When You Say Nothing At All
It's difficult to say which of these effects is more important to our public discourse. The protective effect of the "fact-proof screen" (Eric Hoffer) such noisy repetition erects between the true believer and any possibility of contradiction is equaled, at the least, by the dissuasive effect of the repetition and vituperation upon those who'd like to examine the subject on its merits. It holds out the prospect of deterring anyone who disagrees with the Left's mantras from taking part in the "discussion." In studying electoral dynamics, one must be perpetually mindful of the non-voter. The vote is the most direct method a citizen has for influencing the course of government, yet at the best of times, no more than 60% of Americans use it. Why? What persuades the non-voter to remain aloof from the selection of his representatives and executives, to say nothing of the frequent opportunities for citizen initiatives and referenda? The answer is quite simple. The developments of the past sixty years have conditioned the non-voter to "believe" that it doesn't matter who's elected; things will remain almost entirely as they are in all significant respects. The non-voter isn't lazy or "too busy to vote;" he's simply been conditioned out of doing so. As the quality of our candidates for public office has declined -- Nixon or McGovern? Ford or Carter? Dole or Clinton? Come on, now! -- his "conviction" that voting is a meaningless gesture has been strengthened still further. 
Speak up...and face the consequences!
fran over at Eternity Road (a jolly good, intellectually stimulating site, I must admit) posted on the social phenomenon that is conditioning yesterday, and somehow I can't seem to get my comments posted in response over there, so I've decided to address it here. Forgive me if my thoughts seem to be disorganised.
fran takes the Left to task with its sheer penchant for demagoguery:Clearly, if any of these propositions were accepted by a sufficient majority, it would conduce to a great expansion of the power of American governments over Us the People. That accords with the core agenda of the Left and the Democrats, though most public conservatives forbear to say so. Broadly speaking, the expansion of government favors liberals / Democrats politically because of their greater facility at demagoguery: they're better at pandering to special interests than conservatives / Republicans, and much better at hypnotizing the masses into believing that they'll wield all that power for the masses' benefit.
The role of government in the public sphere should be minimal, as dictated by Lockean tradition: the protection of life, liberty and property - nothing more. As for the private sphere, all the more should the sanctity of that personal space be respected and upheld as inviolable. Yet in Singapore, the government has seen to it that its presence should be permeating - state control of media, almost complete control of Parliament (only a single seat belongs to the opposition). Any further expansion of government would surely draw the ire of political observers here.
There are parallels here that I've observed for quite a while in my country, Singapore. The state controls the main media outlets - television, radio and newspapers - and executes subtle propaganda via these channels:The sole explanation consistent with all the facts is that the news moguls had a critical stake in maintaining a monopoly over journalism and opinion-editorial distribution. They saw cable TV as a threat to that monopoly -- an unregulated threat, which the broadcasters were not. Alternate sources of news and opinion inevitably meant alternate views, alternate popular attitudes, and alternate opinions of the validity of all reportage. Given time, the papers' cherished ability to lead the public consciousness as it pleased, with which the broadcasters willingly cooperated, would vanish. Indeed, if we survey the best known detractors of Internet news dissemination, they're virtually unanimous in lamenting the loss of that "common consciousness" -- a consciousness designed by those who controlled what We the People would see and hear.
Singapore as a Nation has always been positioned as a conduit between East and West - borne out of the ashes of British colonialism in the post-war period, it was perhaps the only Nation which chose to accept the legitimacy of the colonial legacy and thus inculcate public sentiment that did not hinge on anti-Westernism, unlike its neighbours in the near abroad. Its Chinese minority in South-east Asia seemed justification for reorientation towards China as a possible client state, especially with the emergence of a resurgent China under Mao and Cold War rivalries being played out in proxy wars nearby in Vietnam and Korea. That choice would be logical if the leadership believed that neither the British nor themselves could muster defence capabilities necessary to deter Indonesia, Malaysia or any other potential aggressor from invading and subverting Singapore to its will, but thankfully, the leadership recognised the value of fostering relations with former colonial masters as well as the US.
We're getting there, if you're wondering where all this is leading to - as such, due to the necessity of balancing relationships with countervailing powers within the region (Malaysia and Indonesia - preventing too comfy an alliance between the two) and without (emergent China, resurgent Japan, the US and the Middle East), state-controlled media tends towards a neutralistic stance, one that attempts to conduct an objective cost-benefit analysis each time without adopting any position that may be interpreted as aligning with any power. Thus, coverage of international events within Singapore is devoid of emotion or affiliation. Citizens have been conditioned to bother themselves with the pursuit of wealth through work - the government has convinced them that it will take care of everything; the result is that public interest in politics is first and foremost parochial, with international affairs lagging far behind. Alternative opinions are few and far between, to say the least. The state has dominated the narrative for decades, and will not easily give up its monopoly.
