- An important unresolved question which plagues all manner
of 'freedom fighters' is the question of populism vs elitism. At the one
extreme are eugenics supporters, who recognize the importance of intelligence
in society, and believe that, in a general way, the intelligent and otherwise
superior both must and should be dominant in society. The implications
of this, of course, are elitist, since high intelligence and similar positive
characteristics are the possession of the few rather than the many; and
thus the intelligent are the elite whom the eugenics supporters celebrate.
-
- Similar to the eugenics supporters are the white racialists,
many of whom cull their philosophy from the fact that the white race is
the most successful in history in the sense of being most able to produce
happiness and general good. In this sense, then, white racialists consider
the white race a sort of elite who should -- and hopefully will -- dominate
the planet. This, of course, does not commit the white racialist to having
whites themselves ruled by a white elite, tho it would seem to incline
them to it.
-
- Another philosophy supporting elitism over populism --
and one which has been more widespread than any other elitist philosophy
-- is autocracy, the most important form of which historically has been
monarchism, but which finds its modern counterpart in the form of dictatorship
and similar constructs. Autocracy, it may be observed, is the most natural
form of leadership, since it is based on the respect of peers who follow
the leader because they are induced rather than forced to do so. Needless
to say, we think of autocracy in negative terms, in part because we think
that those who are governed should have some say in how they are governed,
and in part because we dislike the threat posed by powerful men who can
rule by whim which is unhindered by opposition. These are not necessarily
compelling arguments, however; for the autocrat has certain advantages
over the democrat, the most important being the motivation to provide for
the long- term welfare of his country, as opposed to attaining short-term
political advantage.
-
- As opposed to elitism, populism has arisen precisely
because of the objections just mentioned: The abuse of power which occurs
because that power is not counterbalanced by another significant power;
and the unfairness of not allowing those who are governed from governing
themselves. Populism was one of the great results of the Enlightenment
-- it emerged as the product of the abandonment of 'the divine right of
kings' and the adoption of Lockean notions of democracy and freedom so
elegantly reflected in the writings of Jefferson and our other Founders.
-
- But democracy -- as populism is often called -- has an
important if not fatal flaw: It tends to get hijacked by the wealthy and
powerful who bend it to their own ends. This is not, I should add, altogether
wrong; for the rich and powerful in some sense deserve to have a major
voice in government that lesser men do not: Those who pay the piper the
most -- as the rich and powerful often do in the form of taxes -- should
be able to call some of the tunes, not only out of fairness, but because
the operation of big business impacts the welfare of those who hold jobs,
purchase products and the like. The point here is that those who have a
stake in government should be the ones to control it, and that control
should be in proportion to the stake which they hold. This is not elitism
in theory -- anyone, it may be said, can grow up to be president of Microsoft
-- but it is elitism in fact, because it will be the elite -- whether measured
in terms of IQ, economics, or some other standard of potential or actual
achievement -- who will dominate in this sort of context.
-
- But if both elitism and populism have objectionable aspects,
what kind of system can minimize these difficulties? I don't think that
there is any simple answer to this question, but I do think that there
are various procedures which can be helpful, and many of these I have discussed
in my book, Handbook of the Coming American Revolution. One of these is
the matter just discussed, of according the franchise in proportion to
'stake', ie, in proportion to taxes paid. Another is in eliminating entirely
the matter of money in running for office -- something which can be done
easily with the system I describe, and which will in addition produce two
other major benefits: The elimination of inappropriate influence of the
major media, and the allowing of the emergence of 'natural leadership'.
-
- While it would be inappropriate here for a full discussion
of things I have already discussed in detail in the Handbook, let me just
point out that there are numerous major problems with current electoral
politics:
-
- * The politicians must have access to the major media
if they are to be elected
-
- * The only way the politicians can have access to the
major media is with scads of money, and this makes them beholden to the
moneyed interests
-
- * Because media time is expensive, there is no discussion
of the real issues, but mostly just soundbites
-
- * The parties are the major funders of candidates, and
thus no candidate can make a successful campaign without the backing of
a major party
-
- * The parties have been co-opted by their major contributors,
and in fact both are pretty much owned by the Jews
-
- * Without strong independent candidates, the real issues
will never be discussed
-
- * Voters don't really 'choose' who is elected; they are
only allowed to choose between two clones selected by the major parties
-
- From the above points, it is clear that the influence
of money and the major media must be broken before electoral politics can
work in the way it was intended by the Founders. As stated before, I show
how this can be easily and quickly done in the Handbook. And while I did
not there address explicitly the question of elitism vs populism, it happens
that the system I describe will also resolve that problem in a significant
way by giving ordinary people a reasonable shot at political candidacy,
while at the same time allowing the emergence of 'natural leadership' in
which -- so to speak -- the cream of the crop will rise to the top.
-
- Now in eliminating money (and the influence and media
attention it will buy) as the mother's milk of politics, we reap the added
benefit of short- circuiting the ability of the media to act as a tool
for manipulating the population. While this may not impress ordinary people
as important, those of us who are Internet-savvy have seen with our own
eyes the blatant and unblushing lies of both omission and commission of
which the media are guilty on a daily basis. Furthermore, we have seen
the words of Edward Bernays, the 'father of propaganda', who has advanced
the notion that it is not merely within the power of the elite to manipulate
the minds of the people, but is actually socially beneficial. Tim O'Shea
("The Doors of Perception", www.thedoctorwithin.com) describes
the situation as follows:
-
- *******************************
-
- "Stauber describes Bernays' rationale [as]: "the
scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos
and conflict in a democratic society." (Trust Us p 42)
-
- "These early mass persuaders postured themselves
as performing a moral service for humanity in general - democracy was too
good for people; they needed to be told what to think, because they were
incapable of rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays'
Propaganda: "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result
of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of
human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together
as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether
in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who
understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is
they who pull the wires that control the public mind."
-
- "[As the reader can see, this is a] tad different
from Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject:
-
- "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power
of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
-
- ************************
-
- Now, the most important thing to observe about the above
quotation is that, even if one agrees that an elite should rule and the
people obey, this gives no warrant for the mind manipulation with which
Bernays is so taken. In fact, it is clear upon reflection that the reason
for mind manipulation a la Bernays is simply to allow the elite to more
easily hold onto its power, rather than risk facing a revolt of the peasants
in which the elite just might end up on the business end of a pitchfork,
as the muscle of the American elite is presently doing at this very moment
in Iraq.
-
- But surprising as it may seem, the important thing about
creating a fair system of government, where there is an attempt to balance
the elitist and populist interests, where the power of money and the mass
media are eliminated, and where mind manipulation is not permitted, is
not some abstruse ethical or moral claim, but rather the very pragmatic
consideration that A FAIR GOVERNMENT IS A STABLE GOVERNMENT. In the long
term, governments survive and prosper because their citizens find them
at least satisfactory; and a government which makes it a point to be sensitive
to its citizens' needs is likely to be protected from a peasants' revolt
a lot more effectively than that of an autocrat who criminalizes criticism
and disappears dissenters. Beyond that, criticism is therapeutic: Criticism
tells you where you are going wrong, and thus nuggets of criticism should
be prized as gold rather than rejected as hateful and treasonous. And it
is precisely the need for good criticism that populism should be cultivated;
for while we need not say 'vox populi, vox dei', we can say that if the
elite ignore the criticism from below, they may end up hanging from a rope
above.
|
