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

[John W.]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:23 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

I don't think Palin was particularly ignorant (cf. Joe Biden, Dan Quayle).
>  She
> just had to be, given her class background.


Palin didn't HAVE to be anything.  I can cite any number of examples -
myself included - who came from a similar class background but who
transcended it through education, open-mindedness, a desire to learn,
whatever.  No, Palin was and is ignorant, and there's a strong element of
choice involved.


And I hate to tell you, John (actually I don't): your polyarchy credentials
> are
> in order.  In the US, formal education is a class marker more than
> elsewhere.


Well, here's Chomsky's definition which you quoted:  "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."  I may have a formal education, but I ain't in control of
nothin' but world music at WEFT.  That IS part of the cultural system, I
guess, but it's an awfully small part.  My polyarchy credentials may be in
order, but I never got hired by the polyarchy.  I never applied, for that
matter.


I'm afraid you can't be a man of the people whom you despise.   --CGE


Well, Carl, it's a bit of a balancing act which can be very difficult at
times.  But no matter how often you assert it, it is simply not true that I
"despise" "the people".  One can love people very deeply while thinking
they're ignorant at the same time.  Obviously you couldn't possibly have a
very clear idea of what Jesus was about either.  Would you care to assert
that He died for them because of their "essential goodness and wisdom"?  If
so, I've got a multitude of scriptures that prove you profoundly wrong.



> John W. wrote:


>  On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:41 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:
>> 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/20090525/09fd0981/attachment-0001.html