Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Faking It
Fred on Everything ^ | 011904 | Fred Reed

Posted on 01/19/2004 5:42:19 PM PST by Archangelsk

Faking It

A Brief Textbook Of American Democracy

Monday, January 19, 2004

While the United States is freer and more democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so. Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:

(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can’t say and about whom we can’t say it.

(2) A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

A parliamentary democracy allows expression of a range of points of view: A ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian. These will make sure their ideas are at least heard. By contrast, the two-party system prevents expression of any ideas the two parties agree to suppress. How much open discussion do you hear during presidential elections of, for example, race, immigration, abortion, gun control, and the continuing abolition of Christianity? These are the issues most important to most people, yet are quashed.

The elections do however allow do allow the public a sense of participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl.

(3) Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children’s schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn’t practical. In America, local jurisdictions set taxes on real estate and determine parking policy. Everything of importance is decided remotely.

(4) Huge unresponsive bureaucracies somewhere else serve as political flywheels, insulating elected officials from the whims of the populace. Try calling the Department of Education from Wyoming. Its employees are anonymous, salaried, unaccountable, can’t be fired, and don’t care about you. Many more of them than you might believe are affirmative-action hires and probably can’t spell Wyoming. You cannot influence them in the slightest. Yet they influence you.

(5) For our increasingly centralized and arbitrary government, the elimination of potentially competitive centers of power has been, and is, crucial. This is one reason for the aforementioned defanging of the churches: The faithful recognize a power above that of the state, which they might choose to obey instead of Washington. The Catholic Church in particular, with its inherent organization, was once powerful. It has been brought to heel.

Similarly the elimination of states’ rights, now practically complete, put paid to another potential source of opposition. Industry, in the days of J. P. Morgan politically potent, has been tamed by regulation and federal contracts. The military in the United States has never been politically active. The government becomes the only game available.

(6) Paradoxically, increasing the power of groups who cannot threaten the government strengthens the government: They serve as counterbalances to those who might challenge the central authority. For example, the white and male-dominated culture of the United States, while not embodied in an identifiable organization, for some time remained strong. The encouragement of dissension by empowerment of blacks, feminists, and homosexuals, and the importing of inassimilable minorities, weakens what was once the cultural mainstream.

(7) The apparent government isn’t the real government. The real power in America resides in what George Will once called the “permanent political class,” of which the formal government is a subset. It consists of the professoriate, journalists, politicians, revolving appointees, high-level bureaucrats and so on who slosh in and out of formal power. Most are unelected, believe the same things, and share a lack of respect for views other than their own.

It is they, to continue the example of education, who write the textbooks your children use, determine how history will be rewritten, and set academic standards—all without the least regard for you. You can do nothing about it.

(8) The US government consists of five branches which are, in rough order of importance, the Supreme Court, the media, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and Congress.

The function of the Supreme Court, which is both unanswerable and unaccountable, is to impose things that the congress fears to touch. That is, it establishes programs desired by the ruling political class which could not possibly be democratically enacted. While formally a judicial organ, the Court is in reality our Ministry of Culture and Morals. It determines policy regarding racial integration, abortion, pornography, immigration, the practice of religion, which groups receive special privilege, and what forms of speech shall be punished.

(9) The media have two governmental purposes. The first is to prevent discussion and, to the extent possible, knowledge of taboo subjects. The second is to inculcate by endless indirection the values and beliefs of the permanent political class. Thus for example racial atrocities committed by whites against blacks are widely reported, while those committed by blacks against whites are concealed. Most people know this at least dimly. Few know the degree of management of information.

(10) Control of television conveys control of the society. It is magic. This is such a truism that we do not always see how true it is. The box is ubiquitous and inescapable. It babbles at us in bars and restaurants, in living rooms and on long flights. It is the national babysitter. For hours a day most Americans watch it.

Perhaps the key to cultural control is that people can’t not watch a screen. It is probably true that stupid people would not watch intelligent television, but it is certainly true that intelligent people will watch stupid television. Any television, it seems, is preferable to no television. As people read less, the lobotomy box acquires semi-exclusive rights to their minds.

Television doesn’t tell people what to do. It shows them. People can resist admonition. But if they see something happening over and over, month after month, if they see the same values approvingly portrayed, they will adopt both behavior and values. It takes years, but it works. To be sure it works, we put our children in front of the screen from infancy.

(11) Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: fredoneverything; fredreed; laziness
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
Fred's two-fisted style may not appeal to everyone, but he does have a way of cutting through the BS.
1 posted on 01/19/2004 5:42:20 PM PST by Archangelsk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Archangelsk
Bump...
3 posted on 01/19/2004 5:46:48 PM PST by TomServo ("Why does the most evil man in the world live in a Stuckeys?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
Yup. I get his columns every Monday. He may be a crank, but when you cut through all the fist-shaking and teeth-gnashing, he makes valid observations about the decline of our culture.
4 posted on 01/19/2004 5:52:41 PM PST by Viking2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
Fred's a crank, alright--and has some good points.

