Fri 24 Oct, 2008
The following essay was written in the end of 2006, but it ought to be examined in terms of Bloomberg’s tactics to overcome term limits. And we should take it very seriously, because it is part of something much larger.
inside hegemony
[hegemony: the ability of a dominant group to exert or maintain control through a combination of overt and subtle mechanisms. (Antonio Gramsci, 1891 - 1937)]
Noam Chomsky says that it is the “free press” and the apparent democracy that needs propaganda more than the countries who restrict freedom of speech and the power of its people. This seems an obvious assertion because our government’s power to restrict us comes through opinions that we form about our government and its actions.
Hegemony has two tiers. The first being the dominant group’s (or government’s) efforts to maintain control over the outside groups, i.e., a country maintaining control over other countries. The second tier is the dominant group’s (or government’s) efforts to maintain control over its own people, the people of its country.
The government needs the second tier, or control over its own people, in a “free state” to be gotten by public opinion, in order to maintain its control over the outside groups or countries. Being a voting nation, the “free” country must vote on the body of government. Presumably this voting influences the actions taken by that governing body.
The war in Iraq is an excellent example of how the tiers feed off of each other and, really, can not function with out its counterpart.
The war on terrorism, which preceded the war on Iraq but was used to get us into Iraq, is in itself a fine example of the two tiers operating together for the end goal of our governments control of both the outer and inner groups.
So, in order for our powerful government to keep power over its people and shape the opinion of the people to back its actions, it must manipulate the press both by filtering information that gets into the mainstream and by inferring truths in the media, and controlling the output of the images of itself and its enemies. And our perception of what is unchangeable.
For example…
Though Washington knew that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons, in 1984 our government adamantly resisted the ban on them. West Germany also resisted because they were making huge profits from the sale of the chemicals. Because of US pressure, the most the UN Security Council could get was a statement that it “deplored chemical weapon use.” (Power, A Problem from Hell, p. 179) We were giving Saddam 500 million dollars a year in credit. In 1987 the U.S. knew Saddam was using those chemical weapons on “his own people,” the Kurds in Iraq. In 1988 we had evidence of genocide. In 1989, Bush Senior upped the aid to Iraq to 1 billion dollars in agricultural aid. But our press never got this far when they spun history to say “Saddam had gassed his own people.” Yes. And the U.S. helped pay for it.
In fact, at the time, it was more important that our “economic” interests and “commercial opportunities” be honored than our humanitarian interests. Meaning the Senators and Congressmen voting against intervention had constituencies in farming and agriculture. Among other things. Maintaining the status quo was the easiest thing for re-election. Even if it meant a genocide taking place. It was, after all, someone else’s genocide.
Somehow before the present Iraq war, this was never brought forward. Because it was important that the people not get this information.
Likewise, in order for the ruling class to maintain control of its media image in order to keep up public opinion and therefore power over its people, it must manipulate and support whoever will serve its best (read corporate) interests.
For example…
While we “liberals” sat around appalled at Fox News and its ability to guide the mass opinion based on hearsay, soon after Hilary Clinton would not only be taking donations from Rupert Murdoch (CEO of Fox), but also participating in a fundraiser he was having for her. Lately, Fox News, an obstinate supporter of the Republican party, has been airing Hilary bad mouth Bush. What would be Fox’s interest in supporting Hilary if she were really about changing the status quo and shifting the imbalance of power or if she weren’t somehow indebted to them for her campaign contributions?
This is troubling, but, we think, “okay, the laws protect us. From the lies. The deception. The gross mismanagement of funds. The torture. We have just elected a democratic Congress and Senate to right this. We are saved.
We are saved.
The people will be heard.
We are: by the people, for the people. I keep hearing that. It keeps echoing in my head, bouncing from wall to wall of my skull… “by the people, for the people…”
But.
I have evidence that this is not what our nation is.
I am here to warn you that our system is misaligned from the people. If we continue on our course conferring with hegemony, we will be in grave danger as a democracy because what it will take to support this “Superpower” will smother all the people who are the people. A small minority of corporations and individuals who are buying the government are profiting, and we, the people, are paying their taxes. Look at campaign finance.
