AM
(an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind): Gentlemen, what are your thoughts about
Edward Snowden being granted political asylum by Russia’s Vladimir Putin?
IM
(an American citizen with an inquiring mind):
It immediately struck me with the notion that while we have heard about
many others seeking political asylum in America, it is rare to have an American
defect to another nation.
AM: I can only recall one other American: Benedict Arnold, who defected to Great
Britain during our American Revolution.
Old
Gadfly: Yet, I think that, when we
analyze the differences, we will conclude the defection symbolizes a far
greater danger to our national security.
AM: What is that danger, Gadfly?
Old
Gadfly: That danger is the moral low
road that characterizes political affairs in America. First, however, let’s analyze Snowden’s
defection within a broader context. When
Daniel Ellsberg leaked top
secret material to The New York Times,
he did not feel the need to defect. He did not fear for his life and trusted
journalists at the Times to assist in
alerting the American people to deceptions perpetrated under the Johnson
Administration. Snowden, on the other
hand, did not trust the Times (or any
other American news source) to alert the American people of a growing threat to
civil liberties based on expanding National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance
programs. So, he worked with an American
journalist, writing for the United Kingdom-based newspaper, The Guardian.
IM: Incidentally, it was The Guardian where I first learned about Obama insisting upon a specific
provision to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens in the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. We discussed this disturbing development last
September (Engineering
Public Sentiment). So, this NDAA provision
likely explains why Snowden felt compelled to leave America before leaking the
information about NSA surveillance programs.
AM: Arguably, Snowden’s behavior may actually have
been patriotic and courageous. Manning’s behavior was neither patriotic nor
courageous. Manning’s behavior reflected
an evil disposition (see our discussion on the Banality
of Evil) in leaking thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks. There is no evidence that Manning acted on
behalf of the American people. If
anything, Manning’s actions put Americans at risk. To America’s credit, Manning is receiving his
“due process” rights under the Fifth Amendment.
IM: Gadfly, how do these points relate back to
your moral low ground theory?
Old Gadfly: Let’s start by connecting some important
facts:
Progressives are
dividing America by declaring a set of “enemies” that consist of a variety of
characteristics under the broader heading of conservative: the 1%, Republicans, evangelicals, pro-life
advocates, Tea Party members, even veterans.
The language emphasizes “hate” as the criterion for being defined as an
extremist. Unfortunately, progressives
cannot evoke the same visceral reaction by more accurately representing the
orientation of these groups as simply believing and advocating “contrary views.” This distinction was obvious in Congressman
McDermott’s “hateful” demonization of groups targeted by the Internal
Revenue Service.
George Lakoff, as the
self-proclaimed force behind the spread of progressivism in modern politics, also
belies this notion in the title of one of his books: Moral
Politics: How Conservatives and Liberals
Think. In Moral Politics, Lakoff presented a case whereby conservative views
are not only wrong—they are immoral. These
progressive views are even permeating an organization that is gradually taking
on the role of “internal security,” a function that has been so essential for
controlling populations within totalitarian regimes. As the emerging “internal security” arm of
the current political administration, the Department of Homeland Security released
a report soon after
the 2008 Presidential election. Here is
an excerpt from the report:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can
be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are
primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or
ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal
authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government
authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to
a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. (p. 2)
I just described the
current Administration’s philosophical context with a glimpse of messaging
approaches. Messaging is important—it becomes
the public narrative. Unfortunately, the
narrative can be deceptive. In America,
the first clear attempt to advance political propaganda occurred under Woodrow
Wilson’s direction. Wilson was a
progressive, who believed in a strong, central administrative state. When time for reelection, Wilson campaigned on the promise of not committing American
fighting forces to the First World War. Within
weeks of a very narrow reelection, Wilson issued Executive Order 2594 on April
13, 1917 creating the Committee on Public Information. Given prevailing public sentiment at the
time, Wilson knew he could not get reelected if he intended to commit armed
forces to the war. So, he essentially
told the public what they wanted to hear in order to get elected. Once elected, Wilson could then do what he
wanted, regardless what the majority of Americans wanted. This is why he needed the messaging
capability of the Committee on Public Information.
The purpose of the Committee on Public Information was to
generate public support for entering and sustaining the war, among many, many
other domestic political, social, and economic programs. One of the committee members was Edward Bernays, a public
relations expert.
In addition to his own autobiography, Bernays published
three works of significance: two books, Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928); and a journal
article, “The Engineering of Consent,” Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (March 1947). What is ironic about these developments is
that the most prominent, progressive President since Wilson, who now occupies
the White House, had as his initial senior advisor a public relations expert,
David Axelrod.
Bernays is known for inventing the press release. Obama and Axelrod have modernized this
technique with social media, Twitter, Facebook, and so forth. Unlike his predecessors, the current
President also has the luxury of a mainstream media that goes out of its way to
publish favorable press releases, or not to report news that is unfavorable to
the Administration. Engineering public
consent has never been easier for the incumbent President and political elite.
