Following up the last post, I want to direct you to an article by Ted Morgan: “This isn’t how a democracy should work.”
In his book â€œDemocracy, Inc.,â€Â the late, distinguished political scientist Sheldon Wolin has argued that we have a â€œmanaged democracy,â€ that elite â€œmanagementâ€ of elections is the key to perpetuating the â€œprimal mythâ€ that the people determine the rulers. As Wolin put it, this â€œantidemocracyâ€ doesnâ€™t attack the idea of government by the people, it encourages â€œcivic demobilizationâ€ â€“ conditioning the electorate to be aroused for a brief spell, controlling its attention span, and then encouraging distraction or apathy.
Yeah, pretty much.
For decades, going back to another supreme practitioner of cultural politics, Ronald Reagan, the right side of the elite has moved into a dominant political position by sounding unconventional, like they are on the side of millions of Americans who have long felt that their place in society and the economy is being marginalized. The right consistently trots out scapegoats â€“ â€œliberals,â€ protesters, â€œwelfare cheats,â€ immigrants, Muslims, etc. â€“ to â€œexplainâ€ why this audienceâ€™s fortunes are declining.
This is the faux populism that the right has mastered in its ride to power. Itâ€™s also the faux populism of advertisers when they suggest theyâ€™re on our side as we try to make our lives better. But neither one is on the side of the people. Theyâ€™re all on the side of corporate America. Despite his conservative rhetoric, Ronald Reagan arguably did more than any other president to accelerate the decline of family-supporting jobs and manufacturing communities than anyone else. Similarly, with the Trump campaign, building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico wonâ€™t improve the livelihood of American citizens one iota. But it feelsÂ that way to significant numbers of Americans.
There’s no question that the Right has done a better job than the Left of generating faux populism and making it downright tribal. But the Dems keep trying.
Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party establishment embraced Hillary Clinton from the start; she plays the same big-money, managed democracy game they play. Nor is it surprising that the national news media have also embraced her candidacy while dismissing the â€œunrealisticâ€ campaign of the â€œunelectableâ€ Bernie Sanders â€“ though he does keep surprising them.
I’ve said before that a big part of Hillary Clinton’s appeal with among those who genuinely support her is that they identify with her on a deep level. Her followers can get pretty tribal also. Many of them refuse to even look at questionable aspects of her record — her hawkishness, for example — and dismiss all criticism of her as sexism, or just repetition of the mud from the Whitewater era.
Clinton doesn’t just play the same games the Dem establishment plays; it’s obvious she is queen of the establishment realm. Speaking as someone who doesn’t identify with her, it’s obvious to me that the ultimate source of her power comes from a place that has nothing to do with democracy. And that’s the primary reason I refuse to support her.
The quote at the top of the post about managed democracy says it pretty well. Clinton did not offer herself as a candidate; she was packaged and marketed to us as the inevitable nominee. The entire Democratic Party aligned itself to make that happen early last year; the primaries were supposed to be just formalities.Â We’re being “managed” to accept her as a candidate, and as a president. I’m sure the insiders fully expect us all to go back to sleep as soon as she’s inaugurated.
And whatever innocent idea I still harbored that the system was still more or less democratic has been destroyed this primary season. Seeing Rachel Maddow all-too-obviously provide cover for the Clinton Machine was too much.
Back to Ted Morgan:
Our news media, television in particular, work at two levels simultaneously. One level is cultural. This is where market-driven news accentuates its entertainment value, seeking to maximize audience or readership by grabbing attention with all the devices common to entertainment. News stories are brief, dramatic fragments; they accentuate eye-catching imagery, conflict, and personalities. They play on our emotions, but tell us almost nothing about why the world is the way it is.
The other level is ideological, or political.Â This is where the mass media are corporate institutions that reflect the consensual and competing views of elites who dominate our politics.Â This is where Democrats and Republicans â€œdebateâ€ political issues, where they tell us how to interpret the world.Â It is definitely not where more fundamentally critical, or outsider, views are taken seriously.
Yes to both. Mainstream media set the parameters of “acceptable” political thought and discourse, and at the same time they fail to provide information or context that might enable people to reach unacceptable conclusions.
Although the New York Times is a major enabler of the management, they do sometimes give us a peak behind the curtain:
This year the Republican and Democratic nominating conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia will be bankrolled entirely with money from corporations and wealthy individuals. Not since the Watergate era, when a $400,000 pledge to the 1972 Republican convention from ITT Corporation was linked to a favorable outcome for the company in a federal antitrust decision, has this happened.
Industries with business before the federal government have long found opening their checkbooks for the conventions to be one of the most efficient means for influencing an incoming administration and Congress in one quick action. …
… The ITT scandal prompted legislation that provided public financing for conventions, and limited their budgets to that amount. But the parties soon found multiple ways around that, including using â€œhost committeesâ€ that operate in the cities where the conventions are held, soliciting unlimited amounts of convention money from corporations and wealthy individuals. These committees, established to skirt federal laws banning corporations from giving to political parties directly, should be abolished.
And what’s different about this year?
The demise of public convention financing is a result of the 2014 Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, named for a Virginia girl who died of brain cancer. The law ended government funding for nominating conventions, which in 2012 amounted to about $18 million, or one-quarter, of each political partyâ€™s convention costs, and redirected $126 million over 10 years to pediatric disease research.
Talk about unintended consequences. Of course, I’m sure no sponsor expects direct quid pro quos for their money.Â The benefits they receive will be more indirect and more subtle.
And this is just one example. There have been allegations about the foreign governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Some of those governments were lobbying the U.S. State Department about something. I have defended the Clinton Foundation in the past, but one does wonder.Â And I’m sure there’s plenty of ammunition in there somewhere for the Republicans to use against her in the fall.
Remember what I said in this post about foot dragging? We are in for some epic foot dragging. Clinton and her allies will be pragmatically certain that whatever she does will be incremental enough to not cause the clients, or the sponsors, much consternation.