Brave New World of propaganda

The first time I read Brave New World was this summer as part of my quest to read all of the great Western literature. I was astonished by how much I enjoyed it (I love science fiction, but I've never gone much for dystopias), and was excited to read it again for better comprehension.

The thing that has struck me most this time around is the conversion of Henry Ford to a god-like figure. I find this interesting because we have seen this use of the state or the economy as an iconic figure several times this semester. By turning Ford into God, the World State has inextricably linked perfection and the production line that has become the foundation of society. They have simply replaced the values that once governed the world with the values of mass-production and interchangeable individuals. 

We can also see this link between religion and the state in V for Vendetta. The English state complete aligns itself with the Christian religion, creating double the amount of faith and righteousness. To be a good citizen is to be a good Christian, and the state is God.

Another place we saw this imagery was in our study of Soviet Russia. With the outlaw of religion, the state needed to invest people's faith in something else. They used similar styles and colors such as red in their propaganda so that the Russian people would associate with the images of the Orthodox Church. Saints and other religious icons were replaced with charismatic leaders like Lenin and Stalin.

V for Vendetta, Part 1

This is not the first time I have seen V for Vendetta. The first time I saw it was shortly after its release on DVD, at the behest of one of many friends who insisted that it was "the greatest movie ever." I shockingly, found it to be terribly overrated. 

I suppose this was a result of my general distaste for anarchy, or, more likely, my distaste for anyone who expresses a fondness for anarchy (also known as a significant percentage of the under thirty demographic). I was less than excited to watch the movie from an ideological standpoint. 

While I continue to find the enthusiasm for anarchy less than engaging, I am intrigued by the dominating rhetoric about rhetoric. V is extremely forward about the power of words to persuade people, even though he aims to do just that. His message is even more engaging because of this - he treats the people as his equals rather than as children, as the government and the BTN choose to do.

I also find the portrayal of the government's spin tactics and BTN very interesting, just because it is so depressingly accurately. While our media is not directly censored by the government, the close ties between media owners and politicians are tantamount. 

The unified state and the common enemy

When I read the excerpts from various ideological works, I try and read with an open mind and to understand what the author's aim is. Obviously, this is difficult when reading something written that with such vehement hatred for a group of people.

So while my own morals and beliefs will prevent me from ever understanding Adolf Hitler's hatred for the Jews, I can understand it on a political and propagandist standpoint. Certainly, Hitler had an all-consuming hatred for anyone who wasn't Aryan, but so much of his rhetoric is clearly aimed at trying to unify the German people against a common enemy. It makes sense, of course. By 1933, the Germany economy and state had been completely ravaged, and the nation was at risk of falling to pieces. A once proud culture was being reduced to nothing. Hitler aimed to unify and strengthen the people by finding a common enemy to fight against. It would have been more logical to place blame on the Western European community that had forced Germany to pay harsh reparations for the First World War, but it also would have been impossible to take on such a powerful group of nations.

With an already ingrained hatred for the Jewish culture, Hitler instead built a powerful propaganda machine against the Jews, a group that throughout history has been consistently subjugated and terrorized. The reason for Hitler's vilification of the Jews and his claims that they had built their religion to allow their race to pass unnoticed allowed the Aryan people to disassociate themselves from any positive ties they might have with the Jewish community. Hitler simply used the Jews as a platform to rebuild his adopted nation. 

The days of old are new again

The thing that struck me most about the documentary "This is What Deomcracy Looks Like" is how many people were involved in the Battle of Seattle. Upwards of 30,000 men, women, and children coming together to fight for something they believe in, esepcially something that is a radical stance for this country.

I feel like the US has gotten increasingly less political over the years, particularly in the 90s and early 2000s. After the rough 60s and 70s that were spent fighting for equal rights, people seem to have lost touch with what was important. We no longer were willing to work for what we deserved but were happy to sit by and be spoon-fed by media conglomerates and slowly, subtly oppressed by our "democratic" government.

