US: Republic & Democracy (pt 2)

The other day, I wrote a post about the rightwing assertion that the US is a republic and not a democracy (US: Republic & Democracy). The basic confusion is that rightwingers are using a narrow definition of democracy that was used by some of the founding fathers.

“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” (James Madison, Federalist Papers, the McClean Edition, Federalist Paper #10, page 81, 1788)

What the founding fathers meant by republic is what modern scholars mean by representative democracy. When you get right down to it, rightwingers don’t like ‘democracy’ because it shares the same letters in the same order as the ‘Democratic’ party. Anyways, it’s obvious that the founding fathers weren’t arguing against the democratic process of voting and representation. I don’t think most rightwingers are arguing against that either. So, it all comes down to semantics.

There is no inherent conflict between a republic and a democracy. To clarify, here is the Wikipedia definition of a Republic:

republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government,[1][2] and in which the head of government is not a monarch.[3][4] The word “republic” is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as “a public affair”

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.[3][4] In republics such as the United States and France, the executive is legitimized both by a constitutionand by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy,[5] and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as “republicans”.[6] Montesquieu included bothdemocracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[7]

I noticed someone even dedicated a webpage to this issue, titling it: The “Not a Democracy” Gnomes. The author states he has noticed this rhetoric going back to 2000, but I’m sure it goes back further. It’s just the internet (especially in its growth this past decade) has been a useful medium for popularizing and spreading such viral memes. Here is the first point the author makes:

The Gnomes Rely on an Absurdly Narrow Defnition of “Democracy”: as absolute, direct, simple and immediate majoritarian authority on matters of policy. Wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles, they find problems with “democracy” so defined. They then depend on the reader to assume that their narrow definition of democracy matches the much broader common definition of democracy, and that therefore their criticism applies to that broader definition.

That is the same argument I’ve been making. These rightwingers use a definition so narrow that they make it seem ridiculous. Meanwhile, they ignore the long history of democracy in the real world. It reminds me of a conservative I once debated about the meaning of ‘socialism’. It turns out that this person had such a wide definition of ‘socialism’ that it involved all forms of government. Since he was a anti-statist conservative, it was convenient for him to define all state government as socialist. This is a weird way to win an argument, either over-simplifying or over-generalizing the terms of the debate.

Like me, the author goes on to give the actual, rather than imagined, definition of ‘democracy’:

The ridiculous nature of that argument is clear with the knowledge that a republic (the gnomes’ contrast to democracy) is actually itself one variety of democracy. Let’s look at the Oxford Modern English Dictionary definition of the word:

democracy. 1a) a system of government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives. b) a State so governed….

A “republic“, which provides for governance indirectly through elected representatives, is covered as a possibility under this definition.

The definition of “democracy” stretches back much further, of course, to the Greek, in which demos refers to “the people” and “cracy” to rule or authority. The broadest definition of “democracy” is therefore simply “the rule of the people,” the ideal of a citizenry engaged in civic life and enfranchised to take part in some meaningful fashion in politics, the exercise of decision-making in a sphere of authority (see Oxford here as well). Now why would some parties have a problem with this democratic ideal? Any ideas?

And the second point the author makes:

Proponents of democracy recognize it is an ideal. We do not live in a full democracy, since it has not yet been achieved. Especially after the latest election debacle, we’re all too aware of that. But the pursuit of the democratic ideal in the United States is a righteous quest with a long history, involving an ever-broadening emancipation of citizens. It is an overwhelmingly popular quest, and one which, in my opinion, should continue.

The democratic quest requires for its support a thoroughly educated and informed public, a tolerance for the questioning of authority and the spirit of community. For those who are opposed to these conditions and to their ultimate end, sending out the “not a democracy!” gnomes is a pleasant diversion. But the more educated, the more questioning, and the more civic we become, the more clear it is that the gnomes’ verbal minuet is trivial and therefore irrelevant.

I was wondering about the origin of this rightwing ploy to dismiss democracy. It sounds more like rhetoric than an argument. Somehow it’s being spread which makes me think it’s either a talking point in the rightwing media or else some particular group is using it for an agenda. Whatever the origin or motivation, there is certainly a memetic quality about this simple idea.