Like those who are paid to write columns or like those of us who post posts--people will agree with some comments and disagree with others.

That is democracy.
5 posted on 01/19/2004 5:59:30 PM PST by jolie560
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
I think it's rather remarkable that 280,000,000+ people live in as much peace and prosperity as citizens of the United States of America do.

When you have that many people, there is going to be absolute chaos no matter what the theoretical form of government, and the reality will bear very little resemblence to the theoretical.

We're blundering along fairly well, considering that human beings aren't really in control.

Chaos and entropy have the final say.
6 posted on 01/19/2004 6:01:12 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
Interesting perspective. Unfortunately all too true.
Reversable???? Not without a major change that most people cannot stomach. Our nation has become a organized bunch of wussies, scared to stand up for real change and the sacrifices needed to make change. Political power is not in the elected, but the un-elected.
7 posted on 01/19/2004 6:02:59 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
At first I thought this article was going to be about something else... ;-)

All humor aside, truer words couldn't have been said. The piece is a (sadly) honest look at what we've come to.
8 posted on 01/19/2004 6:04:19 PM PST by Tuba-Dude (Beer: breakfast of champions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
"(3) Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children’s schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn’t practical. " Truer words were never spoken.

"(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can’t say and about whom we can’t say it." Nonsense.

Otherwise: Fred needs to learn to keep his presentation down to five major points. Its easier to follow that way.<

9 posted on 01/19/2004 6:17:12 PM PST by BenLurkin (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
(2) A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

and we don't live in a democracy. we live in a republic. it's sad how few americans understand this.

10 posted on 01/19/2004 6:29:59 PM PST by bigghurtt (My life for Liberty, My soul for Christ....http://bigghurtt.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
"A ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian...."

Not a Dime's worth of difference among them either!

11 posted on 01/19/2004 6:37:03 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigghurtt
and we don't live in a democracy. we live in a republic.

Not any more. We live in a criminal fascist syndicate.

12 posted on 01/19/2004 6:39:41 PM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
what a splendidly ignorant statement.
13 posted on 01/19/2004 6:43:04 PM PST by bigghurtt (My life for Liberty, My soul for Christ....http://bigghurtt.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bigghurtt
What a densely moronic reply.
14 posted on 01/19/2004 6:48:39 PM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
I'm glad we see eye to eye.

Now if only we could close the gap between my realistic approach to life and your cynical paranoia.
15 posted on 01/19/2004 6:52:16 PM PST by bigghurtt (My life for Liberty, My soul for Christ....http://bigghurtt.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
We're blundering along fairly well, considering that human beings aren't really in control.

The same was said on October 20, 1929. A week later, opinion changed.

16 posted on 01/19/2004 6:52:21 PM PST by B4Ranch (Dear Mr. President, Sir, Are you listening to the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Archangelsk
We only have two parties because they both appeal to the middle non-political, non-informed, "can't we just get along," dolts that are far more numerous than we dare to think.
17 posted on 01/19/2004 6:54:13 PM PST by M1thumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
The same was said on October 20, 1929. A week later, opinion changed.

You make my point.

Human beings weren't in charge of the stock market crash, were they?

They were just along for the ride.

18 posted on 01/19/2004 6:55:10 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: M1thumb; nopardons; Lucius Cornelius Sulla
We only have two parties because they both appeal to the middle non-political, non-informed, "can't we just get along," dolts that are far more numerous than we dare to think.

Nope.

We have two major parties because of certain peculiarities of our electoral laws.

Electoral laws determine party systems. This is an axiom of political science.

Parliamentary systems use slates of candidates, and foster multi-party systems.

Our systems of proportional representation, election by plurality, and the Electoral College all steer our system to two major parties. It's always been thus.

First we had the Federalists and Republicans (later the called Democratic Republicans, then Democrats); then we had the Democratic Republicans and the Whigs; then we had the Democrats and Republicans.

In our 216 years of democracy, we've only had four major parties, and never more than two at once, spread out over three separate two-party systems.

Only two things can change the status quo: completely impossible Constitutional Amendments (too many states of low populations would have to willingly give up power), or the death of one of the existing major parties. Otherwise it's Democrats and Republicans as far as the eye can see, other than the occasional, unsustainable fluke.


19 posted on 01/19/2004 7:10:57 PM PST by Sabertooth (Pakistani Illegal Aliens Deport Themselves - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058591/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yes, that's the long and the short of it.

Only parlimenatry systems can sustain a multiparty system. The FFs were completely against a parlimentary sysytem, so we don't haved one.

20 posted on 01/19/2004 7:17:47 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson