Juan O’Gorman: Enemies of the Mexican People

Why I Wouldn’t Give a Single Cent to Howard Dean   or History: Read it and Weep   or Those who do not remember the past are (unintentionally) undermining the future   or A New Strategy for a New Century?     (Date posted:  1/1/04)

Although people who see the answer in political activism may be noble champions of the democratic ideal, they do not seem to appreciate what they are up against. . . . Special interests are bound to be victorious over the common interest in the long run--Ophuls & Boyan, 1992

Howard Dean will certainly be an improvement over George Bush, as will Ralph Nader (if he runs) and many others.  Yet, they will not get one moment of my time nor a single red cent of my money.  Why? 

Most people mistakenly believe that they know what is going on in the USA and the world.  But they don't, because their sources of information—like their sources of drinking water—are contaminated.  The U.S. government routinely lies to and cynically manipulates the world's people, and so does every mass media outlet in the USA (and elsewhere, of course, the USA is no worse in this respect than your average nation state).  Like many other scholars, I studied in detail a few incidents of such media-engineered indoctrination (click here for one example).  Moreover, I know that the vast majority's grasp of real history—as opposed to the jingoistic cherry-tales it was spoon-fed in school—is shaky at best. And sadly enough, once most people acquire a conviction—no matter how ludicrous—they stick to it through thick and thin (click here for more)!   

So, what’s likely to happen?

If Dean survives the media's shenanigans and wins the primaries, the mass media (including the most skillful indoctrinators of them all—NPR and PBS) will turn against him, big time.  After all, the mass media are owned and financed by the one percent of Americans who owns half the country (or is it the one percent of one percent who owns the whole country?).  They like it that way (actually, they are hell-bent on increasing their share), and will see to it that their fellow Americans defend this unnatural, un-Christian, indecent, mal-distribution of wealth with their life, fortune, and sacred honor.  The majority of Americans—the kind of people who were misinformed enough to put yes-men like Reagan and the Bushes in the White house, the kind of people who turn a flunky like Harry Truman into a folk hero, the kind of people who reverentially listen to silly know-it-all Rush Limbaugh—will bray what the media barons cleverly whisper in their ears, fantastically preferring a man who steals them blind and threatens their liberties and very existence (Bush), to less flawed candidates.  Hence, I’d be willing to bet $9 of my money to $1 of yours that Bush wins a Bush/Dean contest.

But suppose a Dean (or a Nader) gets elected president, despite the odds, then what?  Typically, an American president is a powerless man, a figurehead, a puppet of the one-percenters who put him in office (yes, I know that some historians talk about an imperial presidency, but they are either misguided or bought).  If Dean is not an out-and-out puppet, the mass media will destroy him in his first weeks in office—and the gullible majority will believe them.  So, given a bribed congress (campaign donations are bribes), a stacked "Supreme" Court, and a manipulated public, Dean will accomplish nothing—in the unlikely event that he is elected.  He doesn’t seem to know this yet, but he will learn soon enough just how powerful the corporate media are and how indoctrinable the average voter is, just as his few decent predecessors did, starting with Thomas Jefferson. 

But, you may think, nothing is certain in this life.  There is still, say, a 0.1% probability that Dean will overcome these odds, that he will not sell out, that he is not as misinformed about and as indifferent to his countrymen and the long-term future of the biosphere as Bush, and that he will be in a position to accomplish something.  I agree, but in that case the good doctor is likely to be murdered.  Yes, assassinations of people who pose a real threat to the system are commonplace in American history.

There is thus, at best, a 1 in 10,000 chance that Dean's campaign will bring about meaningful change.  In a land where political bribery (aka "campaign financing") and political illiteracy (courtesy of our media and schools) are kings, humanitarians, in the nature of the case, fight with both hands tied behind their back.  And, by yielding to such unfair rules of engagement, people like Dean (or Eugene Debbs, or George McGovern, or Barry Commoner, or Ralph Nader) and their supporters (i) give the system the democratic facade it so badly needs, and (ii) divert precious resources from the one fight that could make a difference.  It is for this reason that, if given a chance, I'd prefer to invest my money and efforts—such as they are—in joining a non-partisan grassroots movement that will dedicate itself exclusively to total (not the jokes they dangle in front of us now and then) public campaign financing (click here for more).  (Ah, if all the money that goes now to Dean, Nader, Sierra Club, Common Cause, safe food campaigns . . . could be diverted to bribe congress to pass a clean politics bill!).  Once this crucial battle is won (and this battle can be won), that movement for systemic change can direct itself to extensive media (click here for more) and educational (see, for instance, Lies My Teacher Told Me) reforms.

To sum up.  Howard Dean's rhetoric is appealing, and the rhetoric of people like Ralph Nader or of organizations like the ACLU is even more appealing.  However, in the long run, such candidates and organizations can accomplish nothing in a system as putrid as ours.  If we want to give peace, justice, the earth, and economic responsibility a chance, we must direct our precious resources towards cleaning up the American political system, starting exclusively with its single most egregious and vulnerable aspect—sunshine bribery.  

Go to Dr. Nissani's Homepage