Come election time, politicians like to play the Fear card, whether it is fear of an “enemy” or bogeyman like Terrorist or Criminal (used to be the Communist) or at present, the faltering Economy. Ask yourself, both on an individual basis and as a society, if you can think of a time when you had enough – security, money or happiness. I’ve met very few people who ever answered in the affirmative, which means there’s never an ideal time to do the “right thing”, especially if it entails effort or sacrifice. As a meditation teacher, I have long encountered the same dynamic – lots of people very interested in meditating and convinced of its benefits, but never quite getting around to it.

The fact is that fear and dissatisfaction arise within each person. You can test out the accuracy of this by statement simply by looking into yourself. It follows that freedom from fear is a process that must also originate from within yourself – there are (essentially spiritual) ways for this to come about. A politician certainly cannot do it for you; even a priest, therapist or guru cannot do it for you, although they may provide valuable guidance.

The real question – not only at election time but always – is what is the purpose of life? What kind of world do we want to live in. At present, most of us make our choices through our political-economic system. Since the decline of Communism, the choice/ battle has been between different brands or degrees of Free Market Capitalism.

The Free Market purists/ extremists believe in a completely unfettered market. They implement policies which have become familiar over the last 30 years - tax cuts, social spending cuts, free trade, privatized services and deregulation. They tend to think that the only legitimate function of government is defence and law and order, hence that is where they spend their budget money. Critics of this system have argued that it is rigid, unstable, creates social hardships and accelerates the gap between rich and poor, which has certainly happened when it has been applied over a period of time. In 1973, the pay of corporate executives was 27 times that of the average worker; today it is nearly 400 times as high. The horrendous Depression of the 30s followed a free-for-all market economy and the current instability and recession (so far) is the result of the last 30 years of deregulation, begun by Thatcher and Reagan, and greatly accelerated by Bush, even as he took America into a misguided and expensive war, quickly dissipating the budget surplus Clinton left him.

The alternative to a totally free market is capitalism with controls wherein the government tries to mitigate hardship and move the country in specific direction e.g sustainable energy and care of the environment. The Right wing likes to characterize this as “free spending liberals” who will waste your money. In fact Bush and Harper have spent freely; there is a cost to fix the damage to the environment (much of it done by big business), but at the moment no one wants to pick up the tab so the problem worsens (and individuals pay for it through their personal health as well as out of their pockets since health care is increasingly privatized). There is also a social and economic cost to “no-cost” Free market policies and the present financial crisis is one of them, as are the increasing number of homeless and those unable to afford proper medical care.

Even if we prefer capitalism with a heart and a head, we the individual voters and spenders, have to step up to the plate. We have to show determination, discipline, good judgement and compassion if we are to create a truly different society. It was only last year that Al Gore was winning widespread acclaim for “An Inconvenient Truth”… so where is all that energy and enthusiasm now? Why are we not pressing our leaders on these issues or backing them if they are moving in the right direction?

Andy James

PS

The USA is spending over US$ 550 billion a year on its military, which is over 50% of its total budget and the highest in the world in absolute numbers and in percentage. Under Clinton, American military spending briefly dipped below 50% of total budget, but under Bush it has increased considerably. By comparison, the current “bogeymen”, China and Russia, spend $59 billion and $94 billion on military respectively. Canadians spend $18 billion annually.

The amount America has spent (and will spend) on the disastrous Iraqi military adventure is more than it would have taken to fulfill its Kyoto obligations, which Bush had protested would seriously affect the US economy. Guess what?... The economy is seriously affected (through Free Market capitalist greed and corruption), there are more Terrorists than before intervention and the environment and global warming situation worsens through neglect and all the extra pollutants that have been injected into the atmosphere through the Iraqi war – burning oil wells, explosions etc.

Last night, as I watched George W. Bush ask the American people to urgently hand him $700 billion to respond to the present financial “crisis”, two things came to mind. The first was his 9/11 speech. The tone and words were very similar - grave crisis…..danger…unusual circumstances…urgent response required. The trusty old fear card was being played yet again. Shortly thereafter, something else came to mind – Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”. By coincidence or synchronicity, I had been lent the book and had begun reading it just 2 days ago.

