Worldview Politics

Elites vs. Public Opinion
04 May 2008

For some time now, I have been impressed at the disconnect in the United States between public opinion and government behavior, especially regarding foreign policy. The 2006 midterm elections were supposed to have been a referendum on the disastrous Iraq war, with a clear majority expressing a desire to start withdrawing. Nothing of the sort happened, and the 'treason' of 37 Democratic Senators, who voted to give President Bush $100 billion to continue the war — with 'no strings attached' — ensured that public opinion would be ignored on Capitol Hill. Even so seemingly decent a senator as Carl Levin voted with the president.

Herman and Peterson on Elite Arrogance

I have wanted to investigate this puzzling and troubling development, and a recent article by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson posted on Electric Politics provides a nice start. Most of their article summarizes aspects of imperialistic US foreign policy that are standard fare for progressives, but in their concluding section, they take a stab at domestic politics, with a summary of the contempt for public opinion that is to be found, not only in the US government, but also in the governments of many or our allies. I normally do not like to copy so much of someone else's article, but this concluding section is rich in facts and footnotes, as is customary with these authors, and their complete article is only a click away.

NOTE: As usual in my blog, I will add to this thread as time goes by. The updates may seem to meander around the topic for a while, as I explore various angles, but in the end, I hope to draw some firm conclusions. For the moment, let me just point out that it would be a bit too simple to claim that the 'bad' elites ignore the 'good' public. About half of that public now seems to favor manifestly militaristic presidential candidate John McCain. It is true that the fawning mainstream press has largely given this maniac a free pass, but even a fool should be able to sense what McCain stands for. Also, let us remember how the public nearly always supports wars by large margins at the beginning. It's a bit too simple to explain this entirely by media brainwashing, so I guess I have my work cut out for me. I am also puzzled at why so many foreign leaders defy the will of their people and kowtow to us.

Now, here are Herman and Peterson, to start us off.

PRINCIPLES OF THE
IMPERIAL NEW WORLD ORDER
Edward S. Herman and David Peterson,
Electric Politics, 01 May 08

Underlying the consolidation of the principles of the Imperial New World Order is the global decline of substantive democracy, as the global political elites have been able to do what they want in service to their interests — the holy trinity of the neoliberal program, militarization, and power-projection — in the face of widespread opposition on the part of the underlying populations. This had a dramatic manifestation in a recent exchange between ABC - TV News correspondent Martha Raddatz and Vice President Dick Cheney. Asked what he thinks about the two-thirds of the American public that says the Iraq war is 'not worth fighting', Cheney replied: 'So?' [35] The contempt for what the public wants and the widely held belief among the politicians in charge about the public's irrelevance — except as workers, consumers, and as a field whose votes can be harvested once every election cycle — could hardly be more blatant.
Elite contempt for the consent of the governed radiates throughout the U.S. media as well. In an important opinion poll released just two days after the Raddatz - Cheney exchange (and one that in fact used their exchange to highlight the poll's findings), 77% of U.S. respondents agreed with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that 'the will of the people [should] be the basis of the authority of government'. A dramatically high 94% said that U.S. government leaders 'should pay attention to the views of the people as they make decisions'. But when asked whether they believe the United States 'is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves', or 'run for the benefit of all the people', 80% said 'by a few big interests' [36]. Remarkably, although conducted during a presidential election year, and devoted to what Americans think about their own political lives, this opinion poll went unreported in the U.S. media, while a separate poll conducted by the same firm that asked people in six different countries what they think about China was reported widely [37].
The U.S. public was hostile to the Iraq invasion-occupation even before it occurred [38], as was the global public [39], and for some years now polls have shown a solid majority in the United States wanting a fairly prompt and complete exit [40], and a reduction of the role the United States plays globally, particularly in its readiness to use force [41]; but this has had zero effect on U.S. policy, with the Democrats as well as the Republicans failing to respond to what the voting public wants. Polls in Iraq also show a definite majority there want the United States out [42], but again with zero effect on U.S. policy or the response of leaders of the supposedly democratic states in Europe and elsewhere who have put no pressure on the invader-occupier to withdraw.
It has also been long established that the U.S. public would like to see a smaller military budget, greater infrastructure spending and greater efforts at diplomatic and collective resolution of international issues. A 2007 poll showed that 73 percent of U.S. citizens would favor an agreement for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, an opinion that runs exactly counter to the policies of the Bush administration (which have not been noticeably opposed by the Democratic Party) [43]. In keeping with the principle of elite contempt for the consent of the governed, the U.S. government continues to pursue next-generation nuclear weapons capabilities, and does everything in its power to prevent the NPT's disarmament requirement from even being raised in multilateral forums.
Abroad as well, public opinion seems to have little effect on policy-makers, who fall readily into line with the ruler of the Imperial New World Order. A series of polls within the Czech Republic these past 16 months report consistent majorities (sometimes reaching as high as 75 percent) that oppose the placement of any component of the U.S. anti-missile program on their territory [44]. But the Czech government rushes toward acceptance, and Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek resists all calls for a national referendum on the issue; in analyst Philip Coyle's words, 'Czech government officials have even been known to say that the decision to host the radar is too important to be left to the voters' [45]. The same scenario has played out in Poland, with a majority of Poles consistently opposing their country's participation in the U.S. anti-missile program, while Prime Minister Donald Tusk also refuses to permit a referendum on the issue. 'The truth is brutal', Tusk explained, 'there will not be decisions of a military character approved through universal vote' [46]. The publics in Europe's largest countries also oppose the U.S. anti-missile program, with pluralities opposed in Britain (44%) and Italy (49%), and clear majorities in France (58%), Spain (61%), and Germany (71%) [47]. In each case, the leadership of these NATO members support the program — which is to say, oppose their own publics. Similarly in Canada, the most recent public opinion poll shows that 59% disagreed with the decision of Parliament to extend their mission to Afghanistan for another three years. Some 70-80% of Poles are opposed to their government's participation in what has become NATO's war in Afghanistan; Tusk as well had strongly opposed participation just before his election, but switched to support after he secured his victory. A French poll showed that 68% opposed President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to send more French troops to Afghanistan [48].
In short, the consolidation of Imperial New World Order principles rests on the United States and its allies, clients, and hangers-on being pseudo-democracies, ruled by elites free to ignore their own publics — failed states, in effect. This in turn rests on the huge and growing inequalities that have come to prevail, both within and between states, the plutocratization of politics, the erosion of a constitutional public sphere, the gatekeeper and propaganda services of an increasingly centralized media, and publics that thus far have been too easily managed despite the disadvantages the great majority has suffered under this unjust and ever-more threatening regime.
The INWO is not likely to disappear anytime soon, unless it causes its own catastrophic destruction. (By no means impossible, given its trajectory, as 'little changes, and much gets worse'.) Otherwise, it is not likely to end until the mass of humanity ceases to be manageable, organizes at home and abroad, and fights back.

