America's One-Party, Authoritarian System: A Bogus Democracy

I'm always amazed when I read the passionate and often venomous on-line disputes between supposed liberals and conservatives, or Republicans and Democrats. People still seem to believe that there are major differences between the two parties, but I fail to see any. Both parties are financed by the same interests for the most part; therefore they have to answer to the same people. Since the Reagan/Bush coup (yes, I believe that the sale of weapons to Iran to influence the outcome of an election justifies the use of the term "coup") of 1980, both parties have advanced the same social and economic agenda. To call the Clintons "liberals" or "leftists" and to call the Bushes "conservatives" is an insult to both groups. Granted, there are differences in the flavor and focus of authoritarian doctrine, as implemented by the Republican and Democratic parties, but the fundamentals of increased spending on war and prisons, reduced spending on social programs, and the steady erosion of constitutional rights by a constantly expanding police state have remained intact through Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses. At one time, now far behind us, the difference between parties could be defined as the difference between rubber bullets (used by the National Guard under LBJ in the Washington DC riots following Dr. King's assassination) and real ones (such as those used at Kent State). Now it is nearly impossible to make such a basic distinction, as the policies of both parties have had more than their share of lethal end-results. Clinton appointee Madeline Albright has made some of the most outrageous, callous and homicidal statements ever made outside of Nazi Germany in spite of the "liberal" administration she served under, and I believe that her ideas represented the true sentiments of the Clinton White House.

During a 1996 interview for 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl posed the following question to Ms. Albright, with the regard to the effect of economic sanctions on the population of Iraq:

"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Although she would apologize years later for the answer, it should lay to rest any illusions of humanitarian and "bleeding heart liberal" qualities in the Clinton administration. Ms. Albright's reply was as follows "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it." http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp

Recent levels of public outrage at the Bush administration, as well as the administration's actual behavior might lead people to the mistaken conclusion that there are significant ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats now. To be certain, the levels of corruption, lawlessness, and blatant disrespect for the very idea of democracy reached by this administration seem to be unprecedented. The attacks on the United States Constitution itself have taken place out in the open. However, it was in the context of the post 9-11 atmosphere of authority-permissiveness that these crimes were committed; the administration doesn't have to hide its questionable activities. With the precedent set by the Iran-Contra affair, "we're the government, we can do this," has become the only defense that is actually needed. Whether, as some conspiracy researchers claim, 9-11 was engineered by the elite, or simply exploited for political advantage and financial gain after the fact, it has served to further reduce the accountability of the elite. The electorate seems all too happy to accept this; Bush was reelected in spite of his pre-911 association with the Taliban, the close relationship of the Bush and bin-Laden families, and the obvious loyalty of the Bushes to Saudi Arabia from where all but one of the 9-11 hijackers came.

Some democrats protest that this permissiveness was not shown to Bill Clinton during his presidency. This is true only in the most superficial sense. The dirty past of the Clintons is fairly well-known at this time, as Hillary herself has pointed out. The list of questionable behaviors and associations of the Clintons is too long to list here. The rising tide of moral hypocrisy ensured that only the Lewinski affair "stuck." This type of sexual buffoonery is commonplace, and seems not to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation. Public preaching of religiously based moral condemnations is undermined constantly by the involvement of fundamentalists in adulterous affairs, and the homosexuality of homophobes who are little more than cheerleaders for queer-bashers. The home audience loves it, for a variety of different reasons that vary from one viewer to the next. Depending on their political and religious views, the individual may react with anger and righteous indignation to these scandals, or with mere amusement. The reduction of the political process in America to cheap and immature entertainment and little more is all that the eternal popularity of sex-scandals proves. The one-party state moves quietly forward, and much as in the days of the inquisition, the sexual deviations and religious heresies of individuals are condemned while the predatory behaviors of moral and civil authority figures go unchallenged.