I suspected that one source would be Glenn Beck or someone like him. I was correct.

That isn’t surprising, but Glenn Beck isn’t the originator. What Beck preaches has been preached before by many others. So, I wasn’t surprised to see a video by the John Birch Society arguing against democracy.

I also shouldn’t have been surprised to see a video making the same argument in an interview by Alex Jones (interviewing Aaron Russo).

I did find it interesting that Milton Friedman was also spreading the same rhetoric.

If I had to guess, it’s probably the John Birch Society (or other similar groups) who have spread this rhetoric the most. The John Birch Society has been around for a very long time. As I recall, Cleon Skousen had some connection to that group. And, of course, people like Glenn Beck have been heavily influenced/inspired by the tradition of thought that includes Skousen and the John Birch Society. It’s the same tradition of thought that included the KKK back when it was a part of respectable society. This tradition of thought includes very specific beliefs and attitudes: patriotic nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiments, traditional family, white culture/supremacy, and Christian fundamentalism. These are the people who argue that America is a Christian nation. Instead of a democratic republic, they’d prefer to have a theocratic republic.

[…] the society we have which remember is not a democratic society and wasn’t intended to be. If you take a course in political theory here, I’m sure they’ll teach you that the United States is not a democracy. It’s what is called, in the technical literature, a polyarchy. […] Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands so those who Madison called the ‘wealth of the nation’, the responsible class of men; and the rest of the population is fragmented, distracted, allowed to participate… every couple of years, they’re allowed to come and say ‘yes, thank you, we want you to continue another four years’ and they have a little choice among the responsible men, the wealth of the nation. That’s the way the country was founded. It was founded on the principle, explained by Madison in the Constitutional Convention, that the primary goal of the government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

Reading the Wikipedia article on polyarchy, it’s not clear to me why Chomsky makes this distinction between democracy and polyarchy. Apparently, the originator of the term ‘polyarchy’ didn’t define it as excluding ‘democracy’. In fact, polyarchy would seem to be a specific form of representative democracy. As an anarcho-socialist libertarian, I understand that Chomsky would prefer a more direct form of democracy. It’s interesting that, for different reasons than the rightwinger, Chomsky also wants to narrow the definition of democracy. Whatever the reasons for Chomsky’s argument, Gore Vidal makes a similar assessment about the motivations of the founding fathers (On Europe and why the U.S. is not a democracy):

Many of us are descended from Cromwell’s men. That’s how we became to be such vicious Protestants. Well, if you want to see any of the founders, read the federalist papers. Any one of them looks like he’s near apoplexy, he’s about to have a stroke when he’s talking about the people. They hate the people. They want the people out of government. Their idea of bad government is Pericles in Athens. And that’s just, you know, forbidden country for our founders. They were Republicans, and they wanted a republic based on Rome, secretly based on slavery and based on imperial progress elsewhere in the world.

So from the beginning, we’ve been imperial. From the beginning, we’ve missed the whole point of the republican effort to create a republic in this brave new world.

People argue against the US being a democracy for various reasons. Some, on both the far right and far left, argue that the founding fathers didn’t intend democracy. Others might argue against our government being a democracy but that it includes democratic processes. Some counter that the democratic processes are failing or never existed.

Let me give my analysis. I would argue that our political system is either a type of democracy or, if you’d rather not call it a democracy for ideological reasons, it certainly contains democratic processes going back to the beginning of the country. Yes, these are imperfect, but the point is that they exist even if only in minimal form. I would, furthermore, argue that we don’t need to defend our republic against democracy. There are dangers in both republics and democracies, and I think the two systems balance eachother. I truly doubt it would be possible for a republic to exist entirely without any democratic elements and vice versa. Using the general definition of a republic as being other than a monarchy, a direct democracy would be the most extreme form of a republic. A direct democracy can and has existed on the local levels. Many communities have formed based on direct democracy, but a community would have to remain very small to maintain direct democracy. As an absolute ideal, direct democracy is an abstraction (and so is republicanism).