Yikes! It looks like we're screwed! More to come...

An Afro-Redneck Coalition?

POSTED 26 May 08: Well, it's the end of the month, and I haven't gotten far with this article. However, I have collected a number of related articles and videos from other commentators (see below), so I think I'll review a few of them and consider how they contribute to the overall topic of elite contempt for public opinion, especially regarding the Iraq War. (To be sure, I realize the public has a short attention span and may already have forgotten about the war. I'll get to that.) As I said before, the updates may meander around the topic, but I intend to finish each update with a 'lesson drawn'. In the end, I'll collect the lessons together in a conclusions section.

First, I would like to discuss a very interesting idea put forth by Democratic Virginia Senator Jim Webb towards the end of this video clip (see also here), namely, that if poor, rural, or working-class whites — which even Webb jokingly refers to as 'rednecks' — and poor, urban, black Americans could unite, then a new populist juggernaut could change the political map and humble our current corporate masters. Unfortunately, recent primaries in states like West Virginia and Kentucky have made it clear that many poor, rural, or working-class whites distrust Obama (and presumably blacks in general). Webb attributes this to resentment over affirmative action, which he claims has benefitted minority groups to the exclusion of poor whites.

Jim Webb was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, but switched allegiance to the Democratic party after the invasion of Iraq, which he considers a mistake. He is proud of his 'Scots-Irish' origins, which he has written about in his book 'Born Fighting'. These Scots-Irish form the basis of working and rural whites in America today, and they display some characteristic traits, such as patriotism, religiosity, bellicosity, a fondness for the military, a lack of fondness for intellectual matters, and, some would say, a tendency towards racism. Such views have been echoed by Joe Bageant from a more progressive perspective (and Joe claims to be one of them and proud of it). This demographic group, which populates the Appalachian and Southern states, has also formed the basis of the Reagan Democrats, and they are said to be a major reason that Democrats have had trouble winning elections since the 1960's. Nixon first exploited this 'silent majority' with his so-called 'Southern Strategy', by taking advantage of resentments over recent civil rights legislation and affirmative action programs for minorities.

Like the stereotypical Eastern elitist, I used to disparage such people as having serious personality and cognitive problems, but Webb has wisely reminded us of the importance of trying to understand them, if only because the Democrats are lost without their votes — at least until we grant citizenship to untold millions of Hispanics! Webb claims that these folks are really the 'tortured siblings' of poor blacks, who have also missed the boat of American opportunity. They are not so much inherently racist, he says, as resentful of affirmative action that has gone to every ethnic group but not to poor whites. Frankly, I agree that it was a major political blunder to grant government help based on ethnicity. It should always have been based solely on economic need. This doesn't quite excuse the racism which insists on rejecting Obama, just because he is black, or that falsely accuses him of being a Muslim. We are evidently not dealing with enlightened people, but we should still recognize the merit of their grievances and restore government aid to its proper color-blind status.

Not only would this enable a powerful populist coalition of poor whites and blacks to form and win elections, but it could also overthrow the corporate stranglehold on our politics, which seems to be a major contribution to our aggressive foreign policy. Now, I try not to be as simplistic about this connection as many progressives tend to be. The days of the United Fruit Company and right-wing coups in Central and South America appear to be over, unless one believes that the Iraq War was really fought primarily for oil and not because of a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 based on flimsy intelligence. Nevertheless, there is a connection. For example, it is no doubt big corporations who fund think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and it is AEI which gave a platform to so many of the neocons. And there are reports that the US administration is trying to foist oil contracts on the Iraqis that are highly advantageous to American oil companies. Perhaps those who rise to the top of big corporations must necessarily be rather aggressive by nature. Even so, there is evidence that much of the business community did not want to go into Iraq.

So, while a populist coalition might be economically beneficial to the people involved, would it necessarily make our foreign policy less aggressive? That is what I care about most. As I just said, there does seem to be a link between big business and our aggressive foreign policy, but the link is not as manifestly causal to me as it is to others. We should remember that populist movements can be aggressive too. The French Revolution was exporting its democracy by war, even before Napoleon took over. Then once he did, he was widely adored by the French masses, in what may have been the first instance of modern 'fascism'. Both Webb and Bageant are clear that the Scots-Irish tend to be bellicose, and well as patriotic and fond of the military. These sound like the ingredients of militarism to me. However, Webb, who has actually served in the military — unlike Clinton, Bush, Cheney, and so many other current American leaders — has opposed the war in Iraq and even written that it is 'the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory'. From serving as a marine in Vietnam, he appreciated that the US military machine would again flounder against a determined guerilla resistance. If a self-proclaimed 'redneck' like Webb can show some good sense and restraint on foreign policy, then so can the rest of his clan!

My feeling (and hope) is that Webb's people are more concerned with emotional principles such as 'honor' than with any overt Wilsonian or neo-colonialist policies. That is, they aren't itching to invade anyone, but their patriotism makes them susceptible to lies from their president, especially if it is a president who skillfully manipulates the symbols that strike a chord in their hearts. Responsible and intelligent patriots like Webb would seem the best antidote. It may seem like a cliche, but let us remember that it was Eisenhower who warned about the military-industrial complex. I am hard-pressed to think of any recent Democratic politicians to echo this theme, not even Obama.

NOTE: A Bloggingheads interview with Ruy Teixeira reminds me of the obvious, namely, that it's too simple to speak of the 'white working class', as though it were a homogeneous entity. There are various educational and skill levels within the 'working class', and geography also makes a big difference. For instance, Obama did much better with the white working vote in Oregon than in the Appalachian states. Moreover, there are as many of these 'working class' voters in Oregon as in Kentucky. So perhaps we (the pundits and I) were over-generalizing from the latter. It happens all the time.

NOTE: Another article reminds me of yet another important and obvious factor: the tension between poor whites and latinos, not to mention between poor blacks and latinos, and the whole issue of immigration. This shows how easy it is to forget an entire major factor, even one directly related to the topic under discussion!

