cj#551> re: Rise & Fall of Democracy


Richard Moore

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996
>From: Chris Thorman <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The Rise & Fall of Democracy


Ouch!  Your article rings so true that it depresses me to acknowledge it.
You have thoroughly summarized the world view that has been forming in my
mind for the last three years or so.  Reading Korten's book (as I am now
half done doing), of course, only continues to provide well-documented
ammunition for these realizations.

It's really, really scary.

However: it is better to realize what is going on than to not realize it!

Thanks for the excellent and lucid prose.  Keep up the great work.


Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: The Rise & Fall of Democracy

dear Richard,

I enjoyed you editorial on democracy and I would like to share some of my
views on how it applies to the United States.

The freshmen House Republicans came to Washington in order to give government
back to the American people and have been met with much resistance from the
Washington aristocracy and the main stream media. This establishment is very
powerful and will not go away without a fight.

There are many examples of the power of this elite establishment but the one
that comes to mind is how they were able to destroy the presidential
cantidacy of Pat Buchanan. National soverignty was a big part of Buchanan's
campaign the main stream media and  Washington establishment did everything
possible to discredit Buchanan and it worked.

The american people are catching on to the charade that the elite are putting
on and I look for positive changes in the future.

Michael Smiley


Dear Michael,

        I can see where you're coming from, but allow me to suggest some
alternate interpretations to the situations you mention.

        I'd characterize the "mission" of the freshman Republicans as "to
accelerate the dismantlement of democracy".  The "Contract With America" is
about as mainstream as you can get, from the point of view of the corporate
elite.  Downsizing, under-taxation, under-regulation -- that is, the
transfer of sovereignty and control from representative government to
corporations -- that's what the Republican Radicals are about.  They're
taking government away from the people, not restoring it to them.

        The "Washington aristocracy", as you call it, is to be credited
with retaining some sense in the face of Gingrich and his corporate-funded
campaign to destroy democratic government.  To the extent the media reveals
the bankruptcy of the New Republican agenda, they are to be credited with
some remnant of journalistic integrity.

        Pat Buchannan's candidacy was a propaganda maneuver, designed to
discredit the platform on which he ran.  From the lips of a fascist racist
we heard the message of "preservation of sovereignty" and "excess corporate
power" -- What's the inevitable result? ... that we question the validity
of that message.  His candidacy served the corporate elite quite nicely: it
undermined the genuine populist/progressive movement as represented by
Nader, Ronnie Dugger, and others.

        Yes, the Washington establishment attacked Buchannan -- that is how
the Buchannan campaign was _meant_ to be exploited:  by loudly opposing him
the mainstream politicos gained in two ways.  First, they got points by
_seeming_ to be anti-racist and anti-fascist.  Second, they are able to
dismiss genuine popular sentiment (against corporate power and loss of
national sovereignty) as "nativist nationalism" or "primitive luddite-ism".

        The American people, unfortunately, are not likely to "catch on to
the charade" because the propaganda campaign is too subtle and too
pervasive to escape from.



    Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
     Cyberlib:  www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib