidates). Finally, because so many people get their information on candidates from television, corporate television gets to be the gatekeeper, often based on how much money a candidate spends on ads (national public television, ironically, will not give any time to national candidates). Also, because the networks are all part of other corporate enterprises with agendas of their own, the filtration becomes even more inhibitory to the basic political process.
So, some of us may "know" what's wrong (and we should all be mindful that the use of that word, know, is relative and mutable and subject to new fact), but we're not heard by those most in need of that information. Their attention has been captured by other means.
Your point about being too busy, I think, is true. The pace of life has quickened (for example, Americans now spend more time on the job than workers in any other country, including Japan, and that's just the official count and doesn't include the time spent on work away from the workplace). We also spend more time commuting to and from work, because the roads are more crowded, or because we're living increasingly further from the workplace. We're all encouraged to do the best for our children, because the costs of education are much higher and the competition for the best schools has increased, so the prototypical soccer mom isn't just shuttling kids to soccer, she's also taking them to tutors, music lessons, Little League, dance classes, etc., in the attempt to provide everything necessary for them to be successful, to cover every possible base--and for their kids to fit into the society we're making for them.
Lost in that is the time to read, consider and talk about the government which is shaping that society. That's why the Republicans' "Healthy Forest Initiative" and "Clear Skies Initiative" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" have or have had some initial appeal--because they're intended to be headline/soundbite snapshots of what they are not, but many average people delve no further than the title in the headline--they assume, from the positive-sounding name, that it's a good thing. CNN created Headline News for such people--people who think that fifteen minutes of fifteen-second news clips fully informs them about the domestic and international affairs they believe they should know about--without taking much of their time. Are they really well-informed? No, obviously not. But, they believe they are.
That problem is exacerbated further by the fractious nature of party politics today. Most people (not all) avoid conflict. Talk radio, some cable networks and the Republican Party, particularly, have encouraged the concept of politics as a blood sport, and that discourages many people from having political conversations with their neighbors because they fear confrontation. Many people, too, don't want their minds changed--as Reagan said, "facts are stupid things," to them. So, they're further disabled from getting and comparing information with others. This is much unlike other societies. In France, for example, political discussion is virtually the national pastime. People spend a great deal of their spare time arguing politics with their friends and neighbors. They may be equally provincial in their views as citizens of other countries, but they do inform each other.
That's part of why I think real change comes only when events and the effect of government policies become either personal to or so readily apparent to the middle class that they cannot be ignored. Americans are insulated, informationally, from the rest of the world, but they're also insulated, politically, from each other. That's by design.
Cheers.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
