The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. It’s a make belief world in which everything works perfectly without any need for regulation or publicly funded services. In this world, there is not a budget deficit because a previous government had to spend billions to protect savers, the economy and jobs when irresponsible bankers gambled away so much of other people’s money that they were at risk of going under and taking everyone else with them.
No, in the Matrix, it is not the deregulated bankers but the old wicked government which caused all the problems – squandering money on helping the sick, supporting the poor, nurturing the young, comforting the old, investing in jobs and preventing economic meltdown.
To protect the reign of the profit-makers, renegade champions of the common good (teachers, nurses, community development workers, or anyone with a name like Neo) are hunted down, privatised, and made to serve commercial masters. Public services will wither away, and every aspect of life will just get better and better in this big fat fabricated society.
But the Matrix can only be sustained by the false consciousness created by those who want us to remain subservient to the corporate machine. If you look carefully at this so-called reality where public value must be relentlessly sacrificed for private gains, you will begin to see the cracks appearing in their lies.
Of course it is in their interest to stop you scrutinising their dodgy projections. They want you to believe that there is no alternative, that everything will fall apart if they do not slash the life out of the public sector. They want you to accept without reservation that the only way forward is to count on the mercies of rich executives and beg for private charities.
And do you believe them?
As an old friend once said, the choice is simple. You take the blue option – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red option – you join us in seeing the Matrix for what it truly is, a monstrous deception that must be exposed and eradicated.
This is your last chance. Pledge your vote to those who will end this charade. And get others to do the same. Time is running out. There is no turning back.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Our Bacon Needs Saving
For anyone keen to debate what key historical dates and figures we should all learn about, one great thinker deserves the most serious consideration – Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, pioneer of experimentalist philosophy, author of ‘The Advancement of Learning’ which inspired the founding of the Royal Society (for science) and the progressive outlook of the Enlightenment movement, and the earliest political figure to champion state-funded research and education.
Born 450 years ago today (22 January 1561), Bacon was a pivotal figure in challenging the dominant attitude of his times which insisted that a few authoritative figures in the establishment (the church, universities, or the royal court) could be left to determine what everyone else must believe. Instead, he put forward the revolutionary idea that knowledge could only be pursued through the continuous questioning, experimenting and reviewing of evidence, involving all who could contribute their testimony and critical reflections to test the robustness of any claim made.
Through his extensive writings, Bacon made the case that dogmatic assertions of ‘facts and figures’ were flawed because they were inherently unreliable. If society would not embrace systematic investigation and experimental testing to build up a body of knowledge which could always be further revised and improved in the light of future evidence, he argued, we would be stuck with dubious beliefs which were at best useless, or at worst dangerously misleading.
Although King James I, whom he loyally served as Chancellor, dismissed his ideas, reformists of subsequent generations followed Bacon’s lead and moved British, European, and ultimately global culture away from the grip of arbitrary dogmas towards a far greater reliance on experimentally grounded learning, supported by a sustained investment of collective resources to raise the quality of research and the accessibility of education.
However, after nearly four centuries of progress, resistance is increasingly being mounted by many who could see their interests served by shielding particular dogmas from empirical criticisms. Plutocrats, who want their profit-making to trump all else, are backing the cut back of public investment in the advancement of objective knowledge. It would leave them to propagate their own claims in defence of how their socially irresponsible actions would have no detrimental impact at all on the environment, people’s health, economic stability, or the vitality of family and community life. As educators are faced with reduced resources to carry out impartial research, while the public have to bear increased burdens to acquire the skills to learn and question, the Baconian maxim of ‘Knowledge is Power’ is being turned on its head – disempower citizens by depriving them of real knowledge.
Political and business leaders who value the cultivation of unbiased knowledge for the wellbeing of society should unite to reverse this trend. More, not less, private funding should be channeled through the state to public research and educational institutions with no strings attached, save the fulfilment by the latter of the commitment to expand our shared knowledge through the most vigorous and objective examination, and learning opportunities open to all regardless of their socio-economic status.