Klein quotes Milton Friedman, guru of the Free Market ideology, which has dominated Western politics and economics since embraced by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 80s: “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable”. The strategy is that when people are shocked, dazed and confused, that is the best time to implement sweeping free-market policies, which would be difficult to un-do later. Klein gives many examples including 9/11 and Iraq (where the words ‘shock and awe’ were actually used), Katrina (where the rebuilding of the school system was turned over to private ‘charter schools’), and Thatcher’s Falkland War which she used to crush the unions. Friedman’s first opportunity to test his ideas was in the mid-70s, when he acted as adviser to Chilean dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. Hyper-inflation and Pinochet’s violent coup provided the shock, which was followed by a now familiar formula – tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, deregulation and cuts in social spending. To pacify his protesting subjects, Pinochet also used torture, with the most popular tool being actual electric shocks (sounds familiar? Abu Graib? “Rendering” to foreign countries?).

Friedman also advises a new administration to implement their free-trade ideas quickly to take advantage of their honeymoon period, “A new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity”. George W certainly did this, even before 9/11 - withdrawing from international treaties like Kyoto, nuclear disarmament, and the World Court. He also appointed laissez-fair heads (often former corporate lobbyists) to regulatory departments like the environment etc. In Canada, Stephen Harper has imitated Bush’s play book in many ways – he has pulled the country to the right (way beyond the opinion polls) by implementing sweeping changes, even though he does not have the moral mandate since he is the leader of a minority government… at least it is a minority thus far… he has just called a Canadian election to coincide with the American one, obviously hoping the ride any conservative wave.

As far back as the 80s, I sensed that something had radically changed with the Reagan-Thatcher era, and began to write about it. What I would not have guessed at that time, was that the drive to implement free-trade ideology was so deliberately (and ruthlessly) planned and executed, together with the placement of individuals in key positions throughout society (I have written in the past about the conservative control of the media)…almost like a military campaign!

Getting back to the present “financial crisis”, it is astonishingly brazen that those (Bush, Wall Street etc) who have long argued that the market should be free to correct itself, even if it means job losses and lay offs for the ordinary worker, should now be arguing that it is urgent and essential that the government step in and help corporations, including those which have helped create the crisis. It always the same free market solution – give more money to the rich. Note that there will be little control over Bush and his buddies once he has the money (remember Iraq?) and note how Bush is attempting to use scare tactics to rush the legislation through before adequate discussion and review. How many times do we have to fall victim to these same scare and fear tactics before we wake up and call for real change?

As a global society, we cannot move to Cooperation and Compassion if we keep buying into the politics of hate, fear and division every election cycle.  Unfortunately, as it stands today (Sep16, 2008), the right wing in the USA and Canada (the traditional hate-and-fear / Us vs Them parties) are doing very well in the polls for the upcoming elections.  McCain, in spite of his age, his bumbling and his links to Bush’s disastrous military and economic policies, is neck-and-neck with the historically unique Obama.  He is so desperate to be president, he is using Bush’s dirty tricks machine (led by Karl Rove) – the same people who destroyed him when he ran against Bush for the presidential nomination.  In Canada, Stephen Harper, has also (lap dog like) adopted Bush’s alienating global policies as well as his bullying tactics and controlled “talking points”. Harper has aggressively pulled Canada to the Right, even though he has only a minority of votes.  Apparently, many Canadians see his bullying and manipulation as “leadership” and “strength” as Harper is ahead of the Liberals by a whopping 16%, approaching majority government status. I have no doubt McCain and Harper have strong views but are they the right views?  Where is policy and discussion in all of this? What are the implications of more extreme right wing policies in North America for the next 4 years?

            Recently in Toronto, Gary Sachs, economist, UN special adviser and celebrity author (endorsed by Bono, Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon etc) of The End of Poverty, expressed similar concerns: “The Bush and Harper administrations have let down the rest of the world in thinking through a longer-term strategy for helping the poor…Canada and the United States have gone on a military approach to the world’s problems… If you bomb villages from the air, rather than helping them grow food and build roads on the ground, you don’t win these battles….These issues of poverty, climate change, global instability.. are issues of our planet, and they are issues that should be in front of us in our election campaigns, but they are not… I am worried about our capacity to kill each other faster than we can understand each other”.

Sachs’ analysis is very insightful and he correctly points out that the real issues are not being discussed.  I have written at length on these subjects in “Ageless Wisdom Spirituality” and in various articles (see The Articles section of my website, especially my review of Homer Dixon’s The Upside of Down), but here is a brief summary of possible reasons why the political process is stuck:

