Corporatism, Cults and Being Used.

Fifteen or twenty years ago I was friends with two men who were completely different on their outlooks and politics. But whether we were at work or drinking at a bar afterwards, we could talk about politics with no tension or strain on the friendships. One of those men was generally on the left whose main interests were legalizing marijuana and ending prejudice. The other man had interests more aligned with Moral Majority – although he did not cajole others and did not have hypocritical bone in his body – he wanted the white picket fence around his house, a large family that dedicated their lives to the church, and he wanted to stop abortion. One called himself a Libertarian, the other called himself a Christian - who was generally on the right. But he was not a member of what was called the Christian Right, at least not at that time. Then came the Bush years, the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, Fox News and the Iraq War - and everything changed.

Neither of those people could have a calm discussion, never mind a debate, about politics at this time. Not with me, not with each other. Except in one area – economics. The Libertarian and the now full-fledged member of the Christian Right would agree on tax cuts, healthcare and deregulation. The fact that I cannot have a calm or logical discussion with either of these two men now, because we have different realities and form our opinions from two completely different sets of facts, is a shame but is also a different subject than the one at hand. Both men have become far more entrenched in their original set of beliefs and have diverged to the point of no common ground over the past decade and a half. The Christian Right member is strongly against gay marriage, wants prayer in school, and is for abstinence education. The Libertarian is vehemently opposed to those ideas, still wants marijuana legalized and would like to see prostitution and gambling available to all adults. Where their ideals have converged is in the belief that their ideologies are tied to corporate freedom. So what they have in common, these two very different men, is a love for privatization, a hatred for the EPA, a belief that corporations should pay little or no taxes and cognitive dissonance. How could so completely different ideologies be identical in areas that should not be an issue with either? That is actually against the interests of those who are socially on the left and those socially on the right?

Indoctrination. Anyone familiar with the methods Scientologists use would be familiar with the methods of right-wing churches and some Libertarians. One is welcomed into a group and presented with non-controversial ideas, at least to the person being approached. Then, little by little, ideas that would not have stood up to objective reasoning on their own are introduced in the context of other accepted ideas and the formula is used, “If this is true, it follows that this is also true.” Scientologists will tell their new inductees that if this last class made them feel better, then Scientology must be true. Even though this is specious reasoning, because people getting attention and friendship will naturally feel better, and it is not necessarily because of any classes they took. The same process is involved with Libertarians and those involved with Christian Right churches.

My left-wing friend would go down to Venice Beach during the nineties and started working with the Libertarians in their efforts to legalize marijuana. From there they convinced him that workers are only held down by unions. (In the beginning of this process he started to refer to his new heroine in discussions - Ann Rand. He has since learned her real name.) Then the Libertarians were able to convince him that if people were to be truly free, the same had to happen to corporations. It just naturally followed. Then, with constant repetition, my old friend was able to change his attitude and what he believed in, completely. He took a job that incorporated those beliefs and tied them to success. His transformation was absolute. The people he used to want to help, i.e. the homeless, etc., were now solely responsible for their own predicament. The list goes on. Where once he was an admirer of Gandhi and Malcolm X, now he is an admirer of Milton Friedman.

My other friend embraced an ideology that he had originally thought of as intolerant and at least slightly hypocritical. The church he joined tied being right with God with being for the Iraq War. The television channel he watched tied patriotism to free-trade and being against anything liberal. There was, in both the church he attended and the television channel he watched, a strong sense of being against a group, or groups, that were less than the one ‘they’ belonged to. These were the same tactics used by the Scientologists and Libertarians – “If this is true, then it follows…” a sense of belonging, a demarcation between us and them, and an inundation of this new set of ‘facts.’ Within a decade, this person who treated everyone kindly and wanted justice for people all over was pro-torture and needed only the flimsiest reason to bomb another country, but would be nearly apoplectic if someone suggested that our health care system is costing people their lives. Both men can now easily throw out facts that do not fit their world views, hold contradictory ideas simultaneously, think of others as less-than, embrace authoritarian ideals and believe wholeheartedly in ideologies that harm their families and themselves. In short, they belong to what could be classified as at least, quasi-cults.

What my two old friends and others like them have not caught on to is that they are being used. The moneyed and corporate interests have taken two distinct groups, from the left and the right, and falsely tied their interests to the corporation’s interests. Of the three groups involved here, the corporations, the social Libertarians and the Christian right, only one group continually gets what it wants while the other two groups are given small scraps and told to keep fighting. How long before the other two groups catch on and realize the interests of the group they have partnered with, are not their own?

Sadly, so many folks don't often take a good hard look in the mirror and compare what they think they see to what is really there.

It's really as basic, imo, as determining what is important to you, the individual, now and what you can anticipate for your life. Then acting accordingly.

A carpenter friend of mine once told me a story about when he was first getting started. He was told that the very first step is to know just what you want, then don't do anything that will get you something else.

It's like that.

Americans need to think more along those lines, and then be part of the political process that will help insure we/they get what they want out of the government.

And before anyone cries out about, "Welfare nation blah, blah, blah." I am working in the assumption that the vast majority of us want more than what welfare will ever offer, that we are willing to work for it, and that we take at least a reasonable amount of pride in what we do and how we get it.

If we take the time to discover our ideals and clearly define them, then, if we practice not being distracted by the latest gobbldy-gook hype, we can work towards being more fulfilled individuals and a stronger nation.

It should be doing well.

K&R!

:hi:

Always great to see you on this site!

The corporate media has an inherent conflict of interest, whether from their parent conglomerate ownership, their need to sell commercials to corporations in order to survive or both and this is why the Republicans want to keep public television and radio on the ropes, eliminating government funding and De facto forcing them to increasingly require corporate donations to stay on the air.

The central underlying brainwashing message by the corporate media on behalf of their clients is that "big government" is bad, not so much that policies are bad but that "big government" is bad in and of itself, just for being big, with no real attempt at correlating the legitimate needs for having a big government in a nation of 300+ million people. Those two words are as the ringing of Pavlov's Bell and your two friends will lather at the mouth when they hear them, and thereby block out compassion, logic and reason.

The other message is that privatization in all things must be good with little real analysis or debate to the contrary.

Big government can be and is made out as the bogeyman whether it opposes mixing government and religion together or setting some logical, modern restrictions or laws against total Libertarianism.

Because of the corporate media's conflict of interest, they simply don't put effort or focus on their corporate clients' true role as the power-brokers; pulling the strings whether, it's working to get government to abandon policies that support "The least of these," those down and out or in supporting total government intrusion in to the peoples' personal/private lives so as to keep them subservient to corporate interests.

Thus your two friends in spite of their differences view themselves as being the enemy of their enemy first and foremost, willing to trade off on their fundamental differences, instead of being citizens in the collaborative effort of representative government.

Because of this successful, corporate media promoted, alienation between the people and their government corrupted politicians caring only for personal wealth and power instead of the public good can more easily obtain and maintain office allowing corporate supremacists to dominate the Democratic Party and own the Republicans and thus reinforce the brainwashing messages pushed by the corporate media.

Thanks for the thread, 20score.

up. That guy I'm referring to didn't know the name of his hero.