Born 450 years ago today (22 January 1561), Bacon was a pivotal figure in challenging the dominant attitude of his times which insisted that a few authoritative figures in the establishment (the church, universities, or the royal court) could be left to determine what everyone else must believe. Instead, he put forward the revolutionary idea that knowledge could only be pursued through the continuous questioning, experimenting and reviewing of evidence, involving all who could contribute their testimony and critical reflections to test the robustness of any claim made.
Through his extensive writings, Bacon made the case that dogmatic assertions of ‘facts and figures’ were flawed because they were inherently unreliable. If society would not embrace systematic investigation and experimental testing to build up a body of knowledge which could always be further revised and improved in the light of future evidence, he argued, we would be stuck with dubious beliefs which were at best useless, or at worst dangerously misleading.
Although King James I, whom he loyally served as Chancellor, dismissed his ideas, reformists of subsequent generations followed Bacon’s lead and moved British, European, and ultimately global culture away from the grip of arbitrary dogmas towards a far greater reliance on experimentally grounded learning, supported by a sustained investment of collective resources to raise the quality of research and the accessibility of education.
However, after nearly four centuries of progress, resistance is increasingly being mounted by many who could see their interests served by shielding particular dogmas from empirical criticisms. Plutocrats, who want their profit-making to trump all else, are backing the cut back of public investment in the advancement of objective knowledge. It would leave them to propagate their own claims in defence of how their socially irresponsible actions would have no detrimental impact at all on the environment, people’s health, economic stability, or the vitality of family and community life. As educators are faced with reduced resources to carry out impartial research, while the public have to bear increased burdens to acquire the skills to learn and question, the Baconian maxim of ‘Knowledge is Power’ is being turned on its head – disempower citizens by depriving them of real knowledge.
Political and business leaders who value the cultivation of unbiased knowledge for the wellbeing of society should unite to reverse this trend. More, not less, private funding should be channeled through the state to public research and educational institutions with no strings attached, save the fulfilment by the latter of the commitment to expand our shared knowledge through the most vigorous and objective examination, and learning opportunities open to all regardless of their socio-economic status.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
Deep Freeze Alert
In the last few years, a pair of frogs had chosen the pond behind our house as their annual breeding ground. But there’s not going to be any happy new year for them in 2011. Last December, the pair went into the pond, assuming perhaps they would once again secure their favourite location ahead of spring’s arrival. Unfortunately, with their insensitivity to gradual changes in temperature, the two frogs stayed put in the water as it cooled degree by degree, until they were literally frozen to death.
Are we going to be any better at spotting and dealing with imminent danger? As the civic temperature continues to fall around us, why do the majority of people still look on passively, seemingly unaware that the collective infrastructure, which has taken decades to build up to protect us, is now at risk of disintegration?
Every gauge of the conditions for public wellbeing is showing an alarming drop. Job security is plummeting; the safety net for the vulnerable is lowered and made less effective in cushioning those in freefall; privatized utilities (from energy to railways) deliver less value for much higher charges; all public funding for university teaching (except for a small minority of science subjects) has vanished; the provision of not-for-profit health service is not keeping pace with growing demands; and people seeking to redress unjust treatment are increasingly left to their own impoverished devices.
Perhaps some people don’t yet connect the signs of deterioration with a sense of personal peril. They see and hear about radical changes in the abstract, but think that they would somehow escape unscathed. Others may recognise the threat against them and their communities, but are numbed by the assumption that there is nothing they could do about any of it. What is certain, however, is that if we remain adrift in a state of inaction, life for those of us outside the privileged realm of the corporate elite is going to get very bad indeed.
So while we still have the chance, let’s make this our collective resolution for 2011. We are not to let fear or apathy overwhelm us. Spread the word, sound the alarm, and unite in defence of our common good. It’s time we raise the temperature.
Are we going to be any better at spotting and dealing with imminent danger? As the civic temperature continues to fall around us, why do the majority of people still look on passively, seemingly unaware that the collective infrastructure, which has taken decades to build up to protect us, is now at risk of disintegration?
Every gauge of the conditions for public wellbeing is showing an alarming drop. Job security is plummeting; the safety net for the vulnerable is lowered and made less effective in cushioning those in freefall; privatized utilities (from energy to railways) deliver less value for much higher charges; all public funding for university teaching (except for a small minority of science subjects) has vanished; the provision of not-for-profit health service is not keeping pace with growing demands; and people seeking to redress unjust treatment are increasingly left to their own impoverished devices.
Perhaps some people don’t yet connect the signs of deterioration with a sense of personal peril. They see and hear about radical changes in the abstract, but think that they would somehow escape unscathed. Others may recognise the threat against them and their communities, but are numbed by the assumption that there is nothing they could do about any of it. What is certain, however, is that if we remain adrift in a state of inaction, life for those of us outside the privileged realm of the corporate elite is going to get very bad indeed.
So while we still have the chance, let’s make this our collective resolution for 2011. We are not to let fear or apathy overwhelm us. Spread the word, sound the alarm, and unite in defence of our common good. It’s time we raise the temperature.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
An Interview with 'Father Christmas'
Q: Sir Reginald, you’re one of the most celebrated entrepreneurs and philanthropists in the world. Your renowned generosity has led your friends in the City to call you ‘Father Christmas’. That must make you proud?
R: Well, we should all do what we can. I haven’t given that much. On the latest count, maybe I’ve given about £40 million to charities.
Q: That’s a huge sum. Some have estimated that to be almost 0.005% of your personal fortune.
R: Yes, I think my children sometimes worry that I’m getting too generous. But how many more mansions and companies can I buy them! It’s so important to think about other people. When I look at my vast art collection, for example, I don’t think about myself, I think about the people who might be deprived of a chance to view these masterpieces. So I’ve donated millions to galleries and museums to enable them to display my precious collection to the masses.
Q: And you give substantial sums to political parties too?
R: ‘Parties’, as you rightly noted, not ‘party’. I’m totally non-partisan. Political parties seek to gain power to run our country, and I give them the support they need to do that well.
Q: Isn’t it true that in return your tax bill has been drastically reduced under all the different governments?
R: Not just my tax bill, all my friends have had to pay less tax as well, and most of them haven’t donated a penny to any political party. So once again, others benefit from my generosity, which is fine by me.
Q: Your giving is not limited to this country either, is it?
R: I’m a complete cosmopolitan. We live in a splendidly inter-connected world. And I give to countless overseas projects.
Q: Like the one with the princes in the Middle East where your gifts helped them build up the world’s finest fleet of Rolls Royce cars?
R: Absolutely, and in return, we got a contract for supplying their government with some of the deadliest weapons in the world. I’m very proud of contributing so much to the peace and stability of this volatile region.
Q: Finally, Sir Reginald, what about the people who work for you? What are you most proud of in giving to them?
R: So many things come to mind. I give them all a good income. Some of them complain it’s not enough to live on, but what do they know about the cost of living! They should try the upkeep I have to cope with. I give them a straightforward working environment, with none of these health and safety complications tripping everyone up every second of the day. But above all, I give them that rare opportunity – to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, because every quarter to increase our overall profitability and share values, I give a good number of them the sack.
Q: That must be quite hard to do?
R: You’ve got to think about the big picture. The more people I make unemployed, the lower the pressure is on wage demands. That keeps inflation down, which helps the economy, and all my friends are happy.
Q: No wonder they call you Father Christmas.
R: Well, we should all do what we can. I haven’t given that much. On the latest count, maybe I’ve given about £40 million to charities.
Q: That’s a huge sum. Some have estimated that to be almost 0.005% of your personal fortune.
R: Yes, I think my children sometimes worry that I’m getting too generous. But how many more mansions and companies can I buy them! It’s so important to think about other people. When I look at my vast art collection, for example, I don’t think about myself, I think about the people who might be deprived of a chance to view these masterpieces. So I’ve donated millions to galleries and museums to enable them to display my precious collection to the masses.
Q: And you give substantial sums to political parties too?
R: ‘Parties’, as you rightly noted, not ‘party’. I’m totally non-partisan. Political parties seek to gain power to run our country, and I give them the support they need to do that well.
