Questions Beckon

Professor J,

You did such a good job with the site in my absence that I doubt our readers noticed I was away! :)


I'll be posting in two parts this week while I unpack and adjust back into real life.

You take Beck to task for blaming the government for the mess we find ourselves in now, and you want him to place more (perhaps most, if not all) the blame at the feet of
"the corporate masters of the Consortium." But the tax laws that favor the wealthy, corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies, and the other things you mention are all things put in place by the government (or perhaps more specifically those in government). A governing entity made up of individuals with ironclad ethics, unable to be bought cheaply with security and ease, and smart enough to see the tentacles of power seeking to attach themselves to those who create the laws and influence them for their own gain would have served as protection for the people. In that way I think GB is correct that the source of much that is wrong lies with the government. Perhaps he could more accurately have used the term "corruption in government".

The question is, given the massive amounts of money needed to fund a campaign and buy advertising - how likely is it that anyone is going to rise to a powerful legislative (let alone the executive) position completely disentangled from the powerful elite? Like the saying that Molly Ivins used as the title of a book "You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You." And dance with them they do, to the detriment of us all.

Republic vs. democracy: 

Words matter. In a day when the thinking is sloppy and scattered, the reading light and fast (if at all), and words and phrases manipulated by those in power to affect the thinking of the population, perhaps they matter more than ever. Historically such manipulation of language is nothing new but never before has the ability to do it so quickly and frequently existed. A culture bombarded by sound bites and carefully manipulated images allows for misinformation to be repeated often enough to "become truth" in the minds of many.


The shrugging off of specific definitions because the majority of the general population won't know the difference, worries me. Yes, you are correct on both your assumptions as to WHY. The checks and balances built into the system certainly, but even more so the protection of the views of the minority. History proves majority rule to be an ugly thing, so easy to twist the thinking of an angry and shallowly educated (or merely "trained") populace. I was disturbed as well by Bush's constant use of the term "democracy" and for much the same reason. If most people are unfamiliar with the exact definitions then shouldn't those with the power to be heard over the crowd be correcting misconceptions/misinformation instead of perpetuating the hazy thinking? A layman might find it exhausting and fruitless to do it every time it comes up in conversation (though some of us try) but if I'm writing a book, especially if I've been a teacher of the material being discussed, then what is wrong with using up a couple of sentences to set things straight? I may be both parsing words and overreacting to something that irks me every time I hear it but may not make all that much difference given all our other problems. :)

I agree with you about term limits but for a different reason.  I would think that constantly having new people head off to Washington would possibly mean a shift in power from people's whose names we know and appear on the ballot to faceless handlers behind the scenes who would know how things really work and would remain in their jobs as the elected officials shuffled in and out. 
 
You've rightly pointed out that corruption goes up because the elected official has no voters at home to keep him in check and is able to make connections that allow him to happily skip off to a lobbying firm or some other plum job after his term. Wasn't the intention of the framers of the Constitution that an elected official would not only be interested in keeping voters happy in light of the next election but that he was going to return to his hometown and live among the people he had represented? Isn't this part of what is missing in the current system, our lack of sense of duty to community and an honest desire to have them feel they have been represented well? An additional problem here is that often now we have politicians move to districts where seats are opening up, set up residence, and run for office where they have no history, ala Hillary Clinton and Harold Ford.

I agree with GB however that having people show up in Washington and remain for 40 years is absurd. The isolation and insulation from real life (remember when Pres. Bush [40] went to a grocery in the early 90s and was fascinated by the scanners?) make it difficult to relate to the real life needs and struggles of their constituents. I thought Obama did a good job outlining how easily that can happen with his anecdote where he compared flying on a private jet to flying commercial, and admitting how easily one could slip into that lifestyle. 

You are frustrated with Beck for correctly pointing out many things but "then not only neglects to take it further, but instead centers blame on 'the government". I understand your point but again, his main purpose with the book is to shake us out of our apathy. He isn't trying to  produce all the solutions. I take most of his ranting to be about getting everyone involved and then coming up with solutions for the issues at hand. A detailed diagnosis can't be made and remedies prescribed until we all agree that we are sick.

While it's true that GB didn't publish any books during the Bush administration rest assured that from the time I discovered his radio show (around '06) and all during his time at CNN he did constantly rail against that administration and many of their policies. In '08 while still at CNN (Fox hired him away in October, before the election) people began sending him pitchforks which were displayed on his set. It was the events of September that sparked the anger, though only 2 months out from the election it's easy to look back now and think it is the result of the change in administration. So while publishing companies hadn't come knocking yet he was, even then, pointing out much of what he has been saying more recently.  

More to follow in a day or two, I've have reentered a world where people expect me to make dinner and do laundry. :)