LESSON: As often happens, the elites have managed to divide the public over ethnicity, class, religion, or whatever else appeals to the ego, thus stimulating the darker forces in human nature. Hence, many poor whites seem to feel some bigotry towards blacks, and the Republicans have deviously exploited this. The situation is complicated by the fact that some of the grievances of the poor whites have merit, such as that government help should be color-blind. Failure to adhere to this basic principle should be considered a major blunder on the part of 'liberals', since a natural populist coalition has thus been divided and neutralized. Militant blacks who reject this principle have also contributed to the division. One must also remember that categories such as the 'working whites' are quite diverse, and over-simplification must be avoided, since this only reinforces bigotry.

Rococo Marxists

POSTED 31 May 08: It's the last day of the month, and this ambitious article has made little progress. Perhaps I bit off more than I could chew. I have collected a seemingly disparate list of online pieces below, which all say something about the topic at hand, namely, the disconnect between elite and public opinion. After discussing poor whites, I would now like to explore why so many educated Americans have failed to sign on to a more critical view of American foreign policy. Why, for instance, is someone like Chomsky simply brushed aside by so many literate and politically-informed Americans? Is it entirely due to media brainwashing? Or are there psychological reasons why even informed Americans are seemingly averse to a truly critical analysis of our foreign policy? Even the so-called 'liberals' often fail to challenge the longstanding interventionist basis of our policy, preferring instead to settle for fine-tuning, such as complementing our military might with a bit more diplomacy. Moreover, with the exception of the underfunded alternative press, so few voices are challenging corporate supremacy, which was perfectly respectable way back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt!

To get a fresh perspective, I propose reviewing an article by social critic Tom Wolfe called 'In the Land of the Rococo Marxists'. He echoes many of the themes found in the conservative press, which have been used so effectively by the Republican party. Basically, these themes boil down to the caricature that left-wing intellectuals hate America and see only the bad in our great nation. Apparently, this sentiment has struck a chord with many Americans, or at least with those who think about such matters at all. Patriotism seems to be a natural instinct with human beings, and this instinct can be exploited to brush aside all serious criticism of one's country, without even having to construct a serious rebuttal. In the end, I found Wolfe's article to be rather superficial, even if he had some good points to make about certain intellectuals. But there is no doubt that his general reactionary mood echoes, somewhat more elegantly, that of millions of Americans who continue to vote for Republicrats, while throwing Chomsky and company in the trash, without even bothering to read them. For example, Andrew Sullivan likes to pose as one of our more thoughtful conservative pundits, but some of his robotic pre-war blogposts betray his inability to give an honest account of what a critic like Chomsky actually says, as we will see. (Indeed, I was once guilty of this knee-jerk reaction myself, which I had absorbed by osmosis back when I mistakenly assumed that the mainstream media was populated by real journalists.)

Wolfe's article, written in 2000, is no doubt dated by 9/11 and the Iraq War, but his themes live on as staples of the Republican propaganda machine, and of many Democrats as well. And even if the nation is ever-so-slightly chastened by the Iraq debacle — a debatable proposition — Wolfe's article provides a window into the national hubris that got us into our present hole.

Wolfe starts out by bemoaning that ordinary Americans at the dawn of the second millennium aren't boasting of their pre-eminence as the Brits did a century ago, with 'Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves!' I don't want to sound too sanctimonious, but let's face it: Colonialism was (and is) nothing but a state-sponsored crime against humanity. So any comparison to the British Empire already reveals a disturbing reactionary hubris. I don't believe that average Americans are so grandiose in their thinking; most of them can't even locate another country on the map. The ugliness that President Bush exploited after 9/11 had more to do with stereotypes about terrorists: foreign, unshaven, Arab-looking. Many Americans are quite capable of feeling bigotry towards those who look different, especially after being attacked. But if left alone, we tend to revert to our solipsistic concerns, and we couldn't care less who shares the planet with us. Surely, the American Empire exists, but this is primarily the project of elites.

Then Wolfe reminds us how virtuous we are, for having fought the Nazis and the Communists, and won in both cases. The implication is that we are inherently virtuous, as well as brave, and such rhetoric is standard fare for American politicians. This simple-minded thinking disregards the political evils and blunders that led to the rise of aggressive populist movements such as Nazism and Communism. In the case of Nazism, it was in large part the vengeance extracted through the Treaty of Versailles, and, in general, arrogant nationalism, a game played as much by the British and French and even the Americans as by the Germans. In the case of Communism, it was gross social inequality, something for which conservatives never seem to have an ounce of sympathy. Besides, we did not 'win' against the Soviet Union; it imploded from within. But most importantly, our virtuous deeds, such as they are, in no way excuse our very real crimes: our support for governments which have oppressed and killed millions, and sometimes our direct participation in that killing, in which the justification of 'self-defense' was tenuous at best and often no more than a lie. A standard dirty trick of the conservative propaganda machine is to claim that the critics of American foreign policy 'hate America' and blame it for everything. The deceit in this claim is transparent to any rational and fair-minded person.

Another important point is that our huge domestic wealth is nothing to celebrate if millions of Americans are left out or are falling far behind (not to mention the rest of the world). Worse, our democracy is sabotaged at every turn by a corporate-owned media. Uninformed people may mock this notion, comparing it to the script of a mediocre Hollywood movie, but it is easy enough to demonstrate. Bill Moyers' excellent documentary, Buying the War, makes it perfectly clear that the establishment press completely failed to challenge the Bush administration on its dubious WMD evidence regarding Iraq. It was not a well-intentioned failure but rather gross incompetence, perhaps even intentional suppression of the truth. The IAEA, prior to the invasion, broadcast that its inspectors were getting in wherever they wished and were finding nothing. This was simply brushed aside by the Congress and the press. The dishonesty is astounding, but such media deception has occurred repeatedly throughout American history, particularly right before wars! As for the constant trumpeting of free-markets, it is elementary to observe that the rich keep getting richer in America, while the middle-class and poor keep falling behind. The divergence between rich and poor is immense and has not been so bad since before the Great Depression. A tiny fraction of the population owns most of the wealth, not unlike pre-revolutionary France or Russia. Furthermore, the myth of 'free markets' is but a disingenuous lie. We really have a regime of corporate welfare, in the form of tax breaks and military spending, but this topic is unfortunately too arcane for the American public and arouses little interest. (See, e.g., David Kay Johnston's Free Lunch.)