Q: Isn’t it true that in return your tax bill has been drastically reduced under all the different governments?
R: Not just my tax bill, all my friends have had to pay less tax as well, and most of them haven’t donated a penny to any political party. So once again, others benefit from my generosity, which is fine by me.
Q: Your giving is not limited to this country either, is it?
R: I’m a complete cosmopolitan. We live in a splendidly inter-connected world. And I give to countless overseas projects.
Q: Like the one with the princes in the Middle East where your gifts helped them build up the world’s finest fleet of Rolls Royce cars?
R: Absolutely, and in return, we got a contract for supplying their government with some of the deadliest weapons in the world. I’m very proud of contributing so much to the peace and stability of this volatile region.
Q: Finally, Sir Reginald, what about the people who work for you? What are you most proud of in giving to them?
R: So many things come to mind. I give them all a good income. Some of them complain it’s not enough to live on, but what do they know about the cost of living! They should try the upkeep I have to cope with. I give them a straightforward working environment, with none of these health and safety complications tripping everyone up every second of the day. But above all, I give them that rare opportunity – to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, because every quarter to increase our overall profitability and share values, I give a good number of them the sack.
Q: That must be quite hard to do?
R: You’ve got to think about the big picture. The more people I make unemployed, the lower the pressure is on wage demands. That keeps inflation down, which helps the economy, and all my friends are happy.
Q: No wonder they call you Father Christmas.
Monday, 1 November 2010
On Strikers and Own Goals
Strikers attract headlines. They are a focused and determined bunch. Nothing will deflect them from their goal – scoring in a cup final, smashing home that last minute equaliser, or moaning about one’s club to get one’s pay doubled.
The trouble is when you need them to help you defend your vulnerable position, their impetuosity could cost you a few serious own goals.
Public services are going to be drastically cut back. There will be reductions to the level of support for people, old and young, who would not otherwise be helped; to the number of jobs needed by families and communities; to the resources required for maintaining a basic decent quality of life.
For some, the time has come to bring on the strikers. This would get everyone’s attention, they say. They will score against the opposition, for sure. But how do they think they will actually achieve that. Have they really got a coherent strategy? Have they thought through their tactics?
It has to be said that in these kinds of clashes, the strikers don’t exactly have an enviable track record. They tend to come on and draw attention to the widespread inconvenience they will cause, and away from the problems heaped on society.
That’s 0-1 down.
Every strike from then on, far from raising awareness of the consequences of cuts to jobs and services, just strengthens the hand of those who present themselves as the true custodian of the public good, standing firm against reckless strike action.
That’s 0-2 down.
As the contest goes on, if the strikes continue, the public loses patience completely with what they see as purely self-interested actions, and throws its support behind the shrinking of public provisions, with little sympathy left for those who try to resist it.
That’s 0-3 and the final whistle.
Of course, under the right circumstances, strikes could deliver for social justice. They’ve even made a film - 'Made in Dagenham' – celebrating how strikes helped to further the cause of equal pay for women. But horses for courses, and blind deployment of strikers would just lose everyone the one match they desperately need to win.
Some may say that unless one has a better suggestion, striking is the only way forward. But we don’t always have to know the right solution to be sure what would be a very wrong answer. I have no idea how to carry out brain surgery to help someone regain consciousness, but I have no doubt that you’re not going to bring someone out of a coma by cutting off his head.
The trouble is when you need them to help you defend your vulnerable position, their impetuosity could cost you a few serious own goals.
Public services are going to be drastically cut back. There will be reductions to the level of support for people, old and young, who would not otherwise be helped; to the number of jobs needed by families and communities; to the resources required for maintaining a basic decent quality of life.
For some, the time has come to bring on the strikers. This would get everyone’s attention, they say. They will score against the opposition, for sure. But how do they think they will actually achieve that. Have they really got a coherent strategy? Have they thought through their tactics?
It has to be said that in these kinds of clashes, the strikers don’t exactly have an enviable track record. They tend to come on and draw attention to the widespread inconvenience they will cause, and away from the problems heaped on society.
That’s 0-1 down.