Discussion of parochial politics is minimal, but has increased slightly in recent years. Why so?Of course, what no broadcaster or print organ can prevent is the operation of an independent and inquisitive mind. But the influence of such a mind over the opinions of his fellows can be blunted by denying him a means to transmit his thinking to a wide audience. More, the person of average intellect is quite likely to say to such a man, "if what you say is true, why haven't I heard it anywhere else?" -- meaning "why haven't I read it in the papers or seen it on TV?" It's not an argument, of course, but it does have the five-trillion-flies-can't-be-wrong dynamic going for it -- and quite a lot of folks are more powerfully swayed by the popularity of a notion than by its validity.
The government has been known to rehabilitate political dissidents and opponents by downplaying or entirely erasing any evidence of political contribution and commentary that these individuals have made, conveniently writing their achievements regarding political development out of the national narrative. This strategy of discrediting and isolating political opponents and those that dare to speak out has persisted since the ruling party's inception in 1959 - a lone voice here, a lone voice there: it all conveys that there is little, if any, resentment with the government among the populace:An audience barraged with such repetitions might not believe, in the conventional sense of the word, the contentions it's thus bombarded with. That is, they might not hold to those contentions out of conscious adoption. But they might well hold to them because of conditioning.
Citizens are simply convinced that an insignificant minority are discontented because of the absence of dissent in public forums - somehow, they miss the salient fact that these channels are heavily censored and monitored by the state.Whenever an event that might contradict their preferred views intrudes upon the popular consciousness, they set up a tremendous, clanging, repetitive din. They always employ the same stock words and phrases in chanting about an issue, whenever that issue arises. They always make the presentation as annoying and offensive as possible to the "unbeliever." This furthers two goals:
We'll address the first: "all opposition is bad opposition". Just last year, during the elections, the prime minister actually said that:"Instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I have to spend all my time thinking what is the right way to fix them, what's the right way to buy my own supporters over, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges."
"Fixing" the opposition is obviously the main concern that would preoccupy the government's top minds, rather than political discourse and stimulation of discussion over policy issues and legislation. Another member of the ruling party even had the audacity to suggest that checks and balances were inherent in the ruling party's philosophy and that it could check itself - how ingeniously introspective! Now why didn't that argument go well with other democracies?
The sheer phenomenon that is Singapore's economic success may have inflated the government's sense of importance and all-knowing attitude - Singaporeans are not only expected to, but demanded of their 'choice' to allow the government further expansion and infringement of civil liberties just because of its engineering of economic growth. The government must be infallible, faultless and perfect - and above all, superior to the people and therefore should lord over them. a jacksonian opines:Now from there we do set up various ways to achieve these things, but the final holders of those responsibilities are those very same We the People. Which means *you* and *me*. The things we set out to do will always be imperfect because we are fallible, mortal and human. We the People are to seek the more perfect Union amongst Ourselves as only Tyranny and Despotism are perfect governments. The paths I have heard by those still stuck in the rut of putting forth non-democratic ideals from across the political spectrum are, in a word, disgusting. Bar None.
That is the second mantra: without the government, the Nation is nothing.
During the elections last year, I commented that:PM Lee made it known that a dominant PAP and a sidelined opposition which he can "deal" with is key to a prosperous "First World" Singapore for the future - without the PAP, Singapore would collapse.
And if we take a cursory glance at the section under Freedom of Speech in the Singaporean Constitution:
Which brings up a salient point made by the opposition during one of its rallies: if Singapore is counting on the PAP as the sole guardian of its interests, and there is no safeguard or guarantee that the PAP leadership will not turn apocryphal in the future if the older generation of PAP heavyweights, including MM Lee and SM Goh, is phased out to make way for new blood, then ask yourself this question: is this sole dependence on the PAP wise?Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose —(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
"Protecting the privileges of Parliament"? Since when did the legislature have the power to hoard its privileges from the citizens? Did I miss something here? The legislature, just like the other two arms of government, derives its legitimacy from the People - there are no privileges but responsibilities and obligations to the People. Only when the People decide as a collective unit and choose to grant the government additional capabilities - and even so, the People have the right to withdraw those privileges without consulting the Constitution - and last time I checked, no attempt was made to consult the People.
It obviously doesn't help that the "interest of the security of Singapore" provides ample justification for a wide spectrum of government actions and decisions to clamp down on dissident voices and opposition. The Internal Security Act allows for preventive detention procedures to be implemented without explanation - reminiscent of how the British resorted to declaring emergency in their colonies to discredit political opponents while maintaining the pretence of normal civil rule. Ironically, the ruling party criticised the British for employing such coercive measures before Singapore's independence.
Since when did the "free trade brings democracy" meme stick?Those that push Free Trade to free people have gotten the order *wrong* and have forgotten that the US was founded on freedom allowing for the People to have a say on trade so that it could empower them. While it may provide more in the way of material goods, such trade has not stimulated a path to freedom and has, contrarily, made it easier and cheaper for the enemies of liberty to arm against it on a global and dispersed basis.
Which brings us to the third mantra: it's the economy, stupid.
The leadership and government here derive their legitimacy based on transactional terms: it's all about the economy.