Mostly, though, Wolfe wants to attack 'intellectuals', by which he means left-leaning intellectuals. It is easy enough to make fun of French literary icons like Foucault, with their impenetrable and dubious theorizing, but what does this have to do with US foreign policy or with the daily lives of Americans? Nevertheless, Wolfe mocks these marginal intellectuals at length, along with their American admirers, a tactic I have see repeated in many conservative publications. At most it is graduate students in literature or philosophy who need to worry, but theirs is a trivial and private problem. What Wolfe and other conservatives are trying to do is to tar all 'intellectuals' — indeed everybody on the left! — as obtuse as well as unpatriotic.

Anyone who has honestly read Chomsky's critiques of American foreign policy knows that he displays a very clear and empirical mind, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the lucubrations of French intellectuals, and the same could be said of much of the commentary from the left. But conservatives always like to lump their adversaries into one big Axis of Evil, whether it be Communists, Muslims or academics. This kind of ignorant over-simplification sheds little light but generates much heat, which is the desired objective. By the way, Wolfe's claim that Chomsky is a dilettante regarding the Vietnam War, and US foreign policy in general, just shows how uninformed Wolfe is. You don't have to agree with everything Chomsky says to realize that he's done his homework far more diligently than most mainstream pundits. And incomparably more than Wolfe!

As for Vietnam in particular, the simple fact is that we razed a defenseless, agrarian nation with grotesque carpet bombing, while supporting corrupt and unpopular regimes, even though most Vietnamese preferred the Vietcong and surely wanted the hated foreigners out. (For example, we reneged on UN-sponsored elections in the 1950s, because we knew the Vietcong would win.) Even those peasants who were initially neutral turned to the Vietcong when they got bombed by the Americans. At some point, killing another million Vietnamese villagers must be considered a crime against humanity, even by hawks, as it violates the just war condition that the cost must be in some sense reasonable. Under such circumstances, we should have pulled out and allowed the Vietnamese to determine their destiny, just as we should allow the Iraqis to determine theirs today. In neither case was there a popular demand for our intervention, but the enthusiasm of our elites for democracy always stops at our shores, if not sooner. Our withdrawal from Vietnam led to a surge of vengeance, no doubt, but now they are peacefully trading with us.

Wolfe blames his straw-men intellectuals for uncovering 'fascism' everywhere in American politics; they are always barking about 'McCarthyism' and the like, as though Joe McCarthy were still alive and in office. Well, anybody who has followed the damage done to civil liberties by the PATRIOT Act will have cause for concern. And it is not just the 'left' saying this but also many quite sober and respectable libertarians, indeed anyone who understands and takes the Constitution seriously. Unfortunately, this does not seem to include Republican-appointed judges like Scalia, whose 'originalist' fervor seems to evaporate regarding military matters, such that he can no longer locate that passage in the Constitution where it says that Congress must declare war.

According to Wolfe, one particularly egregious example of left-wing America-hating insanity was Susan Sontag's 1967 declaration that white man is the 'cancer' of the human race. Wolfe is no doubt insinuating that this is but the candid expression of what all lefties are secretly thinking. But let us look for a minute at the historical record. If we add up all the centuries of European colonialism — not to mention endless white-on-white wars — then we come up with several mountains of death. If disease is included, like the smallpox that wiped out most American Indians, then we obtain several more mountains. Whether this amounted to 'genocide' or not is an irrelevant and distasteful distinction. The simple fact is that Europeans and their guns have been invading and killing throughout the world for the past several centuries. And America's bloody colonialist adventures are far more numerous than advertised, from the Philippines to Central America to Iraq today. Does this make 'white men' more evil? It is hard to say, since we won primarily due to our superior economy and technology. How can one say what other societies would have done with these material advantages? At the same time, this doesn't excuse the crimes that have occurred, though it would be quite unfair to accuse or penalize those white people who reject all forms of colonialism, even when 'well-intentioned', as I do. (Niall Ferguson might be fair game for a massive lawsuit!)

Basically, Wolfe is full of hot air, playing the old conservative game of demonizing straw-men and hoping this catches on with the public, as it often does, when feelings of resentment and patriotism are at play — the very same 'identity politics' that conservatives love to mock. The 'resentment' I refer to is that directed at the 'higher-class' educated intellectuals, with their mythical wine and cheese. And by 'patriotism' I mean the usual tribal stupidity that is so easily manipulated by politicians, such as claiming that Osama and Saddam were basically the same scuzzy A-rab terrorists, which many Americans still believe. Even though Wolfe seems hopelessly dated and out of touch, don't underestimate the power of his duplicity. It has been revived in recent years with the likes of Mark Steyn and other conservative pundits, for whom the 'left' represents one big mass of America-hating, Western-civilization-hating, white-man-hating, self-hating, terrorist-loving, screwup-loving bunch of nitwit, pseudo-intellectual wimps. And all because some critics like Chomsky have dared to apply the Golden Rule to US foreign policy: Do not bomb others if you would not like them to bomb you. If a few of them still read Foucault, who cares? Look at what the conservatives are reading!

Oh wait! I said I'd take a look at what that lightweight, infotaining, war-promoting Andrew Sullivan had to say about Chomsky post 9/11 and prior to the invasion of Iraq:

CHOMSKY AND BIN LADEN: I'm indebted to Jeffrey Isaac of the American Prospect for noticing the following sentences in a recent book by Noam Chomsky, A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West. Chomsky, with a moral relativism straight out of Stanley Fish's playbook, argues that there is no difference between the actions of NATO countries attempting to stop the genocide in Bosnia and terrorists seeking their own violent solution to various problems. And he makes a crazy logical leap to assert that Britain and the U.S. are as responsible for the oppression in East Timor as the rulers in Jakarta. Then this obscenity:
"If proponents of the 'repetition of Bosnia' thesis intend it seriously, they should certainly have been calling for the bombing of Jakarta — indeed Washington and London — in early 1999 so as not to allow in East Timor a repetition of the crimes that Indonesia, the U.S., and the UK, had perpetrated there for a quarter-century. And when the new generation of leaders [i.e. Clinton and Blair] refused to pursue this honorable course, they should have been leading honest citizens to do so themselves, perhaps joining the Bin Laden network. These conclusions follow straightforwardly, if we assume that the thesis is intended as something more than apologetics for state violence."