Every strike from then on, far from raising awareness of the consequences of cuts to jobs and services, just strengthens the hand of those who present themselves as the true custodian of the public good, standing firm against reckless strike action.
That’s 0-2 down.
As the contest goes on, if the strikes continue, the public loses patience completely with what they see as purely self-interested actions, and throws its support behind the shrinking of public provisions, with little sympathy left for those who try to resist it.
That’s 0-3 and the final whistle.
Of course, under the right circumstances, strikes could deliver for social justice. They’ve even made a film - 'Made in Dagenham' – celebrating how strikes helped to further the cause of equal pay for women. But horses for courses, and blind deployment of strikers would just lose everyone the one match they desperately need to win.
Some may say that unless one has a better suggestion, striking is the only way forward. But we don’t always have to know the right solution to be sure what would be a very wrong answer. I have no idea how to carry out brain surgery to help someone regain consciousness, but I have no doubt that you’re not going to bring someone out of a coma by cutting off his head.
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Paint It Red
I was in the middle of reading Drew Westen’s The Political Brain when I saw a white rabbit running past me muttering, “I’m late, I’m late.” I followed him but soon fell into a hole which turned out to have a very long drop. By the time I landed, ever so gently, at the bottom, the rabbit was already heading out to an open field where a large crowd had gathered. I couldn’t hear what he was saying, but all the people listened to him attentively. Then suddenly a pack of human-sized playing cards appeared from nowhere. The Jack of Clubs pointed at the rabbit and solemnly declared, “Paint it red”. The cards diligently carried out the order. The now red rabbit was dumb-founded. In the next moment, everyone had turned on him. They shouted abuse, threw rotten eggs and tomatoes at him, and chased him away.
Curious as to what had happened, I walked over to what appeared to be a family picnic by a river to see if they could enlighten me. The father wore a very big hat and was totally absorbed in dishing out the food, except he was piling it all on the plate of this one ginormously fat boy. The other ten or so children were frankly emaciated. Before I could say anything, the smallest of the kids, a little girl of four or five, raised her hand and asked, “Why can’t we all have a share?” The father stared at her and replied in a low voice, “Because it’s my food, Alice, and I can do what I want with it.” “But,” said Alice, “that’s not fair.” She had barely finished speaking when those strange playing cards popped up and surrounded her. Contemptuously, the Jack of Clubs uttered as he looked down at Alice – “Paint it red”. The other children glared at red Alice and in an inexplicable rage they pushed her into the river, and the little girl was never seen again.
I wanted to report this awful incident and found my way to the nearest courthouse. As I approached, a huge egg loomed into view. The judge, it transpired, was none other than Humpty Dumpty. I had to wait because he was in the middle of a very serious case. A walrus and a turtle had both been accused of drugging all the King’s horses, a crime punishable by death. In support of his defence, the turtle offered a cast iron alibi. By contrast, the walrus offered a large bag of gold. The turtle was outraged, “That’s a bribe!” But Judge Humpty Dumpty disagreed, “No, no, no, words should be chosen carefully, especially when they mean whatever I want them to mean. And what the walrus offers me is a generous donation. So he can be set free.” The turtle turned to the jury and pleaded with them, “this is madness, you cannot let this happen. You mustn’t let wealth overrule justice.” In an instant, the pack of cards whizzed by and the turtle was painted red. The jurors fixed their gaze upon him and shouted in unison, “Guilty! Guilty!” Humpty Dumpty nodded in approval, “Excellent decision. It just leaves me to record his guilt and give the order for, oh, I never get tired of this part, Off with his head!”
Shocked at what I was witnessing in this topsy-turvy world, I went to the highest authority in the land – the ruling twins of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. At their palace, in front of their subjects, I asked them if they were aware of what was going on under their reign, and if so, what they intended to do about it. Tweedledum replied with a smile, “Those who have can go on having”, and Tweedledee continued, “and those who have not are not going to have”. As they clapped each other, I said there must be a better, fairer way. Even as the assembled masses showed signs of agreement, the pack of cards flew by me and left me painted in red. At that point, the mood of the crowd changed. They started running towards me chanting, “He’s red, he’s red, off with his head!” And then I woke up from the nightmare. Or so I thought.