Singapore's economy has done very well, which allows the leadership to exploit this as the proverbial opium of the masses, attempting to convince citizens that political freedom is liable to compromise when economic prosperity and individual wealth accumulation is at stake. I find it eerily familiar when each time the opposition parties bring up any issue that may prove contentious about the government, the ruling party tends to harp on the economy as the sole justification - as if it were the one panacea to all social, moral, political problems. The incessant spiel about materialistic concerns severely reduces air-time and space for other issues to be discussed in the public sphere.
fran speaks of conditioning:
The government here has obviously done its homework regarding legitimacy: the citizen may very well choose not to vote in order to show his disgruntlement with the government. And so the latter has come up with legislation that makes voting compulsory. Citizens are thus conditioned over these years to accept that if they vote for the opposition, the government may very well create an even more uneven playing field for the opposition. If they vote for the ruling party, it is seen as vindication of its strategy of playing partisan politics and pseudo-democratic tactics. Thus, voters resign themselves to the fact that their vote will ultimately benefit the ruling party regardless of which box they check.The non-voter is a strong parallel to the non-speaker: he who declines to give his views on public-policy issues out of the conditioned "belief" that it wouldn't change anyone's mind. He might be far more intelligent, knowledgeable, and articulate than those whom he seeks to persuade. If he quails before the anticipated chanted repetition of left-liberal mantras, regardless of the strength and intensity of his own convictions, he'll remain silent.
Non-speakers in Singapore are far more prevalent than the government would imagine, and this is due to the ingrained culture of self-censorship that citizens are once again conditioned to accept as "natural", and that any change to the status quo is detrimental to the nation.We the People must acknowledge that We have failed in wanting mere organs of government to safeguard Us.
Singapore has a long, winding road to go before its culture of critical thought develops into what the US has today, but chronic problems still do persist as shown here, regardless of the degree of democracy in the country.
That has not worked.
And as the true Sovereigns of this Nation We place Our trust in Ourselves to come together and form more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and Our Posterity. We hold the bag on all of that. And We are the only guarantors of it.
If you can't trust your fellow Citizens in this, then NOTHING We create will ever work to ensure that Liberty.
That lack of trust is the path to Tyranny.
1 spoke up:
From my view in the US, the move to marginalize the electorate started in the 1960's... although that 1911 move to limit the size of the House was no help, whatsoever. By setting the number of districts and then having only a slow shift in re-apportionment, large scale changes in demographics only take place over decades. The disenfranchisement of larger swaths of the population because Representation was set to a *limited* House size, meant that more people were in districts and distinct voices were lost to the House. No longer could a small party with a committed, but still admittedly small base get *any* traction in National politics. That ensured that the number of parties would be *locked* although their proportion would change. I found it amusing that social studies teachers would put forth that we all have a right to have our political view heard... and that it was a 'good thing' that there were only two parties that would take up any good 'reforms'... while, of course, killing off the third party previously holding them. That changed government from Outlook to Programs, and by removing alternative ways to *get* to good solutions, the two-parties were made sacrosanct and would quash other routes to good government because of their structure and indefinite hold on ever larger districts.
By the 1960's the *parties* had become the ruling class and elite, and so a change by one of them away from staunchly backing foreign policy and warfare were clearly stating that they no longer stayed with the compact and actual rulings under law, that would limit politics within the Union. By making *everything* open to the socialist political views, decrying everything about capitalism and somehow saying that the US was Imperialistic while it had was ruling *over* no other Nation on Earth was a clear break with a section of the American People. The US has *always* had a traditional 5-10% that just would not vote... after the 1960's that started to change and that percentage grew, year on year. Mind you the *other* party in this had no real attachment to reality, proposing 'free trade frees people' while showing zero evidence of that anywhere. Third parties can *still* get no traction and the existing two will take up a 'good idea' into their big tent and tell anyone liking it to hold their noses for the rest of the noxious things they put forth. A single glittering diamond in hectares of manure....
Now we start to see that New Media opens up other venues to think and speak... and those that are disenchanted and who have 'tuned out' politics that is about everything, which *both* sides now participate in with joy and vigor, those individuals who represent strong belief in having a Nation that is Lawful and keeps to its Word... they are the outcasts now.
My example is to take a piece of paper, draw a line and label ends 'Right' and 'Left'... then cut out a hole in the center of the paper taking a good portion of the line with it. Lift up the paper and move it anywhere else. Between 'Left' and 'Right' there is *no* relationship to the 'Center'. It is a blind spot and weakness of the Nation... and the more dividing lines put in, the greater the weakness becomes. It isn't that the Nation is *weak*, it is that its political class has no strength of view, no alternatives to offer, nothing new to present... the same, tired, ideals have been static for decades even though the world has changed immensely in many realms.
And yet to *be* a Nation... be it Singapore or the US or the Fiji Islands, one must come to commoness or face tyranny and despotism. In the US it is the rise of the Zero Party State, that is wholly politically bankrupt and since *everything* has been made the target of politics, *everything* is bankrupt. Freedom demands common ground between Citizens that is undivided. That is called *Nation*. A warlord or tyrant can carve out *Nation* to fit their needs... but those tend not to last long at all. A lifetime of repression book-ended by years if not decades of strife and warfare before and after. Until a new tyrant arises... or until Citizens step forward and fight for common ground so they can join together and be more together than they are alone. Start dividing and proscribing that common ground and expect a tyrant soon...
Post a Comment