[Peace-discuss] Does Cheney Make Obama Look Good Enough?

[John W.]

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:41 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

I wrote
>
>  McCain was the best thing Obama had going for him during the campaign
>> (altho' Palin helped by mobilizing class resentments that couldn't be
>> admitted openly)...
>>
>
> --and was asked about the meaning of the clause in parentheses. I meant
> that Palin's background allowed the soi-disant educated to look down on her.
>
> Chomsky was asked about his assertion in his "Manufacturing Consent" that
> 20 per cent of the population that goes to college and holds important
> positions within the capitalist democracy are the sections of the population
> that need to be brainwashed under freedom.
>
> He replied, "The 20 per cent figure is not mine. It is a standard notion in
> political science called the 'political class,' the class that is actually
> active in public and economic affairs. This roughly constitutes about 20 per
> cent of the population. From the point of view of the propaganda or the
> doctrinal system they are a different kind of target than the rest of the
> population.
>
> "Remember, the United States is not a democracy - and has never been
> intended to be a democracy. It is what is called in the political science
> literature a polyarchy. A polyarchy is one in which a small sector of the
> population is in control of essential decision-making for the economy, the
> political system, the cultural system and so on. And the rest of the
> population is supposed to be passive and acquiescent. They are supposed to
> cede democracy to the elite elements who call themselves, rather modestly,
> the 'responsible men.' 'We are the responsible men and we take care of the
> affairs of the world.' The rest are sometimes called a 'bewildered herd' or
> a rabble or something like that. Actually, I am quoting Walter Lippman, the
> leading figure in U.S. journalism, and a leading public intellectual of the
> 20th century..."
>
> The political class in America is taught to hate and fear the 80% as
> uneducated, racist, religious, and proto-fascist.  (Tom Frank's "What's the
> Matter with Kansas?" is a sophisticated version of this teaching of
> contempt; it's been seriously challenged by various people, notably Larry
> Bartels.)
>
> The liberal elite, which makes up a good bit of the political class, was
> shocked and appalled that someone who seemed to belong to the 80% -- and an
> attractive woman at that -- should dare to presume that she might run for
> national office.  So there was a great effort to denigrate her as
>  "uneducated, racist, religious, and proto-fascist" -- regardless of her
> politics.
>
> Among other things, the reaction reveled the fear among the liberal elite
> that the 80% might become politically active.  Don't they know their place?
>  She and they belong to the "bewildered herd..."
>
> Palin, whatever her politics, was a challenge to the polyarchy in a way
> that Clinton and Obama were not. That's where the rage and scorn heaped on
> her came from. --CGE



So it wasn't Palin's ignorance that appalled me?  Or maybe, since I'm not a
member of the polyarchy, it doesn't matter what I think or why I think it?

You have a tendency to make simple things complex, Carl.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090525/4c99698b/attachment.htm