Thus the nihilism that fuels Chomsky and Fish and others leads inexorably to a call for individuals to join the bin Laden network and bomb Washington and London. Chomsky wrote this before September 11. In the wake of the fact that terrorists took his cynical, rhetorical advice and actually killed thousands of people in Washington and New York, is it too much to ask that Chomsky take responsibility for his words, disown them, and apologize?

Well, this just shows how uninformed Sullivan is, and he is supposed to be a leading pundit! There is ample and credible evidence on the web, from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, and others, that (i) NATO took sides in a Balkan civil war, in which there were atrocities committed on both sides, as recognized by reliable NATO observers, and in which there was no actual 'genocide'; and (ii) the US aided and abetted a much more real Suharto genocide in East Timor, involving hundreds of thousands of deaths, for many years. Chomsky is just using black humor to make the point that state-sponsored war crimes are at least as bad as the crimes of ragtag terrorists; indeed, they are much worse. But are we not the virtuous victors against Nazism and Communism? And is it not therefore our sacred duty to take 'pre-emptive' action against all such future evils, both real and speculative? That is surely the way our elites think, and Sullivan is only too happy to piggyback on this crowd. A good career move indeed! It hardly matters that all pre-emptive war is considered a supreme crime by the Geneva Conventions. Our virtue elevates us above the irksome restraints of International Law, even that to which we are signatory.

LESSON: Serious and sincere critics, who are too threatening to the established order, can be marginalized through various tricks that play on the ego. These tricks work with more educated voters, just as simple ethnic divisions split poorer voters. In particular, the critics are falsely painted as 'hating America' and failing to realize the good in our country. This offends the patriotism which seems to be a natural human instinct, even in those who have supposedly been trained to think critically, like our many worthless pundits. Patriotism makes it difficult to become detached and to accept that the government has indeed committed crimes against humanity. Such 'unacceptable' views are simply brushed aside, without even being given a fair hearing. Conservatives love to play with patriotism, just as they love to play with ethnic and religious divisions. Many pseudo-liberals jump on the bandwagon, for various selfish, personal reasons, or perhaps because they aren't very bright and just follow the pack. (Perhaps I should say 'statists' rather than 'conservatives', as I am well aware of certain libertarian schools of thought, which are conservative regarding taxes and property rights, but which are opposed to an interventionist foreign policy. Indeed, they call themselves the 'true conservatives'.)

Manufactured Consent

POSTED 1 Jun 08: Several years ago, I would have winced at the controversial notion that our elites 'manufacture consent', a view advocated by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman. The idea would have sounded too artificial and convenient, as though some far-left dissidents were expressing sour grapes over having failed to start a revolution. My 'conversion' came about when I realized that I had been brainwashed by the establishment media regarding what Chomsky and Herman were actually saying! I had simply dismissed them without even reading them. I assumed that the important, respectable pundits must operate according to professional standards, even if there is a divergence of opinion. So what they said about Chomsky and company must be essentially correct. After all, these pundits went to leading universities, and our universities are among the best in the world. They could not say things that are completely wrong, could they? Well, yes they can. But perhaps they are also the unwitting victims of their own manufactured consent...

Consider, first, this video of Noam Chomsky telling us why America is not a democracy. He starts out by claiming that the Democrats and the Republicans are nothing but two factions of the same party, the Business Party. We are never given a real choice on the issues that the Business Party cares about. Our foreign policy continues to be aggressive and interventionist, and the rich grow ever richer, while the middle class stagnates, and the poor get poorer. The interests of corporations take precedence over the interests of workers and consumers, while the public is distracted with the trivial personal issues and 'scandals' that always swirl around the candidates. The candidates themselves seem to be reading from a script, which never allows for any kind of radical change or threat to the hierarchy of wealth and power.

Recent events have convinced me of the basic truth of this thesis. I am particularly struck with how the 2006 midterm elections have simply been ignored. The American public clearly expressed its desire to get out of Iraq, as confirmed by repeated and recent polls, but Congress has done nothing. Even Obama, who may have opposed the war in the beginning, nevertheless votes to fund it. Polls have also indicated that the public favors, by a large margin, some form of universal health insurance, or perhaps single-payer insurance, but there is not a peep from the candidates on this issue. At most, they discuss how to extend the present system to cover more people, which does nothing to challenge the profits, inefficiencies and rough tactics of the insurance industry. The topic of UHC is never even raised! How remarkable! Likewise, so-called 'free trade' is treated as an eleventh commandment, regardless of what it does to American jobs. Again, virtually no discussion! Please don't tell me that we have a serious debate between the candidates. We clearly do not. So I conclude that Chomsky and company must be essentially correct, even if some of their criticisms might be a bit exaggerated. As Chomsky points out, the public is way to the left of both parties on many major issues, but it makes no difference. Challenging the corporate status quo is not allowed.

The inanity of the talking heads on Sunday morning television confirms this view. The favorite topic is always who's up and who's down in the petty politics of Washington. The most idiotic and trivial 'scandals' receive endless coverage. There is little serious discussion of withdrawing from Iraq. Instead, excuses are offered for why it is not the 'responsible' thing to do, effectively short-circuiting the will of the American people (not to mention the Iraqi people). I cannot remember the last time I have heard any discussion of universal health care on television, except perhaps on some of the most esoteric public stations. And the major newspapers, like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are not much different. Occasionally a dissenting article slips through the cracks, but the preponderance of opinion is squarely behind the corporate oligarchy.

Moreover, the candidates are rather hard to pin down on the issues. One cannot help but suspect that this is intentional. Some time ago, Obama was talking about withdrawing from Iraq within 16 months, but now he 'reserves the right' to change his mind, depending on 'conditions on the ground' and the advice of his generals. This may seem superficially reasonable, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we are still in Iraq many years from now. And again, I am surprised that even Obama dares not mention the words 'universal health care', even after raising so much money on the internet, and even though poll after poll shows that a large majority of Americans favor it. What is he afraid of? Was he just duping us out of our online contributions?