Curious as to what had happened, I walked over to what appeared to be a family picnic by a river to see if they could enlighten me. The father wore a very big hat and was totally absorbed in dishing out the food, except he was piling it all on the plate of this one ginormously fat boy. The other ten or so children were frankly emaciated. Before I could say anything, the smallest of the kids, a little girl of four or five, raised her hand and asked, “Why can’t we all have a share?” The father stared at her and replied in a low voice, “Because it’s my food, Alice, and I can do what I want with it.” “But,” said Alice, “that’s not fair.” She had barely finished speaking when those strange playing cards popped up and surrounded her. Contemptuously, the Jack of Clubs uttered as he looked down at Alice – “Paint it red”. The other children glared at red Alice and in an inexplicable rage they pushed her into the river, and the little girl was never seen again.
I wanted to report this awful incident and found my way to the nearest courthouse. As I approached, a huge egg loomed into view. The judge, it transpired, was none other than Humpty Dumpty. I had to wait because he was in the middle of a very serious case. A walrus and a turtle had both been accused of drugging all the King’s horses, a crime punishable by death. In support of his defence, the turtle offered a cast iron alibi. By contrast, the walrus offered a large bag of gold. The turtle was outraged, “That’s a bribe!” But Judge Humpty Dumpty disagreed, “No, no, no, words should be chosen carefully, especially when they mean whatever I want them to mean. And what the walrus offers me is a generous donation. So he can be set free.” The turtle turned to the jury and pleaded with them, “this is madness, you cannot let this happen. You mustn’t let wealth overrule justice.” In an instant, the pack of cards whizzed by and the turtle was painted red. The jurors fixed their gaze upon him and shouted in unison, “Guilty! Guilty!” Humpty Dumpty nodded in approval, “Excellent decision. It just leaves me to record his guilt and give the order for, oh, I never get tired of this part, Off with his head!”
Shocked at what I was witnessing in this topsy-turvy world, I went to the highest authority in the land – the ruling twins of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. At their palace, in front of their subjects, I asked them if they were aware of what was going on under their reign, and if so, what they intended to do about it. Tweedledum replied with a smile, “Those who have can go on having”, and Tweedledee continued, “and those who have not are not going to have”. As they clapped each other, I said there must be a better, fairer way. Even as the assembled masses showed signs of agreement, the pack of cards flew by me and left me painted in red. At that point, the mood of the crowd changed. They started running towards me chanting, “He’s red, he’s red, off with his head!” And then I woke up from the nightmare. Or so I thought.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Anger Mismanagement
A woman was recently caught on CCTV picking up an apparently healthy cat which didn’t belong to her and putting it into a wheelie bin, where it remained trapped for fifteen hours before it was fortunately found by its owners. That footage was put on the Internet, and outrage against the woman’s behaviour spread in no time. Death threats were made. The local police had to consider giving her protection in case her location became known.
Rage is so easily triggered these days. But often it explodes without any sense of proportionality. There are people who almost foam at the mouth when they hear about the small minority of poor people who try to cheat the benefits system. Yet they barely whimper about rich people manipulating tax arrangements to take billions more pounds out of the public purse (£50 billion more on one cautious estimate). Similarly, there are people who are incensed with thoughtless young people vandalising their neighbourhoods, and want the entire police force out to rein them in, though their fury is not summoned when the broader fate of their neighbourhoods is sealed by corporate bosses who moved their business out of the areas, knowing full well that would devastate the communities for years, if not decades to come. And there’s the vengeful rage directed at any drunk driver for getting only a few years in jail for killing one person, but nothing remotely comparable expressed against business directors who knowingly, through deadly pollution or life-shortening products, bring about the untimely deaths of thousands of innocent people.
