A Monar.... err Dictatorship

but that’s absurd. to say that america is being run by the special interests and then to say that it is becoming static is contradictory. first, i think the special interest view is an axaggeration – my studies on american democracy suggest that while they are there, and they do play a huge role in campaign finance (for instance), the point is there is a hell of a lot of them. for every pro choic group there is a pro life group, for every enviornmental group there is a screw-the-earth-let’s-get-oil group. balance is ultimatly gained as every politicain strives, to varrying degrees, to gain a balance between the interests. besides, it’s not like america is a politically active country otherwise. certainly not static.

There’s two special interest groups that are more powerful than all others. These groups are have sub interests, and they control the American government from both sides of the fence (democrat vs republican).

These are Big Media/Entertainment and Insurance companies.

The reason for this is obvious. Big Media controls the opinion of the populace. They have a great responsibility on their shoulders, and they tend to abuse the power more than naught. Chomsky outlined Big Media’s role in American politics pretty well, if you ask me. “Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.”

Then there’s Insurance companies. They have their hands in so many aspects of business, that they even have the ability to exert control over banks. Think about it? What’s the one thing most companies offer to all their employees? Healthcare. What is required by law in most states to operate a vehicle (definetly for comercial purposes). Auto Insurance. What is the first thing you want on a home, on your estate, on anything?? INSURANCE.

Insurance companies exhert a great deal of power in this country, and is part of the reason Big Media wants to make it socialized. Big Media works without insurance for the most part, as a great number of their employees are self-insured, guilded, or uninsurable…plus they carry a great deal of weight.

Even religion succumbs to the power of Media and Insurance. I mean, the Catholic Church sure took an awefully big beating with media publication of their priests gone awry. It’s not like it’s anything new. Jokes have been made about this sort of thing for years, and it has been known to be a lot more common (especially in Europe) than people wanted to recognize. Why the sudden interest? The media chooses to ignore this sort of thing for years, then suddenly, they want to interview every little boy whose done ass play with a priest? The pope got cocky, it seems.

There is no balance. The special interest groups you mentioned are worth about as much as the pamphlets they distribute. What interests groups that count in this nation are the ones who hold all the marbles…

And if you look at wealth distrobution and power, Insurance and Media hold all the marbles.

interesting … american political scientists are egar to cast the media as the 4th branch of gov’t (unofficially, of course) because they voice the publics concern. hard to imagine any media operating without support of a significant segment of the popoulation. but this segment is not necessarily well informed, etc.

i think at the end of the day the media only does so much. it does not determine votes, people do. and how people vote is not always what the media preaches (if so, dean would have won iowa last night and we all might have been spared a bangishe scream from the undead).

yes, chomsky’s fun. should we pick up his communist straw man arguement as a solid grounds for debate? why not argue using points from vidal’s dreaming war? any absolutist arguement is bound to fail.

Trix said

I mean’t static from within that context.
Not to be confused with statism:

source dictionary.com

Trix. I fail to see why being static is incompatible with special interest groups. Those special interest groups may have limited power as alluded to by Rafajafar.

Big business and the major media control more in this country than most have been willing to admit. Noam Chomsky saw that and let the World see it too.

no, i was refering to the term of static that denotes failure to change under any circumstance. we agree on that.

define, however, this:

simply because of a reluctance to admit something is occuring does not automatically signify that the thing is taking over. i think pat robertson is a good example. he was head of the christian coalition, an interest group, and they were certainly powerful – robertson was supposed to run for prez, and likely win, for 2 reasons: (1) money – through the chrisitan coalition and (2) popular support – from the religious conservatives. he didn’t run, however, because of his comments about the cause of 9/11 being a punishment from god because of the prescence of homosexuals, feminists, ACLU, etc etc in america. the public outcry forced robertson permanetly to quelch any presidential aims.

my point is this: so long as a democracy exists, a channel for the public to express their opinions is open. while the possibility of underuse is present, moments or events that spark the public’s interest will be able to be expressed through these channels. once expressed, the gov’t can do little else but change. that is why they are not static, but monarchies are.