Chomsky then informs us that elite control is nothing new but goes back to the very founding of our nation. During the late 18th century debates that framed our Constitution, James Madison spoke for virtually all of the delegates when he worried aloud how to keep democracy from redistributing the wealth (which in those days meant primarily land). As he put it, the main responsibility of government is to protect the 'minority of the opulent' against the predations of the majority. The Yale political theorist Robert Dahl argues that we do not have a true democracy but rather a 'polyarchy', namely, a ruling coalition of various competing elite groups, which periodically allows the public to assent to one of several carefully chosen candidates, who are all guaranteed not to rock the boat. The different candidates essentially represent different factions of the ruling elite, and they are selected via the mechanism of campaign contributions. In addition to the fact that major contentious issues that displease Big Business are off the agenda, we also note that incoming presidents generally choose their administrations from Wall Street, from the boards of big corporations, or from big corporate law firms. This was true back in the days of John Foster Dulles, and it is true in recent times, with Robert Rubin, Richard Holbrooke or Donald Rumsfeld.

Now Chomsky does concede that there have been popular successes over the years, such as full citizenship for blacks, the vote for women, and civil rights for gays. But these have been hard won, always involving a struggle against the ruling elites of the time. And some gains have been severely reversed, such as trade unions, which barely function anymore. In addition, regulations on corporations, such as the Glass-Steagall act, have been removed, allowing for more predatory behavior, such as what gave us the current mortgage crisis. The bottom line is that economic power is concentrated as never before, with the most worrisome aspect being the consolidation of the corporate media. In effect, our political discussion has been lobotomized, which threatens the very survival of our democracy, along with spiraling militarism and corporate welfare.

In another video, Chomsky discusses corporate propaganda per se. It is a huge industry, established during the 1920s, with a long track record of proven success. Few American realize how many billions are poured into having their minds controlled, or at least influenced. Indeed, the goal from the beginning, quite openly and self-consciously, has been to control the public mind, and the pioneers had no doubt this could be achieved. The most eminent of such pioneers was Edward Bernays, a relative of Sigmund Freud, who was in fact a 'left-liberal' of the time, according to Chomsky. The term 'propaganda' was used without shame during the 1920s and 1930s, and it only fell out of favor after the Nazis gave it a bad reputation. Basically, our ruling elites came to realize that it was no longer possible to control the public with raw force, so public opinion must be managed instead. In Chomsky's words, Bernays claimed that controlling the mind of the masses was the 'central feature' or 'essence' of democracy. He even thought this was a good thing to do, to prevent social chaos, though no doubt the main motivation was to preserve the power of the corporations and the wealth of the rich. After all, even in the 1920s, we already had the precedent of Teddy Roosevelt and of the progressives.

According to Chomsky, the ruling elites intentionally sow discord in the general public, or else distract us with trivial issues and entertainment. The British colonialists were famous for their effective 'divide-and-conquer' strategy. When one considers the strong connections between the American and English financial elites over the years, continuing only slightly abated today, it is not hard to believe that our own rulers would use a divide-and-conquer strategy against us. Perhaps it has not always been so cold-bloodedly pre-meditated in their minds, but I have already presented some evidence of the strategy in action. Poor whites are divided against poor blacks, and the educated middle classes are taught to be contemptuous of the 'leftist fringe'.

Nevertheless, I have some qualms with Chomsky's thesis. He seems to put all the blame on the elites, but I think that dark forces in human nature are also responsible, which the elites have skillfully manipulated. For instance, the public may have been duped into thinking Saddam was allied with Osama, but many Americans were more than willing to lump Arabs together as natural-born terrorists. And how many Americans want to be told of their mistake? Nobody likes to feel like a fool. Already, the public has been taught to despise America-hating, left-wing, wine-and-cheese intellectuals. What if those intellectuals are right? It's a bit embarrassing! Furthermore, most Americans are comfortable with their slice of the pie, and it feels good to believe that one's country is great, virtuous, powerful, and the best thing in human history. The truth is uncomfortable and can even hurt, and the elites know it!

LESSON: I agree with Chomsky that the political agenda is severely restricted, and many major issues that are popular with the public are simply not discussed by the candidates. In the case of health care, this clearly shows the power of the insurance companies. Yet the silence on UHC is but one instance of corporate power in general. Foreign policy is generally a bit more complex. The Israel Lobby, for instance, isn't trying to make defense contractors rich, but is rather playing on the fears of ordinary Jews, for the sake of Jewish fanatics who lust after the West Bank. However, in the case of the Iraq war, it seems pretty clear that the 'irresponsible' public has been blatantly ignored, by elites who deem themselves more 'mature' and thus more 'worthy' of making the big decisions regarding the American Empire. As for big corporations brainwashing the public, I believe that there is much merit to this thesis, but I would not exonerate the public for its failure to challenge authority and to apply the Golden Rule to other nations: Do not bomb others if you do not want them to bomb you. The public is not exactly a huge herd of cattle, and they share some blame for government policy. Perhaps it is difficult to be adequately informed, when the mainstream media is delinquent, and most of us are just trying to survive and to take care of our loved ones. But a greater mood of skepticism, and less indulgence in mindless patriotism, would have opened the public mind to those informed observers who are telling the truth. Such truth-tellers exist, and the word could have spread from mouth to mouth, just like the flurry of emails that is now convincing millions of white Americans that Obama is Muslim.

Dastardly Politics

POSTED 4 Jun 08: One factor that must not be overlooked in trying to explain America's aggressive foreign policy is the simple ugliness of politics. This same factor goes a long way towards explaining why most Americans — like most people everywhere — can seem pretty decent on an individual basis, yet are often manipulated in the political arena to produce conflict and further the schemes of willful elites.

Consider the current Obama campaign. As pointed out by Justin Raimondo, Obama has been muting his antiwar message lately. He once promised to get us out of Iraq within sixteen months, but now he is trying to sound more 'responsible' — as our empire-loving establishment understands that word. Last September, he voted against the dangerous Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which declared the Iranian guards to be terrorists, in order to give the president a green light to attack Iran. Obama's vote was an encouraging sign to his antiwar supporters, but now he is back-pedaling on that too.

Before dumping on poor Obama, look at what he is up against! First, there is AIPAC, the hawkish Jewish lobby that has scared ordinary, moderate American Jews into thinking that Iran is Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad is Hitler, all over again. This is ridiculous. Not only does Iran not threaten us, it doesn't even threaten Israel, unless it wishes to commit suicide. It has no nukes, or at most a hypothetical phantom quasi-nuke, while Israel has about 200 real ones. No contest! Is is Iran that must fear Israel and the US. As if that were not enough, we also have cold-bloodedly selfish Hillary helping McCain to defeat Obama, using the same hawkish propaganda that Republicans have thrived on for decades. She just lost the nomination but refuses to concede, like the vampire she is. Unfortunately, she has a lot of foolish supporters, who mindlessly embrace her pseudo-feminist credentials, and who probably understand next to nothing about foreign policy. In other words, she still has plenty of ammunition to hurt Obama, and she intends to use it, so great is her ambition and her treachery against her own party. With this double-whammy staring at him, we can sympathize if Obama feels he is trying to walk a greasy tightrope.