In fact, when we look more closely, the corporate elites who cause the most harm to the population are the ones least exposed to angry recriminations. Aided by the media, litigation and lobbying tools they have at their disposal, they can sit back while others whose offences are much smaller than theirs are served up for public ire to consume. Furthermore, where the daily reporting of crime and misdemeanor is not enough, the corporate interest-driven media line up scapegoats who, though they are actually more victims than perpetrators of human cruelty, are vilified for the sole purpose of being made into lightning conductors for the thunderous temper of other people. The public, instead of seeing, for example, refugees seeking to escape persecution, workers resorting to strikes to save their livelihood, or public servants taking the blame for everything, as fellow sufferers plunged into fear and uncertainty by a system which looks after the plutocratic few, are goaded into bitter resentment against them.
It does not end there. The deliberate deflection of anger away from corporate manipulators takes its most formidable form when the public are tricked into venting their spleen at the people who are most genuine about helping them get a fairer deal in society. America has shown most dramatically how this works in practice. John Kerry, a true war hero, was portrayed as unpatriotic as opposed to his rival for the Presidential race, G W Bush, who avoided being drafted for the war. The more Obama wants to help his fellow Americans with healthcare reform and economic recovery, the more he is attacked for being ‘Un-American’ (in some cases, literally). Even social reform-minded Republicans are now subject to anger offensive to dislodge them in congressional primaries in favour of candidates who “really connect” with ordinary people (i.e., the candidates most dedicated to protecting the corporate status quo and committed to bringing their righteous wrath upon the likes of gay people, Muslims, feminist advocates, Latino immigrants, and of course, liberal politicians).
Sometimes, in the face of oppression and injustice, anger may have a place to fuel resistance. But we need to direct it, not at innocent scapegoats, but the real culprits.
Rage is so easily triggered these days. But often it explodes without any sense of proportionality. There are people who almost foam at the mouth when they hear about the small minority of poor people who try to cheat the benefits system. Yet they barely whimper about rich people manipulating tax arrangements to take billions more pounds out of the public purse (£50 billion more on one cautious estimate). Similarly, there are people who are incensed with thoughtless young people vandalising their neighbourhoods, and want the entire police force out to rein them in, though their fury is not summoned when the broader fate of their neighbourhoods is sealed by corporate bosses who moved their business out of the areas, knowing full well that would devastate the communities for years, if not decades to come. And there’s the vengeful rage directed at any drunk driver for getting only a few years in jail for killing one person, but nothing remotely comparable expressed against business directors who knowingly, through deadly pollution or life-shortening products, bring about the untimely deaths of thousands of innocent people.
In fact, when we look more closely, the corporate elites who cause the most harm to the population are the ones least exposed to angry recriminations. Aided by the media, litigation and lobbying tools they have at their disposal, they can sit back while others whose offences are much smaller than theirs are served up for public ire to consume. Furthermore, where the daily reporting of crime and misdemeanor is not enough, the corporate interest-driven media line up scapegoats who, though they are actually more victims than perpetrators of human cruelty, are vilified for the sole purpose of being made into lightning conductors for the thunderous temper of other people. The public, instead of seeing, for example, refugees seeking to escape persecution, workers resorting to strikes to save their livelihood, or public servants taking the blame for everything, as fellow sufferers plunged into fear and uncertainty by a system which looks after the plutocratic few, are goaded into bitter resentment against them.
It does not end there. The deliberate deflection of anger away from corporate manipulators takes its most formidable form when the public are tricked into venting their spleen at the people who are most genuine about helping them get a fairer deal in society. America has shown most dramatically how this works in practice. John Kerry, a true war hero, was portrayed as unpatriotic as opposed to his rival for the Presidential race, G W Bush, who avoided being drafted for the war. The more Obama wants to help his fellow Americans with healthcare reform and economic recovery, the more he is attacked for being ‘Un-American’ (in some cases, literally). Even social reform-minded Republicans are now subject to anger offensive to dislodge them in congressional primaries in favour of candidates who “really connect” with ordinary people (i.e., the candidates most dedicated to protecting the corporate status quo and committed to bringing their righteous wrath upon the likes of gay people, Muslims, feminist advocates, Latino immigrants, and of course, liberal politicians).
Sometimes, in the face of oppression and injustice, anger may have a place to fuel resistance. But we need to direct it, not at innocent scapegoats, but the real culprits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)