Disclaimer: While I reference church and Christianity in this post about politics, I reject Christian Nationalism.
6 years ago there was a guest speaker at my church and he shared an illustration to explain the role of a prophet to society. It has stuck with me ever since. He described a person out at night standing beneath a lit street lamp. The prophet throws a rock at the street lamp, the glass breaks, the light goes out, and the person is left in darkness. But then, after a few minutes, the person’s eyes adjust and they are able to see in the dark. And they can see further than they could under the little island of light that the street lamp provided. Before, under the street lamp, there was fear of the darkness beyond. Now, in darkness, the eyes have adjusted to a more accurate picture of reality.
I was reminded of this illustration and the represented moment of clarity in my recent reading of the Noam Chomsky collection, “How the World Works.” Chomsky posits that the US political system, and the media likewise, is set up to exclusively serve “big business” while only appeasing those that do not belong to this “elite” class. Further, there is truly only one ruling political party, “the business party” and while they are separated republican and democrat, they both report to the same boss.
That’s not to say there aren’t very real differences in the 2 parties and their platforms, but ultimately keeping the “business oligarchy” in power is the top, unspoken priority of both:
Modern “democratic theory” takes the view that the role of the public—the “bewildered herd,”—is to be spectators, not participants. They’re supposed to show up every couple of years to ratify decisions made elsewhere, or to select among representatives of the dominant sectors in what’s called an “election.” That’s helpful, because it has a legitimizing effect.
If you put any credence to the previous quote, it can be quite deflating and doesn’t particularly motivate a person to vote. However, Chomsky also offers this answer during an interview:
As John Dewey put it about seventy years ago, “Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.” As long as you have highly concentrated, unaccountable private power, politics is just going to be a shadow. But you might as well make use of the shadow as much as possible, and use it to try to undermine what’s casting the shadow.
Didn’t Dewey warn against mere “attenuation of the shadow”?
He said that mere “attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance,” which is correct, but it can create the basis for undermining the substance. Eventually you want to dismantle the cage, but expanding the floor of the cage is a step towards that. It creates different attitudes, different understandings, different forms of participation, different ways for life to be lived, and also yields insight into the limits of existing institutions. That’s typically learned by struggle. All these things are to the good. They only attenuate, that’s true, and by themselves they won’t overcome, but they’re the basis for overcoming. If you can rebuild, reconstitute and strengthen a culture in which social bonds are considered significant, you’ve made a step towards undermining the control that private and state power exercise over society.
As Chomsky says, progress is typically learned by struggle. He then recognizes “signs of progress” in the US that were realized through struggle. Note that this particular selection was written in 1998:
It’s a much more civilized society than it was thirty years ago. Plenty of crazy stuff goes on, but in general, there’s an overall improvement in the level of tolerance and understanding in this country, a much broader recognition of the rights of other people, of diversity, of the need to recognize oppressive acts that you yourself have been involved in.
And from a broader perspective:
I’m not saying things are great now, but they are much better, in virtually every area. In the 1700s, the way people treated each other was an unbelievable horror. A century ago, workers’ rights in the US were violently repressed.
He then lists several noteworthy occasions of events and movements that saw great struggle but which led to progress. He ended this list with a relatable example:
Right now we’re trying to defend a minimal healthcare system; thirty years ago there wasn’t a minimal healthcare system to defend. That’s progress.
As I read these things, I felt very mixed. All of these signs of progress are obviously good things but it can feel very small compared to what one may hope for in a just and fair society. But that’s reality, and realistically there is a lot more struggle ahead, especially when it comes to the work of dismantling an unjust power structure.
All those changes took place because of constant, dedicated struggle, which is hard and can look very depressing for long periods. Of course you can always find ways in which these new attitudes have been distorted and turned into techniques of oppression, careerism, self-aggrandizement and so on. But the overall change is toward greater humanity. Unfortunately, this trend hasn’t touched the central areas of power. In fact, it can be tolerated, even supported, by major institutions, as long as it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter—their power and domination over the society, which has actually increased. If these new attitudes really started affecting the distribution of power, you’d have some serious struggles.
Disney is a good example of the kind of accommodation you’re describing. It exploits Third World labor in Haiti and elsewhere, but domestically it has very liberal policies on gay rights and healthcare.
It’s perfectly consistent for the kind of corporate oligarchy we have to say that we shouldn’t discriminate among people. They’re all equal—equally lacking in the right to control their own fate, all capable of being passive, apathetic, obedient consumers and workers. The people on top will have greater rights, of course, but they’ll be equally greater rights—regardless of whether they’re black, white, green, gay, heterosexual, men, women, whatever.
To turn our attention to how the media plays a part in all this:
Whether they’re called “liberal” or “conservative,” the major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger conglomerates. Like other corporations, they sell a product to a market. The market is advertisers—that is, other businesses. The product is audiences. For the elite media that set the basic agenda to which others adapt, the product is, furthermore, relatively privileged audiences. So we have major corporations selling fairly wealthy and privileged audiences to other businesses. Not surprisingly, the picture of the world presented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers and the product. Other factors reinforce the same distortion. The cultural managers (editors, leading columnists, etc.) share class interests and associations with state and business managers and other privileged sectors. There is, in fact, a regular flow of high-level people among corporations, government and media. Access to state authorities is important to maintain a competitive position; “leaks,” for example, are often fabrications and deceit produced by the authorities with the cooperation of the media, who pretend they don’t know. In return, state authorities demand cooperation and submissiveness. Other power centers also have devices to punish departures from orthodoxy, ranging from the stock market to an effective vilification and defamation apparatus. The outcome is not, of course, entirely uniform. To serve the interests of the powerful, the media must present a tolerably realistic picture of the world. And professional integrity and honesty sometimes interfere with the overriding mission.
Just like the politicians on both sides of the aisle, the media is compromised and they protect the oligarchy. As Chomsky goes on to explain:
Toward the end of Manufacturing Consent, you conclude that “the societal purpose of the media is to…defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state.” Anything you’d want to add to that?
It’s such a truism that it’s almost unnecessary to put it into words. It would be amazing if it weren’t true. (There is a persistent) idea that the media are liberal. (But the real point is this)—what really matters is the desires of the people who own and control the media. I may slightly disagree about whether they’re liberal. In my view, national media like the Washington Post and the New York Times probably meet the current definition of the word liberal. Sometimes they even run things I approve of. For instance, to my amazement, the New York Times actually had an editorial in favor of greater workers’ rights in Indonesia… The Times also has columnists that I don’t think you would have seen there forty years ago, and they often write very good stuff. But in general, the mainstream media all make certain basic assumptions, like the necessity of maintaining a welfare state for the rich. Within that framework, there’s some room for differences of opinion, and it’s entirely possible that the major media are toward the liberal end of that range. In fact, in a well-designed propaganda system, that’s exactly where they should be. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. So you’re allowed to discuss whether the Mideast “peace process” should be implemented immediately or should be delayed, or whether Israel is sacrificing too much or just the right amount. But you’re not allowed to discuss the fact—and it certainly is a fact —that this so-called “peace process” wiped out a 25-year, internationally-supported diplomatic effort recognizing the national rights of both contending parties, and rammed home the US position that denies these rights to the Palestinians. Let’s clarify what it really means to say the media are liberal. Suppose 80% of all journalists vote Democratic. Does that mean they’re liberal in any meaningful sense of the word, or just that they’re at the left end of an extremely narrow, centerright spectrum? Take it a step further. Suppose it turns out that 80% of all journalists are flaming radicals. Would that show that the media themselves are radical? Only if you assume that the media are open to the free expression of ideas (by their reporters, in this case). But that’s exactly the thesis under debate. The empirical evidence that this thesis is false is overwhelming, and there has been no serious attempt to address it. Instead, it’s just assumed that the media are open. It’s possible to get away with that kind of thinking if power is sufficiently concentrated and educated sections of the population are sufficiently obedient.