Why does this authoritarian agenda continue to advance, seemingly without regard to election results, public outcry, and endless discussion in the media and online? Why do Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and radicals of the far right and left keep pointing fingers at each other in the mistaken belief that the psychosis of power has any real loyalty to ideology in the abstract? "Hitler is said to be a genius of politics. That alone should tell us what politics really is." ( Reich, "Mass Psychology of Fascism")

Sometimes I find myself referring to some strange sources. For the most part, I consider the lunatic fringe of the conspiracy research scene to be good for entertainment value and little more, but once in a while, I find a gem of political insight amidst all the paranoia. The following statement by David Icke, a highly controversial conspiracy theorist and "new age" visionary of sorts, states plainly what none of the mainstream media sources and bloggers seem willing to admit:

"...all political movements connect to the same source. There are however, elements of Communism/Fascism within all of them - some more than others. The spectrum is really a circle with Fascism and Communism operating on the same thought pattern - AUTHORITARIANISM." -http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/elite_network.html

The diagram that accompanies this caption does not include the libertarian and anarchist schools of thought, but does list most of the established political factions that appear to be dictating the course of history at this time. The Democratic and Republican parties of the US, along with the Conservative Party in the UK are depicted as a single, slightly right-of-center faction. In spite of its off-the-wall source, this view of things is a bit closer to the way things actually work. The choices that are offered to citizens of the supposed democracies in the US and the UK are limited by the political parties themselves; all of the available options fall within a range of outcomes that will not significantly disrupt or affect in any significant way the function of the established hierarchies.

For most of recorded history, the wealthy and powerful have dictated policy and doctrine, and the opinions of commoners simply were not relevant. Authoritarian religions have defined political authority as being ultimately derived from divine authority for thousands of years. There were a few hundred years of political and social upheaval and advancement; we enjoyed a brief period where the rights of ordinary people, regardless of race or economic status were at least acknowledged as theory, although in practice they were still often disregarded. This posed a clear threat to those accustomed to unopposed and unquestioned wielding of power. The authoritarian trend of the last 30 or so years has resulted from a counterattack by these interests.

The historical process of class war, whether of the classical libertarian-democratic variety (such as the American Revolution) or of the Marxist variety, two types of revolutions that have experienced massive betrayals by the new elites they created, has been reversed. A ruling class has reestablished itself, and although the masses are more literate than they were during other feudalistic eras, the ruled are still regarded as peasants by their rulers. (Your boss may even have taken out a "dead peasants insurance" policy on your life! )http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/insurance/p64954.asp Class war is now waged in reverse; rich against poor, powerful against powerless, the "haves and the have mores" (George W. Bush's own, verbatim description of his "base") versus those who have less, and those who "have not."

"We the Peasants" still have some choices, the first and most important one being the choice to keep paying attention to what's going on, observing carefully, commenting when appropriate and discussing the situation with others. In terms of action, there are choices in terms of how much time and personal freedom one surrenders to the social order, although for many, taking back the hours of one's own life and the sanctity of one's own thoughts can result in marginalization and even lower economic status. On a larger scale, economic boycotts are a fast and very direct form of democratic action, as are labor strikes. At least around where I live, wages seem to be dropping, foreclosures are way up, and homelessness is increasing. As the level of discomfort increases, people may find it more worthwhile to endure the discomfort of strikes, boycotts, and other peaceful disruptions of power.

The working masses of men and women, they and they alone, are responsible for everything that takes place, the good things and the bad things. True enough, they suffer most from a war, but it is their apathy, craving for authority, etc., that is most responsible for making wars possible. It follows of necessity from this responsibility that the working masses of men and women, they and they alone, are capable of establishing lasting peace.-Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism

Many seem to believe and accept that the political choices we are offered are the only ones that exist, and that we must choose our leaders from candidates backed by factions of the wealthy and powerful. The belief that any of our problems can be solved by trust in authority, whether governmental or corporate, will get Americans more of the same; longer hours for less money, lifetimes of enslavement to creditors and employers, threats of terror from within and without and unending war will define our lives. And if in our craving for comfort, order, and the illusion of safety we choose to accept this, it's what we deserve.

REFERENCES:

Arendt, Hannah
The Origins of Totalitarianism,
1958, Harcourt Brace,
New York NY, (Influential to this piece, but not directly quoted)

Icke David
And The Truth Shall Set You Free,
1995, Bridge Of Love,
London, UK

Reich,Wilhelm
The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1970,
Simon and Schuster
NY NY