Noam Chomsky: Rulers and the ruled: Dangerous disconnect

[babylonsister]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID12Ak01.html

Apr 12, 2007

Page 1 of 2
Rulers and the ruled: Dangerous disconnect
By Noam Chomsky

Not surprisingly, US President George W Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements - from Washington and Baghdad - about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting America's mission to gain victory, an aim that is (by definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (improvised explosive devices, or IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed - or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the US was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and the US media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule - notably absent - would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem". The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the US military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

The Iran effect
The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a sevenfold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III".

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the United States? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security". Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim - though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against its domestic enemy, the population in whose name it acts.

more...

[Peace Patriot]

1. Yeah, but here's the problem. There's this yawning gap, size of the Grand Canyon,

between the people and government. 75% of the people hate the war and want it ended, and hate the government that started, and all their fascist policy--but, in trying to outvote the rigged voting machines (run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing operatives of the President's own party), the people could only achieve a 50/50 Congress, in which their concerns are voiced by some, but nothing can be done about it. The war goes on. In fact, the war is SURGED. And the 50/50 Congress just feeds another $100 billion into its dreadful, monstrous jaws.

It's not enough to describe the dangerous disconnect between the people and the government. We need to ask WHY. What is the power mechanism that is preventing this democracy from changing course, as it should--as it was designed to do?

I don't think you have to look far. The sovereignty of the American people--and of any people in a democracy--is based upon their right to vote, and on the transparent counting of their votes--counting the votes in a way that everyone can see and understand. That is the essential mechanism of power--the engine of change. And it was taken away--with the fast-tracking of Bushite-controlled electronic voting machines, during the 2002 to 2004 period. It was done so fast that the people haven't quite caught up with it yet.

And what it means is this:

1. A hamstrung Congress for 2007-2009.
2. Either an outright fascist election theft in '08, and installation of a fascist dictator; or, the subtler measure of (s)election of a War/Corporate Democrat, who will be made to look "liberal" only because he/she is not an outright fascist.
3. And the war profiteers and the global corporate predators will remain in power, in either case. No real reform can occur.

There are a lot of things wrong with our election system, but this is the coup de grace--private, corporatized vote counting that nobody is permitted to see, run by Bushite corporations. The rigged voting system means that a 75/25 spread in the country on the war is contracted to a 50/50 spread in Congress. And this severe contraction of the interests and will of the people will likely continue to occur on all issues. SOME true representatives of the people will slip through the cracks of the rigged system--but not enough to change anything much. Some rooting out of corruption maybe (in a vast landscape of corruption). A few sops to the working class (whatever's left of it). But nothing like the reform that is needed.

We can be eloquent in our descriptions of this pickle--and we can complain about it, and descry it all we want--but until we identify and fix the mechanism of power, the vote counting, there is little we can do. Articles like this one by Chomsky--and the writings of many good and intelligent people--help to express the discontent, and help to create conditions for a democratic uprising. But they don't say where the Bastille is.