I wish I had paid more attention to news as a kid, but I really didn't get started until after 9/11 (like so many of my own and my parents' generation). I vaguely remember talk of the WTO protest, but I never really knew anything about it. I am so impressed by the turnout they had and the willingness of the protesters to contend with physical injury and imprisonment in exchange for spreading their message. I frequently hear about people in other countries staging protests and riots, but until about 2006 that hadn't really happened in the US during my lifetime. I think people are finally starting to behave more like those WTO protesters and actually standing up and fighting for what they believe in.

At least, I hope they are.

The Anarchist's Fakebook?

While reading Emma Goldman's essay on the nature of anarchism, I tried to understand anarchism from its own ideological perspective and not from my own pro-government stance. I found this incredibly difficult, perhaps because so many of the principles of anarchism seem unnatural to me.

I understand the anarchist distaste for government, because most governments are poorly formed, and all governments will eventually fail the people they serve. It seems so illogical, however, to completely disregard any form of government. Certainly, man needs freedom in order to flourish. But as we discussed at the beginning of the semester in the early writings of liberalism, nature is not a free state. In nature, humans are pitted against each other, too focused on survival to engage in the development of their minds. 

It seems particularly unlikely that humanity would be able to overcome its struggle for survival given the vehement opposition of anarchists to punishment for crime, and, indeed, to the very notion of crime. their argument that crime is a result of the imposition of society and government makes no sense at all to me. As long as humans desire to better their lives, they will take from others in order to achieve that goal. 

Thought about it, but totally didn't get it

I read the Bernstein vs. Luxemburg articles, but I don't seem to have gotten anything out of them, except immense confusion. No doubt this has something to do with the fact that I didn't really understand the excerpt from the Communist Manifesto.

Maybe it's the nineteenth-century wording. Maybe it's my upbringing in this bastion of capitalist activity we call America. Maybe it's second block and my mind is too wrecked to understand anything. I don't know, but I don't understand communism. I get socialism, socialism makes sense to me. But this nonsense about eliminating class distinction?About people voluntarily making property a common commodity? About the human race reaching a point when we can provide as from everyone's abilities to each of their needs? It just seems so illogical.

I guess the problem is that I don't really understand why Marx and Engels and all those who followed in their footsteps think capitalism is so bad. I agree that there is a problem with the wealthy exploiting the poor, but I don't think equal distribution of property is the way to fix it. Reforms like some of those suggested in the Manifesto, such as quality education for all, are the way to go in equalizing a society. If people are provided with equal opportunity, they can take that opportunity and use it as they please.

I also don't understand why everyone thinks that the collapse of society and general chaos are a good direction for life to be headed in. According to the theories, the utopia of communist ideals will follow said chaos, but shouldn't we be the least bit concerned about all the destruction and death that will no doubt occur during this period? Wouldn't it be better to, say, slowly transform through reform and broad social and ideological movements?

Whatever. I don't get it. 

Equality in diversity

Looking at conservatism in the 20th century, we read from Phyllis Schlafly's "The Power of the Positive Woman." Schlafly's writings came as a backlash against the women's movement. In this work she tries to portray feminists as self-haters who can appreciate the benefits of being female. 

There are a couple of things that Schlafly speaks of that I agree with, though for the most part I find her writing to be simply ridiculous. The one positive thing that Schlafly does speak about is accepting that men and women are not equal. This, of course, is not to imply that they are unequal, or that one sex is superior to the other. But women and men are simply different - different anatomy, different strengths, different weaknesses, different skills.

However, Schlafly takes her assessment of the difference between men and women a little too far. She assumes that all men are cut from the same cloth, and so are all women. This is just insane. There is every bit as much difference between one woman and the next woman and one man and the next man as there is between a woman and a man. It is particularly infuriating when Schlafly describes every woman as having some sort of overwhelming imperative to be a mother. This is simply not true. Not every woman is maternal, just like not every man is stoic in regards to parenting. Every person is different in their needs and wants, whether they be a result of nature or nurture.