The founding fathers feared both monarchy and direct democracy…. or, to put it another way, a political system where the select elite has most of the power or a political system where the masses have great power. The founding fathers weren’t against the elite having power as they saw themselves as the elite, but they just wanted to guarantee that the power was evenly or meritocrously spread among all of the elite. They intentionally didn’t want to guarantee the average person (non-whites, females, working class, etc) had access to political power. Mostly, power was held by rich, white landowners (plutocracy). They believed in meritocracy and they assumed, as many Republicans do today, that the upper class men have earned or otherwise deserve their power. You have to at least give them credit for believing the idealistic role of disinterested aristorcracy that they saw themselves playing.

The founding fathers were scared of the average person for good reason. The French revolution demonstrated that the average person was a threat to rich people like them. I think similar reasons explain why modern Republicans are also afraid of what average Americans would do if given political power through direct democracy. It’s obvious, of course, why rich, white males continue to fear democracy. Beyond that, whites in general no longer hold the monopoly on political power they once had and whites are quickly losing their majority position. If you’re someone who identifies with being white and/or identifies with ‘white culture’, then democracy is a very real threat to you. Yes, just like you, the founding fathers were white. Many white conservatives like to take credit for what past white people did and claim the problems of society today are the erosion of traditional ‘white culture’. If you’re a conservative white person who fears what is becoming of the country, it is only natural to idealize the founding fathers who were white and idealize early America when whites had absolute power. It’s true that, if it weren’t for democracy, whites would probably still have all the power.

Since the time of the founding fathers, direct democracy has increased. From Republicanisn in the United States:

Over time, the pejorative connotations of “democracy” faded. By the 1830s, democracy was seen as an unmitigated positive and the term “Democratic” was assumed by the Democratic Party and the term “Democrat” was adopted by its members. A common term for the party in the later 19th century was “The Democracy.” In debates on Reconstruction, Senator Charles Sumner argued that the republican “guarantee clause” in Article IV supported the introduction by force of law of democratic suffrage in the defeated South.

As the limitations on democracy were slowly removed, property qualifications for state voters were eliminated (1820s); initiative, referendum, recall and other devices of direct democracy became widely accepted at the state and local level (1910s); and senators were made directly electable by the people (1913).

Women can vote. Non-whites can vote. The working class can vote. Not only can all of these people vote but they can also hold political offices. For our modern standards, a democracy where only rich, white men can vote and be elected doesn’t seem like much of a free society. Even most conservative white males who defend the good ol’ days have to admit that such a state of affairs was far from ideal. But, to be honest, that is exactly what a republic was prior to the increase of direct democracy. Democracy is messy and inefficient. It’s much easier to have a republic without democracy. Most fascist and communist governments are technically republics and many of them even identified themselves as such, but the founding fathers understood that having at least some democracy, however limited, was a good thing even for rich, white males such as themselves.

In conclusion, I’ll let Thom Hartmann have the last word. I’ll share a video where he argues the founding fathers were truly seeking egalitarianism and so were actually betraying their social class . It’s a much more positive vision of America’s beginnings. After the video, is a transcript from Thom Hartmann’s show. He summarizes perfectly the issue of republic vs democracy in American history.

(See here for full video.)

Thom Hartmann’s show, March 29, 2010:

If you want the most technical term, our country is aconstitutionally limited representative democratic republic. Our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it’s not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic. And the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican, it is a republic.

In the early days of this country, James Madison basically created a distinction that didn’t exist before this, and this was in 1787. The, it used to be, if you look at dictionaries pre 1787, the words democracy and republic were interchangeable. The Roman republic was referred to as a democracy, the Greek democracy was refereed to as a republic. The words were interchanged. And in one of the Federalist papers, and I forget which one it was, I think 14 maybe, but it’s been a long time since I read them, in one of the Federalist papers in an effort to, which were put into the newspapers by Hamilton and Madison, and John Jay wrote a couple of them, to sell the constitution to people, because we were operating under the articles of Confederacy in 1787.