1. Our consumer society and political process are geared towards the short term.  Working for longer term solutions (environment, energy, poverty etc) may mean saving rather not spending now, which has become compulsive for many.
2. We don’t like change and the changes which are necessary to meet our global challenges are so fundamental that most politicians are afraid to be honest because they will lose votes to someone else promising a quick (illusionary) fix.
3. Society is now so complex that most voters (and probably most politicians) don’t really understand what’s going on.  What we do know about the present Free Market however, is that through all the ups and downs, the gap between the rich and poor is increasing and fewer people are controlling more resources!  We also know it depends on ever greater consumption (in an era of scarce resources) and because it is now a global system, is becoming more volatile – the failure of any substantial link in the chain, can bring down the whole system.
4. The Free Market only counts monetary costs.  Other costs like the effects of pollution, global warming etc on infrastructure and health are borne by individuals like you and me – either directly through our own pocket or indirectly through taxes.  So when the governments says it can give you a few dollars back in tax cuts because it is trimming services, think about how much extra those services will cost in the long term.
5. The Free Market encourages individual action, not cooperation for the good of society at large.  Unfortunately, many of the problems that face us, for example water or energy shortages, cannot be tackled individually.
6. Lastly, in fighting an “enemy”, whether internal or external, the most aggressive action isn’t always the most suitable and can actually make a situation worse.  A prime example: Immediately after 9/11, the whole world including the Muslim countries supported the US and there was a real opportunity to move towards global cooperation on many fronts, not only terrorism.  Instead Bush childishly wanted revenge and to “bring it on”.  There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion (because Saddam was a dictator, like Bush’s ally, The Saudis) and now there are thousands with the opportunity to kill Americans in their own backyards.  Canada is facing a similar situation in Afghanistan.   In the meanwhile, Bush doesn’t care that millions are illegally crossing the US’s southern border. Are we all safer now?  Will be ever be?

In my last blog, “Can we trust the Media?”, I explained why the notion of “the liberal media” in America is outdated, although conservatives keep perpetuating the myth. I neglected to add there is persuasive evidence that the USA has for some time been controlled by an aggressive “conservative media”, which could pull off what seemed impossible to many only a while ago – elect John McCain over Obama. That occurrence would be a sure sign for me that American democracy has been ambushed by a relatively small power elite, given the wounds the Republican agenda has inflicted on the average American and way of life (which pales in comparison to the “collateral damage” suffered by the populations of other countries, especially Iraq).

Mark Crispin Miller (media critic, author, and professor of media studies at New York University) has tracked the current media control by “rightist interests” to a deliberate campaign which began in the mid ‘70s, after the defeat in Vietnam and the resignation of Nixon. He points out, “The Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Carthage Foundation, the Olin Foundation – these entities were all set up to begin to exert control over the whole national conversation….The Right has had to take over the media for a particular reason, and that is they don’t actually have tremendous grassroots support. Their agenda – not raising the minimum wage, cutting Social Security, sending everybody’s jobs overseas – that’s not a particularly popular agenda. So what they do is obfuscate, largely by determining the direction the national conversation takes in the media.” Miller, and other media experts like Ben Bagdikan, have likened America’s current media to a free-enterprise version of the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Culture during the Cold War in terms of its ability to control the government’s message (“brain wash”). Indeed, Miller’s book “Fooled Again” makes the case that the Right stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, and presumably is aiming for 2008.

While some might try to dismiss Miller and other critics as left wing conspiracy theorists, the facts and tactics are all out in the open for those who observe or do a little internet research. Starting at the very top, George W. Bush is open and unapologetic about his administration’s ties to and support for big business; his closest advisers have used a revolving door to move between top corporate and government jobs; when questioned or pressed, he never admits fault but counterattacks and tries to turn the table on his “attacker”. Hate, bullying and fear are standard devices of persuasion. We can see the same tactics and talking points (in a more exaggerated manner) in Republican attack dogs like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly.

Sadly, these tactics seem to be very effective in controlling the “national conversation” and tilting the balance in favour of the Right. Compare for example, the constant hounding and impeachment of Bill Clinton for Monica Lewinsky and the Teflon-like way that Bush and his administration have slid out of a series of possibly criminal actions: the deceptions leading to the invasion of Iraq, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, the “outing” of CIA agent Valerie Plame and more. Indeed, Vincent Bugliosi, a high profile ex-prosecutor and one of the most successful crime authors, has just released a book entitled, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”, in which he sets out the legal case for holding Bush criminally responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. Instead, of being a hot media commodity, Bugliosi has been shunned by the mainstream media and some of his requests for advertising space has been rejected in spite of his stature and the fact that his book has been on the New York Times bestselling list. This should be shocking an outrageous, but like so many other incidents, seem to be sliding harmlessly into oblivion.

The upcoming Republican convention will be a good opportunity to watch the “conservative media” in action. As a Canadian, I will be paying attention, not only because of America’s impact on Canada, but because our own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (backed only by the mandate of a minority government), has been aggressively pursuing Bush-like policies, even to the extent of rigorously controlling his government’s “talking points”. He seems intent on calling an election to coincide with the US election, possibly counting on a Republican victory to give him a boost.