And this is nothing new! John F. Kennedy had to appear tough against the Republican attack dogs of his time, with their constant red-baiting and portrayal of Democrats as weak on defense. (Hmmmm. But didn't Republican president Eisenhower warn of a military-industrial complex? Couldn't JFK have built on this? Part of the problem was his own obsession with having a macho image.) In more recent times, we have seen plenty of occasions where Republicans have played the same old game on national defense, exaggerating threats and the supposed weakness of Democrats. This is well-known, but we must also take into account the additional domestic constraints facing any well-meaning president. For instance, civil rights in the 1960s gave the GOP its 'Southern strategy', whereby the resentment of white voters could be channeled against liberals, on top of the spurious charge of weakness on defense. Hillary has been playing a similar dirty game, with her blatant and callous use of the race card against Obama. And when Obama responds like a gentleman, she then wields the sexism card! Truly, the political cards are stacked against a decent politician! The ignorance and ugly impulses in human nature are so easy to exploit that the unscrupulous politicians — of which there are many — simply cannot resist.

So perhaps we could forgive Obama's caution, while he was fighting an underhanded opponent for the nomination. But now that he has won that nomination, he should realize that this very caution will be used by McCain to paint him into a corner on the issue of defense, where McCain has superficial 'optical' advantages, given his military service and war record. It would really be best if Obama screwed up his courage, called the hawks' bluff, and let the cards fall where they may. It is an especially egregious error to surrender to the neocon propaganda on Iranian nukes, as Obama appears to have done on several occasions (according to Jonathan Landay of the McClatchy newspapers, who distinguished himself so well in Bill Moyer's documentary Buying the War). Obama need not have done this! Not with the famous NIE of last December denying the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. I doubt that Obama, a sharp-brained graduate of Harvard Law School, failed to take note, even with his busy campaign. It seems rather that he is making the calculation to concede some points to AIPAC and its allies, in order to appease them and buy some time. Big mistake!

However, to be fair, we must realize that the 'truth' has nothing to do with it. Denying the Iranian nuclear program will anger AIPAC, no matter what the evidence may be, and this is indeed dangerous for Obama, at least at this point, especially with vicious Hillary digging her teeth into his ankles. Even so, I agree with these words of wisdom from Robert Wright, who warns Obama not to keep backing off on foreign policy, or he'll fall into the trap of appearing as the weak Democrat that the GOP wants to frame him as. Such recent signs of weakness include: firing advisors Robert Malley and Samantha Powers, quitting his church, backtracking on talking to Hamas and Iran, etc. In plain English, as Wright reminds us, such equivocal capitulation makes Obama look like the proverbial Democratic 'wimp'. Perhaps Obama's embrace-everybody strategy will be his undoing. (If Obama chooses Hillary as a running-mate, I'm through with him!)

This silly game of perceptions is quite a problem. Note that Nixon was able to open the door with China, precisely because his Cold War Republican credentials protected him from political assault. Conversely, when Obama appeases AIPAC or other hawkish groups, he only looks weak, as already mentioned. He then feels compelled to overreact with loose talk about bombing Pakistan, or, more recently, his ill-advised comments suggesting that Iran is indeed an existential threat to Israel. If only he had had the guts to emphasize the NIE — a God-given cover for careful diplomacy — then he could have put his foot down and gone on the offense against the hawks, instead of playing a loosing game of defense. Does he think that all his supporters are idiots, who still have vivid memories of being fooled by Bush on WMD in Iraq? Does he think that AIPAC is the only group he needs to worry about, when it comes to foreign policy?

Well, considering that his opponent is now gonzo, gung-ho McCain, Obama may be playing a shrewd if unprincipled game of his own. He may be assuming that his antiwar supporters will still vote for him, because the alternative is much worse, so that he has some room to appease the hawks and take some of their votes too. And he may still feel that he needs the money from the wealthy, pro-Likud Jewish supporters who evidently play a large role in financing the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi is certainly afraid of them, despite her very safe seat. If this is the case, then all those millions of grass-roots antiwar Obama supporters who sent money in have a right to feel screwed. It takes a lot of audacity of hope to piss on the bulk of your supporters like that. If Obama doesn't change his tune, we're going to get another war, this time with Iran, and that's not what we're electing him for.

NOTE (5 Jun 08): See this and this. There is evidently some hope that Obama intends to skillfully but firmly stress diplomacy with AIPAC regarding Iran and the Palestinian problem. He even mentions the two-state solution explicitly, which is logically opposed to the ever-expanding settlements favored by all Israeli governments. He even suggests that Israel would help if it were to 'ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements, as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis'. This is fairly powerful language, that implicitly acknowledges Israel's strangulation of the occupied territories and determination on the settlements — topics Hillary and McCain won't touch. I especially like the line where Obama says that he 'won't wait until the waning days of my presidency' to start some serious negotiations — a jab a President Bush. If those negotiations are indeed serious and even-handed — which would represent a major new departure for US foreign policy — then that would be brilliant on his part and make him look presidential. That he has even said this much already makes him look more presidential than Hillary or McCain, who have gone out of their way to shamelessly pander to AIPAC. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

By the way Obama didn't exactly concede that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. He said they were enriching uranium, which is true. The problem is that this is their right under the NPT, provided it's for civilian use. The Israelis fear that such legitimate enrichment brings them closer to a nuclear weapon, but it is still their right under the NPT, to which we are signatory. Unfortunately, Obama insists that Iran must 'abandon its nuclear program', which presumably means the civilian program of enrichment. Hence, Obama is either unable or unwilling to recognize Iran's legitimate rights under the NPT, which doesn't bode well for negotiations. Maybe he'll become more enlightened on this point as the election proceeds. Knock on wood! We don't really have any other choice, so we can only hope.