I also find her description of self-hating feminists as completely illogical. Feminists do not hate being female, they hate the constraints that society places upon them because they are female. Most frustrating by far is Schlafly's complete misunderstanding of the televised NOW advertisement. It is obvious that the description of the small child's gender as a handicap is meant as a satire of the way American society treats women. Schlafly completely misconstrues this as evidence that feminists think being female means something is wrong with them. 

As I see it, Schlafly's article is an excellent example of people completely misinterpreting facts and the ideologies of others in order to suit their own belief system.

You can't take it with you

The two articles we read by Heywood and Kirk seem to me like very good interpretations of the underlying principles of American conservatism. I also think they do a good job of presenting the tension that exists within modern conservatism because of the background in liberal ideology.

Both articles, though particularly Heywood, discuss the tendency to view conservatism as a "negative" or "reactionary" ideology because conservatives have trouble identifying any principles behind those that they do not like. I think that a lot of this confusion about what exactly conservatives do stand for results from the tension. It is difficult for conservatives to justify their love of economic freedom with a belief in a society that is dominated by a particular set of morals or values. 

The conservatives are, at heart, hypocritical. They want to preserve the status quo, but it is impossible to make economic progress without permitting social freedoms. They are against big government because they value an unregulated market, but they feel the need to control every aspect of an individual's life. the conservatives have chosen to identify the principles they stand against because they have no idea what principles they stand behind. 

To the BBC, because it successfully predicts my life

In spite of the fact that I was very confused while reading the excerpt from Burke's work (thank goodness it's almost Friday), some of the things he wrote about definitely clicked with me.

I actually just read an article today on the BBC about government views akin to those Burke describes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7657473.stm.

The article talks about how Americans have essentially been raised to believe that government is inherently bad. We no longer have any trust in the system, and a lot of Americans are for rolling back government involvement in both the public and private sectors. This is exactly what Burke is talking about when he describes people dismissing the state as a mere contract to be ignored at will. The main problem Burke sees with society, and that is so often reflected in our modern times, is the complete lack of respect for the law and tradition. We need society to protect us from the rebellion and illogical nature of anarchy.

Admittedly, Burke goes perhaps a bit too far in describing the government as a natural body laid down by God to improve man's nature. But his point is true enough that we have created the state to protect us from ourselves, to improve from the point at which we started. People seem to have forgotten that we went through a lot of effort to develop the relatively democratized states of the modern world and that to reduce the government would merely be a step in reverse.

Things that are bad ideas

The first thing that came to mind when I read Andrew Coulson's "Human Life, Human Organization and Education" was that unforgettable piece of legislation, No Child Left Behind. I don't know if Coulson ever consulted on the act's language, but it definitely seems like he did. The idea of a free market education system is at the heart of NCLB's school choice and competition principles. The act is definitely one of the more significant impacts of the economic conservatism that has ruled the government in the last ten years.

The heart of Coulson's (and NCLB's) economic conservatism is definitely a basis in the principles of liberalism. In terms of economic freedom and the free market, the idea of a privatized educational system makes sense. Coulson does cite Freidman's belief that the market is inherently protective of humanity because everyone has the choice to find another option. Coulson seems to really believe that school choice gives everyone the option to find the best education for their children, especially from political and religious standpoints.

However, I think Coulson's views are very optimistic, as does John Covaleskie. The truth is, individuals will not look out for other's best interests unless there is government oversight. Maybe it wasn't so true in 1994, but certainly now it's obvious that deregulation and privatization of markets can do harm. 

School choice is also inherently bad because, as much as Coulson would like to think that school vouchers will take care of a child's education, what about the child who doesn't have transportation to the school? What about the rural child or the inner-city child who lives hours from a decent school? Plus, when schools are forced to compete for parents and teachers, they lose out on the good students and the involved parents who will want to improve the school's quality. They lose out on the good teachers that will help disadvantaged students learn.

If we think of Coulson's ideas in terms of his economic conservatism, his belief in school choice is logical. It is essentially a means of returning to an age of economic segregation, where the best schools were provided with all the advantages. Coulson is asking for a resurgence of a socioeconomic divide.