To sell the constitution, Madison created this artificial distinction. And what he said, basically, was that democracy, that we weren’t creating a democracy in the United States, and in a technical sense it is not a pure democracy, because like Greece, you had to have at least 6,001 people show up for a decision to be made. It had to be real majority rule. And so Hamilton, excuse me, Madison made the point that democracy could arguably be considered a form of mob rule, whereas a republic imposed, you know, an infrastructure of laws and prevented mob rule.

Now, what he omitted, intentionally, because he was trying to sell the constitution, he was trying to basically reinvent language, what he omitted was that we democratically elect our representatives. And later in his life, in the 1830s, after his presidency was over, keep in mind this was in the 1770s or 1780s, in the 1830s when he was an old man, when he was writing his memoirs, he came out and said, and there’s a whole, if you go to buzzflash.com and look at my book reviews, the very first book review that I ever did for BuzzFlash, which was like five years ago, it’s the oldest one on the list, is all about this topic, or it has several chapters on this topic. And I forget the title of it now, but it’s a great book and it’s written by a guy who’s a constitutional scholar [“How Democratic Is the American Constitution?” by Robert A. Dahl.] And Madison in 1834 said, you know, after all these years, we can, you can use the words interchangeably. And that was about the time that the Democratic Republican party that Jefferson created dropped the word “republican” from its name. And that was about the time that Madison, who was one of the early founders of the Democratic Republican party started again using the word democracy.

So from the 1830s, so from the founding or in the mid 1780s until the mid 1830s we referred to America as a Republic. From the 1830s until the modern era we referred to it as a democracy, but then when Joe McArthur came along he started, he and some of his advisors, and Karl Rove really got on this big time, said, “wait a minute, calling this a democracy sounds too much like the Democratic Party. We should call it a Republic because that sounds more like the Republican Party.” And so the talking point on right wing radio has been, and Limbaugh’s been pushing this for 20 years now, has been that we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and that you shouldn;t call it a democracy, it’s a republic. And the reason why is because they like the word republic because it sounds like republican and they hate the word democracy because it sounds like democratic. And … that’s the bottom line, we live in a democratic republic.

– – –

US: Republic & Democracy (pt 3)

Advertisements

Tea Party, Liberal Elite, & Conspiracy Theories

I was having a discussion (in the comments of an Amazon.com book review) with someone who seems fairly conservative but who says they aren’t Republican.  This person’s views of liberals, however, seem traditionally conservative and this person didn’t make any statements that would contradict mainstream Republican views.  The review in question was of a book by Cleon Skousen who has been popularized by Glenn Beck.  So, it’s likely this person is either a Beckhead or a Tea Party protester… or maybe they just heard of Skousen through the conservative grapevine. 

The 5,000 Year Leap.jpgSkousen is representative of the far right in his association with the John Birch Society.  The John Birch Society was so far right that the staunch conservative Buckley kicked them out of the conservative movement.   Skousen was mostly a forgotten name until the recent rise of the Tea Party (or rather its recent promotion by Fox News).

My understanding is that the Tea Party was originally inspired by Ron Paul’s libertarian movement. 

The Republicans saw Ron Paul as competition because he is closer to traditional conservatism than they are.  Beck helped undermine Ron Paul’s movement, but later apologized after Beck had become the de facto leader of the Tea Party.  Beck is a dissatisfied Republican who has turned to conservative thinkers such as Skousen who have been kept outside the Republican fold for decades, and apparently now that Buckley is gone those outside the fold are trying to get back in again.  There is a weird struggle going on between the Republicans and the Tea Partiers, but unfortunately no matter which side wins the libertarians will be the losers.  I saw a poll that showed Republicans considered libertarians only slightly less negatively than liberals.

I can see some attraction to libertarians such as Ron Paul and I sympathize some of the Tea Party’s complaints (even if not the ideological targets of their complaints).  Even so, I just can’t stand Glenn Beck.  I partly just don’t like Beck’s lack of intellectual depth (along with his fear-mongering and race-baiting), but more annoying is that Beck works for Fox News.  Fox News is headed by Roger Ailes who has for decades been one of the major players in the Republican party (much credit can be given to him for the success of movement conservatism).  I think Fox News’ interest in the Tea Party is a Republican ploy to take over this movement of dissent… which would mean the genuine complaints would get lost in talking points of Republican campaigning. 