North Americans have a basic confidence in the Media at large to deliver “fact / truth”, even if they distrust certain outlets. The Media has never been perfect, but signs of deliberate manipulation have been increasing, especially during the last 8 years of the Bush administration. This alarming development undermines democracy itself, which is based on the broad assumption there is a “level field” and our institutions and leaders are “decent”, law-abiding and looking after our interests. I see at least four active factors contributing to increased Media distortion and manipulation. The fifth (passive) factor is our own apathy and inaction as media consumers.

Monopoly. The present “Free Market” encourages ever larger (and fewer) multi-national corporations, which exercise enormous, monopolistic power within their specific marke and even within national and global economies. This power is magnified in the Media sector, which directly shapes public opinion. The protestations of “Liberal Media” by the right wing in America should be laughable (but is not as many still buy into that notion), since all the owners of the major media corporations are “big business”, unlikely to tolerate threats to their interests from employees or voluntarily give up power. Corporate owners have begun openly influencing the policies of their media subsidiaries, most blatantly Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network. Subtler, but no less effective, methods may include guidelines for interviewing and presentation and the promotion of “sympathetic” personnel to key positions like network anchor or chief journalist..

Influence can be exerted on the Media by corporations which do not own media outlets. An example is Monsanto, a multi-national chemical and bio-tech conglomerate, responsible for such allegedly toxic products as Agent Orange ( Vietnam War defoliant), Bovine Growth Hormone (in your milk), and a variety of genetically modified foods (dubbed “Frankenfoods” by some). Monsanto has fought its critics through endless litigation as well as threatening to withdraw its advertising from media corporations which carry critical stories.

Most Americans do not regard their President (Executive branch) as a monopolistic corporation, but George W. Bush has made it obvious that it is. The President has money, influence and threat (taxes, surveillance, the FBI, CIA etc) way beyond any corporate CEO and George W has exercised that power to the max in USA Inc.

Technology. Innovations in communication technology has enabled media giants for the first time to broadcast their message globally and in many forms of media, giving the impression that all these seemingly “different” forms of information must add up to truth or fact. The Bush administration’s successful use of “talking points” is proof that if people hear the same message repeatedly via different media, regardless of merit or truth, it will be widely believed. The “personal screen” was introduced only 50 years ago but is now an indispensable, influential part of life – TVs, movies, computers, video games, phones etc.

Technology has also created an insatiable appetite for 24-hour “media content”. The irony is that we get so much information, it begins to blur and lose meaning. This is one of the reasons Bush has been able to ride out scandal after scandal. The “burning issues” of the day fade into distant memory the next week or at most, month. This amnesia is a manifestation of a deeper process mentioned in my blog , “Why are we so numb?” - the fact that we have become a society which recognizes Quantity but not Quality.

Psychological manipulation. Polls show that people don’t think they are really influenced by marketing but in fact they are. “Persuasion” is crafted by highly trained scientists and other professionals and delivered through many forms of media. It is a multi-billion dollar industry which is highly effective. The Republicans have taken the lead in bringing corporate persuasion methods into politics with perhaps the best known example being the “hot button” issues developed by Frank Luntz. Luntz specializes in finding words and language which will trigger target audiences emotionally, overriding the logical brain. Once you find the correct language or even word (“talking points”), you just repeat it as much as possible.
.
Political correctness. Political correctness confuses an ideal with reality. Although it would be nice to think all people are equal, they are not – they have different abilities, backgrounds and cultures. This is a complex subject which deserves a separate discussion. I’ll mention just two examples of how political correctness can inadvertently lead to media distortion.

The first is the Democrats’ decision to take the “high road” and not respond to the Republican attack ads. Polls show that although people say they don’t like attack ads, they believe them (as Luntz knows). By failing to respond, they let the facts get distorted and the attacks stick - like the “swift-boating” of John Kerry, which also neatly distracted voters from Bush’s dubious war record.

Another example is the practice on TV networks of having two guests argue opposing sides of an issue. This practice suggests to the viewer (whether deliberate or not) that the issue is evenly balanced, when it might be might not be. Perhaps the greatest, recent distortion of this kind concerns Global Warming, where the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion pointed to global warming, but the public seemed to think there was still a real scientific debate going on (which is what Bush told them).

Viewer apathy. Even if there are forces at work in society, there is always a subjective component and responsibility. We individuals always have a choice and can always change the way we respond. This is perhaps our most encouraging option.

Andy James