Monday, December 02, 2002

The Paid Puppets in the White House People like West Wing so much because on TV we can see the complete opposite of the actual reality in the White House.  In a word, its policy and passion vs. no policy but power and self-preservation. The true paucity of Bush’s white House was brought home by this letter from John DiIulio, (reprinted by Matt Drudge).  DiIulio was head of Bush’s faith based initiatives.  He says  “In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, non-stop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking”  In short, the corporations who purchase influence and profitability from the government have brought in a figurehead whose sole purpose is to dole out money to them and keep the country moving to the right to provide ideological cover.  We are living in an age that would make the Robber Barons blush.  During the late 19th century, the railroad and oil trusts gained enormous power, so much so that the government essentially became a servant of the major industrialists.  Eventually this power was tempered in a wave of populism, which led to the Sherman Anti-Trust Acts and other reforms asserting the primacy of the lives of farmers and workers over the greed of the corporations.  Today, such servitude is not even hidden but glorified.  We have a supreme court who says not only that money buys political power, but that the rights of money trump every other right.  The concept that money is speech will one day be seen like the Dred Scott decision—as an egregious error that strikes at the fundamental basis of our democracy.  Some things are not for sale.  You cannot sell children.  You cannot sell people into slavery.  By what logic do we allow the sale of a person’s political rights in this country.  Yet when money is speech, that is exactly what is happening.  The reason many people find politics distasteful, as I wrote yesterday, is that our political rights have been devalued.  We are given choices, but no power, so in reality, no choices.  Dilulio’s letter is a striking example of the crisis in American democracy.   Why does this matter?  Because if most Americans lose faith in their democracy, in their own exercise of political power, it opens the door to accepting the manipulation and lies of fascism or totalitarian behavior, which can be an extreme form of industrialist control run amok.    10:33:12 PM   comment []    Leafleting Against the War I have not been blogging as much as I mean to with the holidays, children home, and being busy at work.  But I hope to get back to writing five days a week.  Yesterday our group leafleted against the war in Lexington center, and the reactions of people seems like a useful topic to explore.   Why do some of us go out and publicly ask our neighbors to join us in opposing the war.  What gives us the will or the sense of duty that says our view is so important that we want you to share it.   I thought about these questions this weekend, when we set up a table and leafleted in Lexington center on Saturday.  We handed out flyers about our upcoming community forum on Iraq next week and  collected email addresses of those who want to be on our mailing list.   Standing on a public street handing out flyers is a great way to see how people react to political ideas.  It is surprising that the act of political persuasion itself is so unwelcome to some people.  They probably give lip service to democracy and diverse points of view, but actual practice makes them uncomfortable.   Is it intrusive for someone doing nothing more complicated than going to Starbucks to have to decide how to approach the people handing out flyers about Iraq on the sidewalk.   I observed a number of responses.  First, there were the polite takers.  These people acknowledged us with eye contact and were curious as to what we were doing.  They would take the flyer, read it as they walked down the street, and fold it and put in a pocket.  When they came by again they would tell us they already got one, if we didn’t recognize them.    Second were the supporters.  Some people would stop at the table, say how important it was to speak out against the war, and some of them signed up for our mailing list.  Out of the two hundred to three hundred people were saw during my 2 hour shift, maybe 5% to 10% were in this category—very encouraging.   Third were those who ignored us.  Some people would not look at us or acknowledge anyone trying to give them something.  They would quicken their pace, avert their gaze,  and pass with their hands firmly in their pocket.  This is how people pass homeless people in the street—not willing to give some change, clearly wishing they weren’t there, feeling angry at the affront of the homeless being visible, rather than the larger affront of some people  being homeless.  Why do we make some people uncomfortable just handing out leaflets?   Fourth were those who acknowledged us, but forthrightly said they were not interested or did not want a flyer.  Some of these were also part of the next group, supporters of the war.   Fifth, some people completely disagreed with us.  They felt we had to bomb Iraq and supported the war.  One man said that he wanted a war with Saddam, but he feared now it wouldn’t happen because of people like us, meaning the peace movement.  War supporters numbered less than peace supporters, but because of the self-selective nature of our leafleting, I guess that at least as many people in Lexington actively support the war as actively oppose it.  But both groups are small compared to the majority of people who appear to be skeptical about  Bush and in favor of peace, but are not sure how strongly they feel, or what will happen next.   So why does political activity make some people uncomfortable.  I think we have been channeled into safe types of consumer behavior, which glorifies choices within strict limits.  For example, we have unlimited choices of styles and colors of cars, but virtually no choice to live without them, or to pay less for cars, and more for excellent suburban transit systems.  In the same way, politics is comfortable when properly channeled, between two hacks or two exemplary leaders in a routine election.  It is acting or thinking outside the normal parameters that makes people uncomfortable.   With politics, clearly questioning the government’s moral authority, saying they lie, saying they don’t have American interests at heart but actually kill people simply maintain their own power—this is clearly outside the box, and it makes people uncomfortable.   Here in Lexington we’re just setting a toe over this line of discomfort. I fear eventually we will go far over that line, hopefully not alone.    So why did the Washington Post print a front-page article on the Peace movement today?  Because the peace movement is also acceptable when it is properly channeled—when it represents church leaders, union members, and grandmothers.  But it represents more than that.  It represents people who think Bush is a liar who kills innocent people to hold on to power.  Maybe the editors of the Post are trying to make sure the peace movement doesn’t cross that line into opposition, because some in the media, rank and file reporters perhaps, will start writing that the emperor has no clothes. 12:02:36 AM   comment []

© Copyright 2003 Toby Sackton. Last update: 1/2/2003; 11:22:21 PM.