Despite the loony wingnuts, my sense is that there probably are quite a few reasonable and maybe even moderate people within the Tea Party movement.  A while back, I posted a video (several videos in fact along with my own commentary) of someone who seemed reasonable and was complaining about what happened to the Tea Party once it was popularized (and practically taken over) by Fox News.  Here is the video in question:

According to a Pew poll, the demographic that is the most loyal Fox News audience are rich white men… which also happens to be the demographic of those who run Fox News (how convenient).  So, I don’t think Fox News actually has the average Tea Party protester’s best interests in mind nor do I think Fox News is genuinely promoting the complaints that drew many people to the Tea Party movement.

I may be a liberal, but I have libertarian leanings and I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy.  During Bush’s administration, the liberals and libertarians joined together to protest the Iraq war.  What did Fox News do?  It (meaning the Fox News pundits such as Beck) defended the administration, ridiculed the protesters, dismissed the 9/11 families, and categorized Truthers as loony conspiracy theorists.  Ron Paul was against the Iraq war which is a major reason he attracted the ire of Republicans and Fox News.  The Peace Protest movement was even larger than the present Tea Party movement.  Republicans and Fox News thought protesters were the scum of the earth, but when a Democratic president was elected based on a populist message of hope by a majority of Americans all of a sudden Fox News overtly started advertising for and generally promoting the Tea Party protests.  Fox News was fine with the Patriot Act and only now do they worry about the government having too much power?  Pardon me if I think this is a bit disingenuous.

So, Beck has been doing his best to popularize conspiracy theories and make them respectable once again for the conservative movement.  The problem is that, in becoming dissatisfied with the GOP, Beck just went even further right.  I prefer my conspiracy theorists to be equally critical of both the left and the right.  Forget Beck.  Give me Alex Jones.  Compared to Beck, Alex Jones’ theories seem quite reasonable to me.  Alex Jones truly stands outside of the mainstream and doesn’t pull any punches.  It’s easy to see the biases of Alex Jones, but Beck is different as he works within mainstream media.  Considering that Beck paid by the rightwing spin machine (otherwise known as Fox News), I can’t even know to what extent he is being honest or, even if he does genuinely try to be honest, to what extent he is being manipulated by his corporate handlers.  Fox News is run by News Corp which is one of the wealthiest and most powerful transnational corporations in the world.  If there is a worldwide conspiracy, I’m sure News Corp is one of powers behind it.

Better than Alex Jones even, give me Robert Anton Wilson or Art Bell.  Robert Anton Wilson made conspiracy theories truly entertaining.  Art Bell, of course, is one of the greatest libertarian talk show hosts to ever be on air and he is a true libertarian… a “live and let live” kind of guy with a strong dose of openminded curiosity.  Art Bell said Fox News sucks for its treatment of Ron Paul.

I started listening to Art Bell back in the 1990s.  I wasn’t even all that interested in politics at that time.  I suppose I’ve always been fairly liberal in my predisposition, but it’s only been in recent years that I’ve researched politics enough to have any clear opinions.  I don’t remember exactly when I started getting more interested in politics.  I remember attending some political meetings at the University, but other than sating my curiosity I didn’t care too much about any of it.  I saw OutFoxed when it came out and that was my first awareness of blatant media bias and political spin.

The one and only time I voted for a president was for Nader in 2000.  The reason I voted for Nader was because I heard him speak.  It was the only time in my life when felt convinced that a politician genuinely believed in what he was doing.  Nader seemed like a truly moral person.  My voting for him wasn’t an ideological decision but was instead based on an assessment of his character.  For whatever reason, not even Obama inspired me as much.  Obama made inspiring speeches, but Nader inspired me simply for what I sensed about who he was.  I have no desire to vote for the lesser of two evils and I refuse to play the rigged two-party game… not that I dislike Obama (I actually do like him as a person to some extent) and I can think of many people who would make much worse presidents (ahem, Palin).