So many buzzwords, so little time

I've just read the excerpt from Milton Freidman's book, and the most glaring thing about it to me is the evolution we are watching unfold in the history of political and economic theory. Starting with Hobbes and Locke, but especially as we have delved in to the nature of capitalism, there has been so much speak of the inherent lack of freedom in humans' natural state. Freidman speaks of this freedom in terms of the idea that "absolute freedom is impossible." Not all freedoms can be accounted for because the freedom of one individual inevitably infringes on the freedom of another.

It is for this reason that Freidman examines the importance of government in society and especially in the economy. The government, according to Freidman, sets the rules to the game of life and allows to adjust them so that the market may, in fact, be free to the interests of the men. The privatization or public ownership is subject to the interference of the government because there must be some overarching determination of how to regulate areas in which no man's freedom can supersede that of another, such as transportation industries or national resources. 

I think it is interesting that the basis for government in all these articles is always the inability of man to provide for his own freedom. Even though government is completely unnatural, it is the most natural and logical way for human society to function efficiently.

For richer or for poorer

In his essay "That It is Not Wicked to Be Rich," William Sumner discusses the call for the government to reapportion money to the poor. It is clear from the get-go that Sumner is in favor of a capitalist economy. Sumner argues that it is ridiculous to penalize someone for the efforts that have gained them wealth, often speaking of "the rich" in ideal terms. Sumner believes that the rich are humans of a more complex nature, suited to the labors of the mind that lead to new inventions and new capital: "Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are not hard to find; but men who can think and plan and tell the routine men what to do are very rare."

It is with logic that Sumner believes the rich come to be as rich as they do; it is society's debt to them: "They are paid in proportion to the supply and demand for them." Without this fiscal and moral encouragement of capitalism to accumulate wealth, Sumner believes that the progress of society would slow.  Sumner also points out that the majority of the reforms intended to assist the poor are represented by members of society's upper echelon and by no workers or laborers. And too often the benefits of the reforms ended up in the hands of classes that did not need them. Sumner also makes a very good argument about hypocrisy when he points out that society views the rise from poverty to riches as exemplary, but is quick to diminish the good intentions of anyone with money.

I agree with Sumner on the more practical points of his argument, but he definitely has a very high view of the rich. Sumner, in reverse to the position of his opponents, generalizes all members of the upper-classes as extremely generous and always willing to give their money to help the poor, things that are clearly untrue. Just like not all of the poor are nice people, neither are the rich. 

I also think that Sumner and his contemporaries were looking at economic gaps in too narrow of terms. It doesn't help anyone to simply redistribute wealth without any regard to an individual's contribution to society, but it's true that the poor are disadvantaged from the start. The greatest contribution the government could give (and can give, since these arguments are still applicable over a hundred years later) would be to provide its citizens with equal educational opportunities so that everyone could develop any skills they desired and be justly compensated.

INVISIBLE HAND OF DOOM

Oh, Adam Smith. You and your silly ideas about economics that mean I've been forced to learn about you every year since the fifth grade.

Ok, to be fair, Adam Smith knew what he was talking about. The man could decipher market behavior just by observing. None of these fancy studies or interviews scientists use now (oh look, the oldest rocks in the world...). For the most part, his ideas about the invisible hand and free trade are considered to be the foundation of modern economics. I agree with most of his statements on the excerpt from "The Wealth of Nations," except for one point he argues.

Smith believes that the reason for man's ability to work together is based on the human ability to reason and communicate through speech. He argues that the occasional cooperation between other animals is "not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time." My question is, what is a contract based on if not the concurrence of passions? Contracts are created between humans to reach a common benefit. Like a pack will work together to kill an animal they all can feed on, so humans will merge two corporations to reap profit for all. All animals are born with the capability to cooperate for the greater good.

Hooray for Hypocrisy!