The media is an extremely powerful tool to control the narratives of what is and is not allowed to be discussed in the public arena within the framework of oligarchy-approved talking points. But here Chomsky indicates that even in a compromised media, there are opportunities to use it for good. Note that this was written in the early years of widespread home internet use, before smartphones and social media platforms:
In Elaine Briére’s documentary film on East Timor, Bitter Paradise, you say, “The press isn’t in the business of letting people know how power works. It would be crazy to expect that....They’re part of the power system—why should they expose it?” Given that, is there any point in sending op-ed pieces to newspapers, writing letters to the editor, making phone calls?
They’re all very good things to do. Our system is much more flexible and fluid than a real tyranny, and even a real tyranny isn’t immune to public pressures. Every one of these openings should be exploited, in all sorts of ways. When you get away from the really top, agenda-setting media, there are plenty of opportunities. It isn’t just a matter of writing op-eds and making telephone calls, but insisting, by all kinds of public pressures, that there be openings to your point of view. There are understandable institutional reasons why the media are so deeply indoctrinated and hard to penetrate, but it’s not graven in stone. In fact, the same factors that make it so rigid also make it rich in ways to overcome that rigidity. But you have to do something—you can’t just sit around waiting for a savior. Another approach is creating alternative media, which may well have the effect of opening up the major media. That’s often been done.
But you don’t see getting the occasional op-ed piece published as a substitute for a truly independent, democratic media.
It’s not a substitute—it’s a step towards it. These things interact.
You’re often introduced as someone who speaks truth to power, but I believe you take issue with that Quaker slogan.
The Quakers you’re referring to are very honest and decent, and some of the most courageous people I’ve ever known. We’ve been through a lot together, gone to jail together, and we’re friends. But—as I’ve told them plenty of times—I don’t like that slogan. Speaking truth to power makes no sense. There’s no point in speaking the truth to Henry Kissinger—he knows it already. Instead, speak truth to the powerless—or, better, with the powerless. Then they’ll act to dismantle illegitimate power.
So why am I writing this? As I mentioned at the top, reading this collection by Chomsky reminded me of the street lamp illustration. To have the political and media landscape laid out and articulated in this clear and convincing way by a respected intellectual was mind-blowing to me. I had previously held suspicions toward this end, but it all felt so very conspiratorial. To see the way the world works and how the general public is manipulated by sports and entertainment to keep us occupied and largely sedated, everything being politicized and partisan, the use of bureaucratic systems to keep us frustrated and hopeless to engage and work for change, the use of outrage to drive division and prevent us from coming together to solve injustice that impacts everyone in this American Empire and the World at large.
“Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”
-Juvenal, Roman Poet, in reference to the common citizens of Rome
With all that said, I’m still voting and I’m voting with my principles. I’m simply aware that the victory of my preferred candidate will not solve all of the nation’s troubles. The struggle will go on. A political sign that I’ve gotten a kick out of this election season is “Harris-Walz, obviously.”
And that’s honestly how I see it. The future presented under a Harris presidency is the future I want to move toward for myself and my family. Alternatively, I see the prospect of another Trump presidency as a clear and present danger that has the potential to set the country back in immeasurably harmful ways. His campaign has made it clear that they plan to undo much of the progress that has been struggled for over the decades and centuries of this country. I have no interest in seeing him with 4 more years of presidential power. There is a lot more that I could say about the man, but I’m choosing not to because it wouldn’t solve anything. I would either be “speaking to the choir” or the message would fall on the deaf ears of his devoted base. But even if he does win—just like a Harris victory— the struggle will go on.
Ad Astra per Aspera
PS- To those of you who are Christian and interested in thoughtful discourse about how to live in the midst of these power structures, I highly recommend the recent sermon series from my church entitled, “Kingdom, Power, and the Powers”