The only political movement I ever was involved with was the Peace protests.  At the University of Iowa, students and locals had set up a Peace Camp and they were there for quite a while.  I hung out at the camp almost every day even when it was cold.  It was the first time I felt like I was a part of something that mattered.  Bush, of course, was the worst kind of politician.  I’m drawn to pacifist idealism, but more importantly it seemed obvious to me how the Bush administration was lying.  I still don’t understand why Bush’s lies weren’t questioned much at the time even by supposedly liberally-biased mainstream media.  Even today, many conservatives still believe some of Bush’s lies that have been disproven for years.  It truly bewilders me.  And the Patriot Act… my God!  The Patriot Act almost made me lose all hope.

It was funny that at the time when everyone was blaming Nader voters for Bush’s election.  I knew Bush was bad news, but I had a theory about how good might come out of it.  Even before Bush was voted into office, I knew he would be one of the worse presidents and I thought that it likely could lead to inspiring liberals to put forth a truly progressive presidential candidate later on.  It turns out that I was more or less correct in that Obama’s progressive message indeed did get popular support after the horrors of the Bush regime.  However, I didn’t predict how the horrors of Bush would linger on even after he was gone (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc).  I didn’t believe in Obama’s hope hype, but I did want to believe that change was actually possible.  I’m open to the hypothetical scenario that Obama might live up to his own progressive speechmaking, but going by his record so far it doesn’t appear all that likely.  This is one time when I wish my cynicism would prove wrong.

These days, I’m not involved in politics at all other than writing about it.  Obama and Bush, Republican and Democrat… it all seems the same to me or not all that different anyways.  I just think of myself as a curious observer.  I still listen to Art Bell’s show but now it’s hosted by someone else.  Over the years, I have at times noted the wide spectrum of the audience of Coast to Coast AM.  The callers and guests consist of liberals, new age gurus, pro-drug activists, Wiccan priestesses, Satan worshippers, Catholic preists, libertarians, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, cranks of various sorts, and even time travellers from the future.  The slant of the show, since Art Bell started it, has always seemed socially liberal and politically libertarian.  Art Bell himself used to be married to a Wiccan and he was the prototypical independent-minded libertarian.

I’ve recently been thinking about Coast to Coast AM in terms of the Tea Party.  Art Bell was a supporter of Ron Paul.  I suspect that libertarians and Tea Partiers probably represent a significant portion of Art Bell’s fan base.  I’m also a fan of Art Bell, but I’m always wary of conservative libertarians adoration of Ayn Rand and I’m even more wary of the Beckhead Tea Baggers.  On the other hand, I don’t think of myself as a Democrat.  Many Democrats hate Nader voters like me as much as Republicans once hated Ron Paul supporters.  I feel like I’m in a weird niche.  The closest I come to finding a view that I identify with might be Noam Chomsky, but I recently met a Chomsky fan who was a rabid atheist and I don’t much like rabid atheists.

Part of me wishes I could be a libertarian, but in the US the libertarian movement has been taken over by pro-capitalists and the religious right.  Of the conservative libertarians, I’d prefer the pro-capitalists because at least some of them are socially liberal.  I read Ayn Rand in college.  I liked her fiction somewhat, but then I read her nonfiction and it really turned me off.  I just don’t understand the proseletyzing of free market idealism.  As I see it, a free market has never existed and probably never will.  Yeah, it looks good in theory… many things look good in theory.

Maybe I should just forget about all of the various movements and just think of myself as an independent. 

I think I was happier when Republicans were in power.  Republicans are just blatantly evil in how they abused power.  Democrats in some ways just seem more sneaky.  Plus, with Democrats in power, the libertarian movement has become even more conservative because of all the people no longer wanting to identify with the failed and failing GOP. 