I would like to make two points.
Firstly, every country is ruled by wealth. Be it a dictatorship than needs weapons for arms, or the multinationals that rule by lawyers. In a capitalist democracy, it is very difficult to judge precisely who pulls which strings. In a dictatorship it is very obvious. In a monarchy, the nation is considered a family heirloom.

The bain of a monarchy is the idiot son. Due to the nature of family relationships, the wise father is often succeeded by a wayward son, who is selfish due to his father’s kindness, unwarranted power makes him callous. Electing Bush Jnr was the biggest mistake americans could have made, the history of England should have been its clue.

As to democracy, any man capable of becoming a political leader by electioneering and rhetorical speeches, should be banned as a matter of policy. While it is a way to govern a country, I believe that it is an insult to rational thinking beings the universe over.

Secondly, all of these systems rest on the fact that a single man/woman has ultimate power. Why? Whatever the title, it is always one man that has the say. I do not believe we are coming close to our dream of a wise or benevolent ruler with any of these sytems. The platonic state goes some way towards correctly selecting candidates for office, and the lack of great monetary reward truly inspired. In our reality perhaps men who have achieved high standard in their fields of work could be selected by their peers to oversee each profession.

The idea that philosophers should rule is tempting, but the operative here is plural philosophers. A council of learned citizens with no real financial reward for their decisions have a buch better chance of being wise than a single man, with all his failings.

It is nothing less than human behaviour it seems than to have a single ruler, but it doesn’t make sense … somebody please explain. :confused:

I know I’m supposed to pretend I’m nice and all, but that’s just not going to happen.

[size=150]What have you been smoking?[/size]

First off, I’m sorry if there isn’t enough “evidence” out there for you, but as someone who LIVES in this country, and has experienced it first hand, this is the case.

The Christian Coalition has almost NO support in this country. They’re considered fucking morons by most. They dont have the minority vote, they don’t have the leftists vote, they don’t have the moderate vote, and due to being a very traditional people, they dont have most of their own vote b/c so many of those people are hardcore republicans. They barely had the money to run, ok? They did NOT have the support.

Media played them off as complete nutjobs. No one stopped them either…because you know what, they are complete nutjobs. Using this as an example of how the will of the people cannot be swayed is rediculous.

The Green party had just as much support as the Christian Coalition Reformation party, and did much better. They had a lot more Media support. (see: SNL skit on Ralph Nader winning 2000 election…he stopped all fighting in the middle east, balanced the budget, paid off the debt, and created world peace…but pigs were flying and satan was throwing snowballs in the background).

That was with MINOR media support, and he wound up pulling in a hefty amount of the vote…especially compared to Christian Coalition.

Explain to me this Chomskian strawman, please. I’m not familiar with your rhetoric.

And abrax, I have grown to agree with you 100% on this matter.

Every moderm incarnation of govt. has strengths and drawbacks. Some are objectivly more convienient/effective than others. BTW, GB is not a monarchy, its a hybrid form of democracy.

Democracy is a fairly stable set-up, and is insured against most rash actions that could otherwise be taken. Also, it is the slowest form of government, and tends to be the largest in application. (The US is a modified democracy, actually closer to an oligarchy)

Monarchism is a volitile set-up, depending chiefly on the good judgement and foresight of its ruler. It falls easily, but also has the potential to be the most effective method of governing. Monarchism is more speedy and smaller than democracy.

Oligarchy- Less volitile than a monarchy, and less stable than a democracy, an oligarchy is a moderatly fast, moderatly effective form of governing. It is historically untenable, and often implemented incorrectly.

