I have known both conservatives and liberals who believe
that a relative few people control much of what happens in the world, and they
usually believe this is largely clandestine. I am not referring to those who
believe in an Illuminati, though sometimes they come a lot closer than they
would likely admit. At the moment I read
and hear far more liberals saying these things, beginning with “the 1%” and
“corporate interests,” but that may simply be because I largely work with
liberals, while my conservative associations are largely voluntary and a
decidedly non-paranoid lot, even at mild levels. It does get weird hearing them
talk about Donald Trump and “the government” doing many secret things while
they distract us with news about investigations – as if there suddenly is a Deep State after all and it
supports Trump, who has devised all these investigations of himself as
distractions. If you put it that baldly to them (which I sometimes do, just
because I still take the bait), they recoil and say that this isn’t what they
meant really, then clarify their earlier statements by saying exactly that,
though with different words that don’t sound so bad. Social workers,
psychiatrists, and various advocates, mostly.
Perhaps not representative. When conservatives go down this road it is
usually centered around a few possibilities – a large portion of the federal
government, especially select agencies; major journalism figures and the
string-pullers behind them, in cahoots with academia; or the “elites” in
general. That seems to be a larger
group, more dispersed, a 5% of the country who are semi-secretly ruling us
rather than a 1%.
And of course from many different sides there are those who
go straight to believing it’s the Jews, who seem to be a crossing-street with
every other type of paranoia.
As with full paranoia, depression, anxiety, and other states
of mind, the general mildly paranoid belief precedes all the specific
knowledge. They have long had the
impression of the few working underhandedly with great skill to dupe the
public at large, and this impression perseveres even when new facts go against
it. Even contradictory information is
reshaped to support the narrative. I now think of it as a personality trait,
rather than an intellectual one. People just think that’s how the world works.
Yet power is widely distributed in America. Yes, rich people are sometimes able
to influence legislation, regulations, or policy to help them become richer.
That’s not a good thing, and as such rent-seeking does diminish the efficiency
of the economy we all live in it does affect us. Also, governments both local and national do
prevent us from doing a few things and compel us to do others. Yet we still
travel where we want, build houses we like, choose our hobbies, eat different
foods, change jobs, have children or not. Government is mostly about taking
money from us and doing stuff it claims is good for all of us. Which it is, sometimes. It’s the few places
it actually does touch strongly on individual decisions, such as abortion or
buying guns, that everyone sits up and takes notice. We get strongly irritated
at the rest, especially if we think we shouldn’t be paying for any of it, never
mind an increase, but we mostly just grouse and work around it. When rich
people try and change the government they are much less successful than they
would like to be, and much less than our fears of them would success. Yes, they do give money, sometimes secretly
and illegally, and this is deeply offensive. On the other hand, they have to
keep giving that much next year and the year after, so perhaps they have not
the awesome power we attribute to them.
There is power to do what you want, and power over others to
make them do what you want, and many shades in between of influence and
permissions. When I was very liberal I believed that a very few evil
conservatives were running all sorts of stuff and were forever on the brink of
establishing fascist control over us – but fortunately, good free-spirited and
well-meaning socialist types were breaking through that all over the late 60s
and good times were coming.
5 comments:
The endless debate over whether change is happening by design or organically. Lots of people are changing their minds about their political affiliations, is that happening independently or being driven by opinion shapers?
Poking into my county's more or less clandestine power operations, I can see that there is a small group of like-minded people who appoint each other to things and form a kind of oligarchy. It's neither very powerful nor very tight, but it's there. It consists of people who generally believe that things are best if a few of the right people make most of the public decisions, and who are willing to spend a large part of their time and energy on public works, committees, offices, etc. They prefer to operate in private, which is understandable, because operating in public is a real pain and not something you'd bother doing if you didn't believe very strongly in the dangers of secrecy and oligarchy. They're naturally a minority, because both the skill and the desire to do public administrative work at all well is not particularly widespread in the population.
Some of them are merely public-spirited, others busybodies who get off on control and exclusiveness, many a bit of both. For the most part they're rather wealthy, but not enormously so. They network constantly.
@T99 - Thank you. I would say that this is likely so, and occurs in every one of the 3,000 counties in America. They have real power, but it is narrow.
Right, it's nothing as deliberate or organized as a conspiracy, just an emergent order.
I think you vastly underestimate the power of someone like George Soros, putting money into specific targets. Having pushed forward a collection of like-minded DAs and other local powers, he has managed to create tremendous havoc and disruptive ill-will in a number of cities -- seattle, portland, chicago, minneapolis, and an array of others, all ready to look the other way when it comes to violence, all seeking to derail any semblance of police order, and, using the examples of Kyle Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys, attempted to cow anyone willing to act to defend themselves and others into submission with blatantly vindictive prosecutions. And, thanks to the fact that prosecutors have total immunity for their actions thanks to earlier SCotUS decisions... hey, wonderful... They're also immune to clearly illegal prosecutions for which they should be disbarred for pushing through.
Post a Comment