This week we read a speech delivered by Frederick Douglass at the celebration of the 76th anniversary of the Fourth of July. Douglass, unusually for his time, was greatly respected and honored former slave. As demonstrated in "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?," Douglass was a strong believer in liberalism and in the liberal and democratic principles the United States was founded on.

Douglass expresses his beliefs as clearly as possible in the text of his speech. He repeatedly attests to a love and respect for the founders of the nation, saying "they loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect." 

In spite of - or perhaps because of - this love, Douglass insists on sharing wit the audience the hypocrisy of their celebration. While they enjoy the freedoms and luxuries bequeathed by their forefathers, American citizens were displaying the same tyranny toward slaves that England displayed toward Americans: "You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation [...] is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your country men."

Douglass uses the sparks of the Revolution as a parallel to the cruelty of slavery. Douglass refreshes the memory of an imperialist ruler that handed down rulings and laws found to be oppressive and unreasonable. Douglass describes the actions of the patriots in terms that would be equally adequate for abolitionists: "to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men." Douglass further notes that actions American citizens respected in their fathers were reviled in their contemporaries.

When the patriots felt that England gone too far, done too much wrong against their brethren, they chose to rebel and declare their independence. They were ultimately successful, creating a new nation of freedom and hope, a nation where the government was accountable to the people. As Douglass states, these "blessings, in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common." The American people turned their back on the principles of the Declaration, turned a blind eye to the suffering of others.

Douglass is realistic, but ultimately hopeful for the future of the nation. He believed that the nation's youth kept it from being too set in its ways, and eventually would overcome their hypocrisy.

Douglass, in terms of slavery, and to some extent racism, was right. The nation has tried to learn from its mistakes, but it has not always been successful. Douglass would not doubt be horrified by the liberties the American government has taken with freedom, after finally ensuring the rights of all. We can only hope we're still young enough to change.

How far we've, well, mostly failed to come

We started out the week discussing Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two terribly interesting thinkers from before and after England's Glorious revolution. I am not much of a fan of either of these thinkers; I find them much too depressing. 

            All due credit to Hobbes for recognizing the importance of the social contract in government, but he was a bit overzealous with his beliefs about the rights of the appointed sovereign. It's all well and good to keep one's subjects united, but there is a thick black line between a representative of the people and a despot, and Hobbes wanted the Leviathan to skip right over that line without a backward glance. There is no sense in preserving natural human rights by giving them all up to one individual or ruling body.

            Locke took Hobbes ideas a step further, realizing that there must exist a means for the subject's protection against the oppression of a sovereign. Even a sovereign has to be ruled by the laws of society. Nonetheless, Locke is insistent of a higher power to rule the nation, an organization that may not be above the law, but it is certainly stuck behind it, pulling the strings of humanity's freedom.

            And so John Stuart Mill enters as a breath of fresh air, taking note from the French and American revolutions and the political theorists who followed in the footsteps of Hobbes and Locke. Mill's guiding principles are the tenets of modern liberalism. I agree wholeheartedly (of course I do, I'm a liberal) with Mill's ideas.

            Mill focuses on the human right to opinions and actions. He writes that for man "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill believes that as long as an individual takes no harmful action against another, there is no reason to prevent that individual from thinking and doing as it pleases: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm for others." Mill does make the exception that these principles apply only to "human beings in the maturity of their faculties," providing for the protection of children. 

            Mill also presents the argument that humans are civically bound to interfere when the life of another is at risk, saying "a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." This principle would be difficult to apply in a judicial setting, except in such cases as child negligence, but is certainly a belief which many people share.

            Mill then takes things even a step further saying first that human liberty expands to "liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." This ambitious statement is certainly representative of the ideals set down in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mill continues in this vein with the belief that individuals should be able to "[frame] the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow." his statement is the foundation of liberal belief in freedom of lifestyle. The ultimate dimension of Mill's theory follows that of the First Amendment's right to assembly: "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others."

            Certainly Mill's beliefs, like most liberals, are idealism of a most extreme nature. These values, while revered, are still subject to the hypocrisy inherent to all human opinions and activities.