Socialism- Arguably the most effectively implemented form of government, (great success in the Netherlands) Socialism tends to be very slow and very large in application, and less financial freedom is typically experienced by the populus. (High tax, up to 50-60%) The benefits of this system are its universalalized functions, and easy health/educational access. Currently, G8 socialist countries pay less for heathcare and education, while having higher quality as well. Hybrid socialism can be quite effective, due to its general resistance to corruption.

Sorry for the long post, Im a poli-sci student fresh outta class. : )

it’s not my rhetoric! it’s chomsky’s! he says it in his book about how the media is controled by big buisness which in turn controls the government. he argues that whenever anyone says anthing outside of the controls of the media, they are labelled a communist so that the general public will automatically dismiss them as ‘evil’. the communist straw man. the irony is that ain’t no body running around yelling communist these days, makes you wonder what happened to the theory. chomsky isn’t pushing it anymore (the book was written in the early 1990)

on the pat robertson thing, have you seen the 700 clud? ??? that show does have major clout , and the viewers send in some major dough. the christian coalition is a huge interest group, my textbook even admits that much and its hard up american. i can’t believe you’re denying this, especially with g.w.bush visiting that super-conservative/racist/funadmentalist university that i’ve forgotten the name of at the moment.

Read: Power and Terror by Noam Chomsky, book regarding the post 9/11 world. He still supports the ideas that I talked about. I’m not quite sure where you’re getting the Chomksian Strawman from what I said, but ok (btw, I know what you’re refering to now, thanks).

Liberty University. Yeah, about 125 miles from where I live. I’ve been there. They’re nuts.

Yes, I’m smack dab in the middle of the pat robertson beltway, and I can tell you, they’re not as proliferous as they like to pretend on T.V. I used to drive by his Screaching Life ministries everyday on my way to school. He’s from V.A…right where I was born. There’s more people that think he’s a complete nutjob than those who do not. Just because Jane Redneck sends half her welfare check to the 700 Club doesn’t mean that they have “power”.

Please, take my word when I state that these people don’t have that much power. If they had power, their television show would have a decent time slot, no? chuckles

why is it that this post seems to be a complete reversal of your last post? just curious…

yeah, baby, here’s the thing (let’s be wacky and call it my point): chomsky poists theories that don’t pan out. COMMUNIST strawman is one of them. so he holds certain ideas now, probably will change in a couple of years of so. chomsky can do that, see, because he bullshits quiet a bit, so when you dick around with the facts see, it’s pretty much up for grabs what shape your arguement will take.

yeah, there’s that uni, and also the one in texas, i think its the bob green or something stupid like that. they ban inter-racial dating and strict anti-catholic policy.

btw, don’t you think the very fact these univerisities exist say something about the power of the christian right?

yes, good point.
i won’t doubt that the christian coalition is largely rejected by the majority. but even if, say, 30 of americans support it, this translates in a huge amount of actual people. which translates to money and power and a huge interest group.

Probably because you read it wrong b/c I have no idea what you’re talking about.

It doesn’t matter what form it comes in, the government wants an enemy to give it purpose. The current one is “terrorism”. This is an excellent one because it’s not going to go away, ever. Communism may very well be gone, but his ideas are still in action. The ideas I’m speaking of he has supported for almost 50 years now. I fail to see this inconsistency you’re looking for.

They have powerful people. Yes. Micheal Jackson has an amusement park in his backyard, though. He doesn’t charge for people to attend, nor does he need to beg for people to help with upkeep. What’s your point? I’m sure there’s a few radical christians with deep pockets willing to invest in corrupting a few children’s minds. No, a university doesn’t mean much of anything. Case in point… how many Jewish Universities are out there? What about Brigham Young…wanna say that the mormons have a major pull?

Yeah, but they don’t have 30% of the Americans supporting them…

It’s more like they have 5% supporting them with only 10% of that actually voting for them.

Good post Abraxas. Welcome to the forum.

