It has been suggested by many people in this forum that America is
asleep, so to speak, oblivious to the fact that the President and the
government are fighting a war which, if continued, will only
exacerbate the global conflict. More is assumed. America is
oblivious, they say, to the apparent collusion among the two parties,
the three branches of the government, and the heads of the biggest
corporations; oblivious also to the apparent attack on civil
liberties, such as the right of habeas corpus and right to privacy,
and the ongoing efforts to reshape the political structure into
something very much resembling a police state (Indeed, DavidTC argued
rather conclusively for the latter in a recent discussion). To
sum it up, it is implied that the State is waging a war on American
people, and that the people are too dim or too unconcerned to realize
that.
I would like to offer a different explanation for the direction
taken by our political vessel--one inspired by the ideas of Ortega y
Gasset; specifically, by his analysis of the source of the political
power in Revolt of
the Masses. There he identifies a certain type of man--a
"mass-man" he calls him, who comes into the spotlight on the political
arena most visibly in Russia after the Communist revolution. Those who
are unfamiliar with Ortega might be able to relate to this idea by
remembering what Nietzsche said about a member of the herd: this
special kind of man is the one who values above all the security, both
material and spiritual, granted to him by the massive herd of
like-minded individuals. But Ortega goes on to specify other
qualities: a mass-man is a man of craft, an educated man who is
extremely proud of his abilities in his narrow field of expertise. The
trouble is, the mass-man is also arrogant enough to presume that he is
well qualified and suitably equipped for governing the state. Yet,
according to Ortega, governing the state requires considerable skill;
it takes an expert governor to stir a ship that is a country, and a
mass-man is taking on himself more than he can bear when he aspires to
take a shot at plotting the political course.
As for the source of power, it always lies within the general
population. The people choose where to bestow their power, and
virtually nothing can be done (in terms of governing) if they
opt to withhold it. Iraq provides a great demonstration of this
concept: the American army remains the uncontested raw power
in that region, yet the people just cannot be governed since
they already decided to bestow the political power onto
a local authority.
Now put these two together and consider what happens when the herd
becomes large and its political voice can no longer be ignored. Naturally,
Ortega argues, it invests the power into the kind of government
that protects the herd. But what is "protecting the herd" if not
getting rid of the wolves? Anyone whose stance
is incompatible with that of a mass-man, anyone whose political
voice strays away from the choir thus becomes the enemy of the state.
And what kind of state is most efficient in exercising this
kind of control over the minorities?
Ortega draws his grand conclusion: the totalitarian government and
the police state never have their roots in the soul of a dictator;
on the contrary, the said dictator conveniently arises to answer the call
of a mass-man.
Now ask again: is America really asleep? Or is the mass-man finally
awake and is flexing his muscles? In my opinion, all signs point to
the latter. The populace is far from being fooled. Bush, for example,
was re-elected exactly because he had shown that he has what it
takes to be a dictator, not in spite of it. The mass-man has no fear of
a police state: he craves it; it protects him from everyone who is not
a mass-man. Take a look at the legislation: do you believe for a
moment that the Patriot Act will be used for jailing blue-collar
workers who spend their life watching TV? White-collar workers
watching TV? The wealthy elite who support the State (and so
indirectly--the mass-man)? No. Criminals? May be. Exceptions are
possible, but they are all freak accidents. This kind of
legislation adds no utility for criminal cases, since criminals
can be tried in court and convicted by
the law anyway. The troublesome thing about the police-state-enabling
legislation like the Patriot Act is that it might (and probably will)
be used to get rid of dissidents. "But isn't the dictator himself the
primary beneficiary of such acts", one might ask, "as they allow him
to stay in power?" But they don't--the source of the political power
is not in concentration camps or the gallows, it's in the
will of the general populace. In Soviet Union, for example, the
basic structure of the government and the key people in it were
unshaken by the torrent of Perestroyka and the following period of
unprecedented political freedom. I happened to be there, and guess
who was complaining the most? Stalinists--the mass-men who suddenly
realized the the herd is no longer tended and the extremists are free
to express their opinions.
As we continue down this path, we can see that the collusion of the
branches of the government in USA is due to the fact that the
political process is becoming more streamlined. What need is there
checks and balances when the only item on the agenda is to appease the
herd? The very nature of the mass-man ensures that the herd speaks in
a single voice, informing everyone of its latest desire. The most
efficient government, from the herd's point of view, is the one that
carries out the orders without much ado. Sure enough, the results are
bound to be chaotic. Are you wondering if Bush and his team are
insane? Many agree that the mistakes they have made are as numerous as
they are damaging. It seems especially puzzling because it can be
argued that these mistakes are damaging for
everyone in the USA. The war in Iraq, for example, the way it
is conducted, will likely cause tremendous grief to all Americans,
including the mass-man, and yet the government shows no sign of
repenting. It seems like the power has been usurped by some kind of
irrational, emotive amateur. Everyone points at Bush. Really? If his
incompetence is so obvious, why isn't the Congress stopping him? Are
Corporations to blame? Are they really so short-sighted as to believe
that burning Iraq to the ground and alienating the rest of the region
will improve anyone's economy? There is, however, an emotive,
arrogant amateur right under our nose, one who finally succeeded in
electing a President who will listen to his voice. This amateur is, of
course, the mass-man. The mass-man is never a statesman. He is a
garbageman, a factory worker, a businessman, a housewife, a teacher,
a writer, a programmer, a biology professor, etc., yet he is convinced
that he is wise enough to govern the state, and now
the state is finally falling under his control.
If this analysis is correct, what are our options? Impeach the
President? But... He is doing his job rather well! And I say that even
though I believe that we would all benefit if the entire PNAC was abducted
by aliens tomorrow. We would like to see Bush go, but that will fix
nothing, for the mass-man will just replace him with another puppet.
No, our only hope is to disperse the herd. It will get harder as it
grows larger, since its power and its arrogance grow together with its
ability to shut out everyone else. May be we reached the point of no
return already, and so we'll have to live through the dark ages of a
totalitarian state, waiting for the herd to drive itself off the cliff
(it always does in the end). When the state is finally in ruins, the
mass-man will naturally loose his confidence (which means, he will cease to
be a mass-man) and people will be able to find a competent ruler. For
now it looks grim, and whatever our options are, I cannot advise a
course of action. I am not a statesman.
Note. If you can discuss Revolt of the Masses without
using sexist language, give yourself a star.