The bottom line is that Obama's tough talk is OK if it's only a foil against the hawks, while he quietly pursues a policy of sincere and intelligent diplomacy. All we can do is read between the lines of his rhetoric and see how he performs if elected. Hence, an election must inevitably be based primarily on impressions about the candidate's character and how he might perform, and that is the main reason I and so many others have warmed to Obama, even the cynical Justin Raimondo. It is probably too idealistic to expect a candidate to speak in totally blunt language on controversial topics, when even members of his own party are waiting to sabotage him with slander. Or at least, it is probably wise of Obama to test the waters, by putting his big toe in and ratcheting up the rhetoric a bit, now that the nomination is clinched. For instance, the recognition of Iran's NPT rights might come later, if tensions cool, and Obama's domestic stature has solidified — if indeed that happens. These recent developments, subtle though they be, are encouraging indications that an Obama presidency might actually make a difference. They are at least a move in the right direction. He has displayed something other than the abject cowardice towards AIPAC that we have come to expect from McCain, Hillary and virtually all senators and congressmen. By American standards, that amounts to a profile in courage.

CORRECTION (6 Jun 08): Justin Raimondo is quite convinced that Obama has capitulated to AIPAC. He quotes some startling words from Obama's speech to AIPAC: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything." Hmmmm. That would seem to include Armageddon. Was this necessary? Even if Iran gets one nuke, Israel still has way more. And, as has been pointed out countless times, Iran is nowhere near a nuke. Israel wants to bomb Iran based on a technology (enrichment of uranium), which is merely related to a nuclear weapons program. We called Pearl Harbor an illegal pre-emptive attack, even though we had cut off Japan's oil. Bombing to prevent the other side from acquiring weapons is even more of an illegal pre-emptive attack, or the Geneva Conventions means nothing. And now we are talking about bombing based on a mere technology! Even Obama! It's pretty depressing, but Obama still seems the best choice, though I'm taking a look at Bob Barr. I guess this thread has meandered enough, but I've made my point, namely, that politics is the art of dastardly deception. If Obama keeps claiming that the attack on Iraq was wrong, how can he proclaim that he will do 'everything' to keep Iran from getting a nuke, for which there is no good evidence? (By the way, it seems Bush is going to ignore his own NIE in favor of Israeli intelligence, based on smoking laptops or whatever.)

LESSON: I guess we all know that politics is dastardly. There is a constant game of perceptions, which plays with people's minds, and in which the hawks and the loudmouths tend to have a significant advantage. Plus, there are 'swing' groups and important minorities to placate, and the fickle and stupid press to deal with. Still, someone like Obama must realize that his grass-roots support, and all that online money, which made him what he is, is solidly antiwar. It is remarkable that he forgets that so quickly in his haste to please AIPAC, which doesn't even represent American Jews. Is it that candidates take the supporters they already have for granted and think only of adding more groups to their bags? That kind of foolish greed could be a dangerous game to play, especially for Obama, who doesn't really have a corporate machine behind him. Go ahead, Obama! Piss on the antiwar grass-roots Americans who made you what you are! (I notice that nowadays, his website only says, 'Donate! Donate! Donate!' He doesn't seem much interested in getting any feedback, for which a website is ideal. I see no question such as, 'Do you want to bomb Iran?')

Other Depressing Items

POSTED 15 Jun 08: I have to wrap this up, even though I've barely answered the question of how the bipartisan elites can simply ignore public opinion. I'll just list a few more points worth keeping in mind. Maybe later I'll continue this heroic but futile effort.

Latest Rhetoric Neutralizes Record: Matt Taibbi interviews Hillary supporters in Ohio in this video. NAFTA has caused huge job loss here, and Bill Clinton's name is practically synonymous with NAFTA, but it hardly matters. Hillary needs only to mention in her stump speech that she will 'reconsider NAFTA', and mumble some stuff about 'values', and the people love her. I realize that ordinary folks cannot be political junkies, but if these blue-collar workers haven't yet figured out that the Clintons gave them NAFTA, then they are hopeless. Fortunately, Matt is teaching us to laugh at it, instead of crying. Thanks for adding a few years to my life, Matt. (Note: Some of these jobs may have gone to Asia, in which case it is incorrect to blame NAFTA. It hardly matters, as the principle is the same.)

Foreign Policy Controlled by Wall Street: It is no secret that the important people in any administration always seem to come from Wall Street or other Big Business powerhouses, but this article by libertarian Murray Rothbard documents it in excruciating detail, from the days of J.P Morgan through the Reagan Administration. How can one doubt that our foreign policy is essentially controlled by our financial elites? And whose interests do you think they are looking out for? The interests of humanity? Of the American public? Ha! Some would argue that only high-powered corporate lawyers and the like have the 'experience' and the 'people skills' for leadership positions in government, but the fact remains that the very rich control our government. In fact, this trend probably increases when weak, naive, and seemingly populist ingenues like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama are brought in. Perhaps they are plucked out of nowhere for that very purpose. The main weapon of the corporate elites is campaign contributions, but Obama raised record amounts from the grass-roots on the internet, and he still betrayed his supporters as soon as he clinched the nomination.

Grass Roots Antiwar Resistance is Pathetic: David Sirota describes the two prongs of the antiwar movement: the demonstrators on the streets and the insider lobbyists. The former are a pathetic and barely-existent gaggle of fringe lefties, including 9/11 conspiracy fruitcakes, while the latter are dwarfed by the corporate behemoths and are themselves easily corrupted by the system. Basically, the public is not only ignorant but disorganized. Democracy can only function when people are informed and organized into powerful coalitions. Why don't people jump on Nader's bandwagon, or Kucinich's? Neither has the necessary charisma, and most people haven't even heard of them. The corporate elites control the media, and no populist savior can hope to take off. Obama already seems to be a fraud, as discussed in the next article. And sadly, the intelligent and basically liberal Jewish community has been pre-empted by hawkish AIPAC, while millions of gentiles are wallowing in religious superstition or other trivial pursuits.

CONCLUSION: Sigh! It's all hopeless. I guess I'd better just give up and escape into mysticism, or something similar, like the Tsar's family, who were reading Tarot Cards when the Bolsheviks burst in.

Online Articles

Some of these articles may seem only distantly related to the topic, but I have my reasons...

Edward Herman: Principles of the Imperial New World Order

Murray Rothbard: Wall Street, banks, and American foreign policy

David Sirota: Why Democrats won't stop the war

Bill Moyers: Democracy in America may be running out of luck

Chalmers Johnson: Our 'Managed Democracy'

James Bovard: The democratic-peace fraud

Jim Lobe: Survey: Gulf between democracy in theory and practice

Chris Hedges: The corporate state and the subversion of democracy

George Packer: The fall of conservatism

AIPAC and the Jewish Vote