It pisses me off.  I’ve been a critic of mainstream politics for much of my adult life.  I’ve always been attracted to conspiracy theories about secret societies, alphabet soup agencies, the military-industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, and the One World Government.  I can’t say I necessarily believe in any given conspiracy theory, but the general attitude appeals to me.  I can’t stand that the likes of Beck has become the mainstream representative of conspiracy theories.  Beck may be mainstream, but he is more whacko than some of the cranks that I’ve heard Art Bell inteview.  I’m sure Beck means well and all.  It’s just that he seems like a dupe.  Maybe I’m being overly critical.  Am I wrong to mistrust the change of heart of a supporter of Bush and the Patriotic Act?  Beck says he leans towards libertarianism, but I’ve never heard him criticize imprisoning American citizens as enemy combatants or criticize the torture of suspects that may or may not be terrorists.  If that is leaning towards libertarianism, I’m sure glad Beck isn’t leaning away from libertarianism.  How can Beck be considered the voice of populist dissent, the defender of constitutional rights?

Okay… there was a point to all of this.  My thinking was partly incited by the discussion I mentioned at the beginning of the post.  The person (who I shall call “he” from now on) I was debating seems like a typical conservative in seeing liberal bias everywhere.  He mentioned the documentary Indoctrinate U which is available in it’s entirety on Youtube.

The person on Amazon.com seems reasonably intelligent and capable of critical thinking to some extent, but his views of liberals is rather simplistic… maybe he hadn’t been exposed to many liberals besides encounters with strangers on the internet and portrayals of “libruls” on Fox News.  I assume that this documentary represents his own views as he seemed to be using it to support his arguments.  This is the type of conservative that befuddles me.  He says he isn’t a Republican even while espousing very conservative views.  He seems somewhat moderate in his attitude all the while saying he wants to read Skousen who represents extreme conservative bias.  All in all, he seems be in the general vicinity of the audience of Fox News (which apparently exists in an alternative dimension from the one I happen to occupy).

I’m fine with criticisms and disagreement.  I’m not one to denounce Beck or the Tea Partiers for feeling that the government doesn’t represent them.  I agree with their general sentiments.  I agree that there is a bias in the media and in education and in the mainstream in general, but what is up with seeing a conspiracy everywhere which is led by some kind of liberal elite (be they Socialists, Communists, Marxists, or Nazis… or, even worse, maybe all of them combined).

I found some decent critiques of Indoctrinate U.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/yet-once-more-political-correctness-on-campus/

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2008/03/indoctrinate_u_was_it_fair_an.html

http://www.campusprogress.org/soundvision/1562/campus-con

I did end up watching the entire documentary.  Basically, it’s a conservative version of a Michael Moore production but not quite as entertaining.  Many examples are presented with little context.  In response to one of the reviews, the maker of the documentary admitted to being biased and thought it unfair for someone to criticize his bias.

Why is it so hard for people to look at the real sources of oppression and propaganda?  What is the point of blaming one party or another, one president or another, one mainstream news source or another?  One group wants to blame big government and the other group wants to blame big business, but a little bit of research shows that there isn’t any great distinction between the two.  The family and financial connections, the revolving door, the inherited wealth and social position… power is power.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Conservatives buy guns in fear that the liberal elite are going to destroy democracy or something, but who are they going to point the gun at?  When the oppressive forces come (assuming they aren’t already here and haven’t been here for a long time), they’ll come for conservatives and liberals alike.  Anyways, I doubt even the gun-toting paranoids will see them coming because the new form of political oppression probably won’t come by overt force. 

There is no liberal propaganda scheme to brainwash the children of conservatives.  The professors and news reporters really aren’t all that liberal (compared to true socialists and progressives) and anyways most of them are just as deceived (or more so) than the rest of us.  The conspiracy (whatever it may be) is systemic to our entire society.  This is why someone like Derrick Jensen probably is closer to grasping the actual conspiracy than any outright conspiracy theorist.

Why are conservatives so afraid of the government now with Obama in Washington?  Obama hasn’t even come close to passing anything as scary as the Patriot Act.  Obama is no more a Communist than any other president.  I just don’t get all of this paranoid fear-mongering.  Yes, there are real things to be afraid of, but I don’t see much point to all of this blind rage and righteousness, all of this ideological warring.  Many, many people have been warning about conspiracies for decades… yet we’re all still here and the political game continues.  What is behind this sudden sense of urgency?  Is it just the economic downturn that gets conservatives all riled up?  Mess with their jobs, their money, their houses… and there will be a revolution.

Okay, whatever… good luck with that.