This is a guest post by Kevin Davies, a writer (prose & songs [300+]), artist, graphic designer, game creator and publisher.
It was originally posted on Kevin Davies' Facebook page and is posted here with his permission. Copyright 2024 by Kevin Davies.
While it might seem outrageous to ask the question, especially just after a US election where voter turnout was reported as “the second-highest in the past century,” (The Washington Post) [1], it does appear that the USA may have reached the point where it has become an open OLIGARCHIC PLUTOCRACY.
The wonderful thing about American democracy (and most others), if you are a corrupt politician, is that you can promise anything, get elected, and then spend at least one term serving the actual interests that paid for your winning.
But also, once in power, it’s much easier to STAY in power — again in part because those ‘interests’ you’ve been serving are going to keep giving you money and other forms of support (e.g., favorable messages on social media and traditional media platforms), doing all they can to ensure they maintain their influence.
Think tank messaging and other ‘educational’ propaganda that ‘mentally capture’ politicians and their supporters make the task of obtaining the desired pro-wealth policies even easier.
While this is something that some reporters have been discussing for decades, the power and influence of the wealthy elite — at least since WWII — has never been so great.
“WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?”
One of the primary reasons for this expansion of power for oligarchs, is a decades long campaign to influence public attitudes to transition from an electorate that wants “What’s best for America,” (i.e., society, which tends to describe ‘the masses’), toward voters who’ve been encouraged to individually demand “What’s in it for ME!” — which suits the wealthy elite fine.
When voters are thinking ONLY ABOUT THEMSELVES, not only does it eliminate any finger-pointing at the wealthy for doing exactly the same — except that they have the clout to actually ensure they get what they want and it’s considered a ‘virtue’ (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation, security, diplomatic influence and military conquest of potential resources and markets, etc.) — but also it means voters can more easily be bought off with lies from candidates and campaign messaging.
When people are only interested in PERSONAL GAIN, and not societal gain, it means that politicians can avoid talking about or meaningfully acting on the things that the society needs to function grow, and maintain.
This includes the basic NECESSITIES for a modern and wealthy democracy such as: infrastructure, regulatory oversight, a functional and fair justice system, health care, education, a social safety net, pensions, and anything a government acting in the service of the masses deems desirable that private investors won’t fund, or are unable to provide on terms that best serve the public (e.g., providing services to less or non-profitable low population and hard to reach rural areas, national security, and many other services that too many fail to recognize until they need them personally) — which also benefits the rich!
The ‘SMALL GOVERNMENT’ view of low taxation and minimum services provision (setting aside the ‘large’ government required to enforce ant-abortion and pro-faith laws), works best for wealthy ideologues — because at least they have the funds to hire private contractors to deliver most desired services (until the economy collapses).
For the rest of society, not so much.
Yet the propaganda of the pioneering ‘INDIVIDUAL’, acting unhindered by government oversight and taxation continues to appeal to those who, for some reason, can never imagine themselves running out of money, becoming sick or dying from toxins in their food and water, or having to exist in a infrastructure decaying, crime-ridden, diseased and dying, environment.
The Mad Max films are better as entertainment than a lifestyle; smaller government means a much smaller population.
These things need to be clearly pointed out and rationally discussed.
“WE’LL THROW THE BUMS OUT IF THEY DON’T DELIVER!”
In the past, ‘throwing the bums out’ may have had some genuine success, and in select cases, still might prove effective.
However, changing one’s government representative has increasingly become less effective since:
a) elections in many areas are so EXPENSIVE that only candidates backed by corrupting corporate ‘BIG MONEY’ have any hope to win,
b) to obtain that ‘big money’ support, candidates are required to CHANGE which POLICIES they advocate to accommodate a more ‘PRO-WEALTH’, instead of a ‘pro-masses’, stance (note: this is typically called ‘moving to the center’ in the media),
c) an increased number of information sources offer MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, and PROPAGANDA, which manipulate and polarize the public by increasing ignorance, cynicism, uncertainty, distrust, paranoia, and apathy [2], and
d) apathy and disgust with the political process and outcomes has resulted in large numbers of electors NOT PAYING ATTENTION to whether on not politicians actually DELIVER on promises that actually improve their circumstances, whether the outcomes are what was promised, and what any unintended consequences were.
All these factors benefit the wealthy and connected pro-wealth lobbyists promoting a pro-wealth, trickle-down, policies.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PRO-SOCIETY AND PRO-MASSES PARTIES?
Clearly the current behavior of many politicians, academics, and supporters that desire pro-society policies isn’t working. Meanwhile, the strategy used by the wealthy and their pro-wealthy supporters is doing great!
The Democrats (and many supposedly ‘left leaning’ parties in various democracies) have tried to win the support of the wealthy and those demanding “What’s in it for ME!” by moving toward what they perceive to be the ‘CENTER’.
This represents flawed thinking. The ‘center’ is ALWAYS toward the RIGHT — and always toward the interests of the WEALTHY and their supporters (i.e., against the masses and society).
This faulty strategy, widely adopted, has only further reinforced conditions where the wealthy can obtain what they want regardless of who wins, playing one side off the other while smiling all the way to their offshore accounts.
Meanwhile, elected politicians and their supporters that advocate pro-society and pro-masses policies are branded by their opponents — and much of the mainstream media — as ‘too left’, ‘fanatical’, ‘extreme’, ‘crazy’, etc. The reason is because such policies do not serve the interests of the wealthy.
Having heard this nonsense repeated so many times the media (which is OWNED by the wealthy), some academics, and many of the masses, now take these smears as ‘normal’ and truthful, accepting and repeating them as fact.
Even political parties such as the Democrats in the USA have accepted such slurs as something they must accept or run away from, shifting their policies and behavior increasingly, and somewhat suicidally, toward the RIGHT.
This is the aim of the slander and lies!
IS THERE A WAY FORWARD FOR THE PRO-SOCIETY MASSES?
As long as the electorate is employing a “What’s in it for ME!” transactional attitude toward politics, they can NOT be expected to vote for a candidate or party that wants to make society better for EVERYONE.
Voters have been taught, by pro-wealthy propaganda, to think things such as: “Why should i pay for schools if I don’t have kids?” or “Why should I fund infrastructure, health care treatments, regulations and oversight, etc., that doesn’t appear to DIRECTLY BENEFIT ME?”
This society corroding thinking is the great win of the pro-wealth propaganda effort that began in the 1950’s and has succeeded fantastically with the 2024 election. And the most insidious thing about it is that few people seem aware or find it anything but ‘natural’.
The Republicans, and conservative parties in general, win elections by manipulating and lying to the masses in the service of the wealthy. They tell them what they want to hear, then once elected do nothing, or just enough to be able to claim that they’ve delivered (e.g., build a wall and make Mexico pay!) — so that any supporters not fact-checking will be convinced.
Simultaneously, they implement policies which serve their real constituents — the ones who fund them: the wealthy elite and upper middle classes.
The pro-society, pro-masses parties, candidates, and pundits must become much BETTER COMMUNICATORS, using the people they serve as their lodestar (i.e., if a policy primarily serves the interests of the masses and society, it has merit and is worth defending).
Standing on such principles in the service of society’s interests is the only way to differentiate from pro-wealth parties, candidates, pundits, and supporters.
Language must be employed to CLEARLY and EFFECTIVELY communicate the significant benefits of such policies… REPEATEDLY.
People must be informed to understand that when policies improve the lives of the MANY, each INDIVIDUAL ALSO BENEFITS — even if those benefits don’t appear immediately obvious.
How those “What’s in it for ME!” thinkers benefit from policies that appear to be aimed at others must be clearly and rationally explained to them — using language that they can relate to. They must not be talked down to, or be made to feel insulted, if they initially fail to comprehend — there is a lot of pro-wealth messaging to overcome.
Also, pro-society communicators must STOP ACCEPTING or using TERMS or DEROGATORY EPITHETS that the pro-wealthy employ to criticize or slander them and their policies (e.g., socialist, communist, ignorant, crazy, etc.). They must master and defend the language used (as conservatives have done) so that they CHANGE HOW THE MASSES HEAR AND THUS PERCEIVE their policies.
There are some wise, philanthropic, and pro-society wealthy people out there who will recognize the importance and necessity of a shift in policies toward the masses — even though it may not initially appear to serve their interests (e.g., raising taxes on the wealthy to fund infrastructure; yet, the wealthier one is, the more infrastructure they use).
Such elites must be sought out by party leaders and candidates and won over with reasoned arguments for funding and guidance for this project.
It will not be easy. Most wealthy elites accumulated what they possess by acting only in their self-interest.
Yet it must be done. It is the only way to overcome what is now a government an electorate which has been convinced that “WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE WEALTHY IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE.” It really isn’t.
It will require a huge and focused COMMUNICATIONS EFFORT to INFORM and re-educate the public about who and what policies might BEST SERVE THEM. It will require adopting a LESS DEFERENTIAL attitude toward pro-wealth politicians, media, pundits, and academics.
It will require making choices for the sake of a GREATER GOOD — and not necessarily one’s own long-term political career. It’s a lot to ask. But the benefit will be massive.
WE MUST ALL TRY TO LEARN FROM THE PAST
Unfortunately, it appears that we’re running out of time to counteract the propaganda poison that has infected democratic systems worldwide and captured minds. Wealth inequality has grown to its highest level since the Gilded Age (1870 to 1900). Countries and leaders are becoming more belligerent.
Yet is seems most have chosen to be willfully blind or have simply accepted it, with little discussion about the implications, or thought to the possibility of rational, peaceful, and productive alternatives.
When the masses are deeply unhappy and losing hope for a better tomorrow — especially while they see and serve others who appear to be doing so much better (e.g., on social media) — they become confused, and begin to loathe their circumstances, themselves… and one another.
As such, they are more likely to embrace ‘quick fixes’ and trust in a populist ‘strong man’ who assures them he can quickly and easily improve things for them.
They become more vulnerable to accepting BAD ECONOMIC POLICIES (e.g., protectionist tariffs causing a reduction in global trade and inflation on imports — including necessities), XENOPHOBIA, a DISTRUST OF DIPLOMATIC to provide solutions, and a tendency toward MILITARISM (remarkably combined with ISOLATIONISM).
They become divided, bitter, callous, transactional, angry, and more vulnerable to being exploited and supporting unreasonable one-sided and FORCE-BASED SOLUTIONS, both domestically and abroad — including being manipulated into sacrificing their lives in the name of political and greedy ambition couched as patriotism.
History rhymes.
— Kevin Davies, November 11, 2024.
------
NOTE:
[1] ARTICLE - 2024 turnout is near the 2020 record. See how each state compares.
[2] ISSUE BRIEF - Distinguishing Disinformation from Propaganda, Misinformation, and “Fake News” (National Endowment for Democracy).