Rafajafar. You were born in Va? Where? I know what you mean about those liberty university people, but everyone i know there is trying to get out of that place. Power and terror is one of the few books by Chomsky that i own and have read. I was introduced to him by my poli-sci friend. By the way Telesis, thanks for the post explaining different governments.

Trix, One of Chomsky’s central points is that in America people can’t be forced into doing anything (yet, give the patriot act a few years) but that they are instead indoctrinated via the major media, etc. The process is very slick and subtle and Noam Chomsky actually backs his work up with facts. The fact of the matter is that you don’t even have to be labelled a communist, if big business doesn’t like you, they just tell the media they’ll cut funding (Yes, this has actually happened).

Power and Terror is really really good. Heh, my Fav documentary is on Chomsky, actually. It’s called Manufacturing Consent, muay beano. Hegimony is good, so is Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. But Necessary Illusions is an absolute MUST READ. Good shit there.

I was born in Newport News, reared in Hampton until age 14, then moved to York Co. with all the other white people (white flight, aint it grand?) where my family currently lives.

I like the cover of the one entitled “Deterring Democracy” with the picture of the stealth bomber on it. I lived in Va Beach (4 of it in the military) from 1982 to 1989

i’m British and i can honestly say the monarchy is just a tourist attraction, literally.

personally though i’m a little unsure about the concept of a dictatorship as it’s a shame we’ve never had a moral dictator (as ludricous as that sounds). some would obviously argue this is impossible due to the corruption power has on an individual which is a fair point, but what if the ruler was a moral human being and a good leader?

i was thinking about how germany and italy got off easily (easier then they should’ve) after WW2 and that was because of Mussolini and Hitler being in charge. the blame goes on the madmen. whereas america and britain have some enemy’s around the world because we haven’t had a figurehead dictator as our elections are democratic and are thus supposed to represent the views of the masses. no matter how insane/(for want of a better word) “evil” our leaders have been, we still legally voted them in and they held the same legal, democratic power that they should have.

it sounds strange but its something to think about none the less about what a dictator could have done morally for the world/their country using only all of that power to satisfy their egos/desires/mad beliefs, bit of a shame in my opinion

A benevolent dictator! What an interesting concept! He would have to have the soul of Christ and the ruthlessness of Caesar as Nietzsche would have it. Would a truly benevolent perosn want the job?

essentially yes. From a Nietzsche point of view the leader would have to have a strong will to power but also be very moral at the same time so benevolent is a very accurate term here.

the fundamental problem is of course due to the corruption power has on a human being. to be honest the only person i can imagine/have ever heard of who could do the job without going nuts, is Jesus (i’m an atheist by the way) as i believe any other person would not have the heart (even if they had the will) to be a benevolent dictator.

the dictator would have to have the power/manner of a ruler out of the Republic but not be a hypocrite (unlike Plato) and be as moral as Jesus (or close enough) but also be as decisive in political decisions as Machiavelli. They could not be religious or hold to any sense of social structure (i.e. Communism) as this always seems to mess with a dictators mind (Bokassa - religious, Hitler into Magik/partially christian and of course a nazi, Idi Amin - religious, Stalin/Pol Pot - communists etc).

does such a person/will they ever exist? who knows, although i’d like to see it one day

on the topic Alexander the Great wasn’t too bad, he had a very strong sense of honour when it came to his enemies and their defeats/governance and was rather generous/just. The problem is of course due to the fact that those who wrote about him, tend to from a biased point of view (on his side) and due to how old the records of him are, they might have corrupted over the years as well as the tales of his character.

interesting to note not only was he religious (in the superstitious ancient greek way) he was also taught by a philosopher (Aristotle) so theres my point on religious leaders weakened (although how much weakened is of course debatable) and Plato’s concept of the philosopher kings/being taught by the philosophers strengthened.

A good book to read is The Campaigns Of Alexander by Arrian (Penguin) which is very good/informative (although i seem to recall the first half is a little slow) on Alexander as a leader and a warrior.