Might I say the gross problem of campaign finance. Political candidates will first protect those who put them into power. In a “free” country such as ours, this means protecting those who finance their campaigns. We’ve all heard of this, and we know the candidate with more money and more exposure often wins. No! You say, look at the last election. The people have spoken. Then. Let’s look beyond partisan borders. Look at the primaries. Look at how, say, the democratic candidate wins a primary. Against another democrat. They need lots of money. It is the media exposure that will get them elected. Okay. Who gives them the money? The poor people that need to be spoken for? The people in New Orleans who needed help before, during and after Katrina hit? The kids without text books? The struggling artist and middle class family who need health insurance? Hmmm. I don’t think so. This is a problem; who will speak for the majority? This is not a new problem in the Capitalist System of Democracy. “Well, we can’t be perfect.” No. Right. We can’t. I am simply trying to figure out who the people are that is the “buy” and who the people are that is the “for.” Words can be so misleading with their passionate proclamations. But the people, in this case, is not the majority.
This problem of campaign finance will lead us to something called “earmarks.”
An earmark is a grant or money given to a group, organization, or business that is stuck into a spending bill, most often having nothing to do with the bill, goes unannounced, and often unrecognized by the would-be opponents. It’s often a “payback”. You know. You scratch my back… For instance a lawmaker might propose money for a specific institution with which he or she has a direct or indirect connection. Hardly surprising when one looks at the spending fiasco in Iraq and the war profiteering, most earmarks are funneled through the defense department or other government agencies to contractors.
A few brave democrats, like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are proposing ethics reforms. Rules that will help separate the agenda of the people from the personal campaign-financing agenda of the Senator or Congressman allowing these gross overspendings and oversights to take place. If this is a democracy by and for the people, why is the question of ethics and representation not at the vanguard of preserving this democracy?
The cycle continues with the government trying to influence opinion while those the government protects influence what the government tells us and what it does not. So the government continues its propaganda to convince us that we are in danger as a nation and should forfeit tax money, civil liberties, and the right to know and so choose how our money is being spent while funding a Homeland Securities act, which funnels huge amounts of money into an organization designed to protect us from terrorism. But when establishing the Office of Homeland Securities, legislation was passed that protects the pharmaceuticals from being sued over damage to children from vaccines. That is part of the Homeland Securities Act. I wonder what this has to do with terrorism. Who is really being protected?
To make things really terrifying in 2006 a new rendition of the Patriot act was passed, you know the infamous bill that allows our government to spy on us, solicit medical and library records, also records from book purchases, among even scarier things, like dropping in on email, etc. Is this protecting we, the people more, or the government that needs to influence our opinion and, even, instill fear in us for expressing an opinion counter to the opinion they would like us to have? And it was just passed again for 2007.
Yet, no one, neither Democrat, Republican , or citizen is up in arms about any of this. Instead we hear the conversations of “ethics” reform and “campaign finance reform” only whispered through the Sunday news. Of course, we begin with campaign finance reform and this will lead back to the principle of our democracy that the government is supposed to be a voice of the people. But if the people with no money have no voice, the people with no voice will continue to suffer while our Nation protects the corporations, pharmaceuticals and government spending on contractors who charge a hundred dollars for a load of laundry for our soldiers in Iraq.
What is brilliant and tragically laughable is that we have been convinced that the government is maintaining the status quo for our benefit and that it is there to protect us, that Homeland Security, the Patriot act, and government over-spending is, somehow, protecting us. That all these parts of bills that go unpronounced, like allowing military recruiters into all public schools, an addendum to the “No Child Left Behind” act, we are somehow protecting the education of these children. Who is served by this? Is it the people, the masses, the undereducated and underpaid? Or is it, again, the military industrial complex, and what “we the people” are complying with in our fear of losing the “only Super Power status” that is, really, destroying our Nation, and, more importantly, destroying our democracy.
Remember Rome.
An empire can not stand alone forever. Nor can it oppress its own people and keep them as servants to fuel its power without, eventually, imploding.
We are imploding. And we just keep watching television.
LD Napier