Here’s an example of what I am talking about. On December 20, 2011, I caught a headline on
page A23 of the New York Times (New
York edition): “House Republicans Refuse to Budge on Extension of Payroll Tax
Cut.”[4] The article commended the Democrat-controlled
Senate for exercising leadership and advancing a solution, and harshly
criticized the Republican-led House for being obstinate. What the article does
not say is that House Republicans had already forwarded a bill that they had passed
on December 13. House Resolution (H.R.) 3630,
“Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011,” passed with 224
Republicans and 10 Democrats voting in favor, and 14 Republicans and 179
Democrats voting against the bill.[5] H.R. 3630 provided for a 12-month payroll tax
cut. On December 17, the Senate sent to
the House an amendment (Senate Amendment 1465) to H.R. 3630 that changed the
12-month payroll tax cut to 2 months. The
New York Times article’s headline and
content made it look like Republicans blocked the payroll tax cut.
Add to this relatively minor example the more egregious deceptions
related to circumstances surrounding the attack on Benghazi, the IRS targeting
of conservative groups, and the intimidation of journalists, to mention just a
few, paint a disturbing picture. The timing
of the Benghazi and IRS targeting stories demonstrate to what length those in
power are willing to go to suppress adverse information or contrary views during
election cycles in 2010 and 2012. The Department
of Justice harassment of journalists stifled the role they are designed to play
in support of our First Amendment. Unfortunately, while there are some
journalists willing to keep a watch on the abusive power of government, there
are far too many, as we have already
discussed, who are guilty of complicity, duplicity, and mendacity.
In the Hitler regime, the Minister of Public Enlightenment, Joseph
Goebbels, admired Wilson’s political ideology and emulated Bernays’ propaganda
methods.
In his autobiography, Bernays lamented this fact:
Karl von Wiegand, foreign
correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and
just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his
propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Wiegand his
propaganda library, the best Wiegand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Wiegand, was
using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his
destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. . . .
Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the
Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.
Does this sound familiar?
Is this reference to a “planned campaign” similar to the logic behind “American
enemies of the progressive movement,” that is, the 1% who have not paid their fair
share, Republicans, evangelicals, pro-life advocates, Tea Party members, even
veterans?
AM: Gadfly, the sinister developments that we
have observed in America since around 2007, when Democrats took control of both
houses of Congress, do seem to indicate a deliberate campaign to secure
political power for the progressive movement at a significant cost in moral
authority. The global vacuum generated
by the lack of American character-based political leadership is having a
terrible impact. This impact is clearly
evident in
·
the
attack on American citizens in Benghazi and deliberate attempts to deny what
happened;
·
the
Administration’s capricious disregard for laws in the case of the bin Laden
battlefield execution and drone assassinations of American citizens;
·
the
continued chaos in the Middle East, from a nearly nuclear bomb capable Iran, over
100,000 civilian casualties in Syria, to Muslim Brotherhood attempts at power
in Egypt;
·
the
intimidation of journalists by the Department of Justice;
·
the
intimidation, harassment, and censorship of opposing views via one of the most
feared agencies in America—the IRS;
·
the
obfuscation of NSA surveillance programs;
·
the
obfuscation about Obamacare;
·
the
obfuscation about how the Administration is investigating the “phony scandals,”
and so forth.
IM: Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew absurdly
demonstrated such obfuscation during this past Sunday’s talk shows. Perhaps the most insidious demonstration of obfuscation
was reflected in the claims about increasing jobs and reducing the deficit. Here is a picture from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics on the percent of the civilian population actually employed.
A percent is equivalent
to approximately 1.5 million people. The
difference between the 63% in 2007 and the 58.5% in 2013 represents about 6.75
million fewer people working.
What this picture does not reflect is the number of those
who are only part-time. In other words,
even for those who are characterized as employed are not full-time and are not
receiving benefits such as employer-provided healthcare insurance. Here is the number of part-time employees, in
thousands:
In other words, this picture indicates an increase of 2.5
million people in the part-time employment category.
AM: How about Lew’s
comment about the most aggressive debt reduction since the end of World War II?
IM: As we discussed
last year, the terms deficit and debt tend to be intermingled. When we reduce deficit spending in our
household budgets, we typically get there by either reducing our spending
and/or increasing our income from earnings.
Progressives like to increase spending and to accommodate that spending
through rent-seeking, or taxation upon those who earn incomes. Earnings is a measure of production or wealth
and is typically represented in macroeconomics as the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). The following is a picture of the annual federal budget in comparison
with the GDP through 2011. The values
have been standardized for comparison purposes.
What this picture tells us is that, in 2007, government
spending increased significantly as the GDP was decreasing. This is why we see the red line crossing the
black line. What is significant about
this dynamic is that the capacity for rent-seeking (e.g., tax revenue) has diminished (because of a shrinking GDP) while the appetite for spending has
increased. Notice also that the budget
was well below GDP between 1994 and 2006.
This period marks Republican control of both houses of Congress.
Old Gadfly: So, now
that we have looked at the facts, what can we conclude?
AM: Progressives cannot
acknowledge the truth—it does not support their ideology.
IM: Thus,
progressives must resort to the moral low road.
Old Gadfly: How do we
get back on the high road?
AM: With integrity
and courage.
Old Gadfly: From where will people of integrity and
courage come?
IM: It starts with
you, AM, and me. This is what liberty is
all about. We cannot shrink from it. We embrace it, we live it, and we teach it
through example.
Old Gadfly: Well
said, IM. Keep in mind: many have paid a
price for liberty.
AM: And the price may
explain the difference between the innate goodness of humankind versus the banality
of evil that seeks to diminish that goodness.
Old Gadfly: Awareness
of that difference is priceless.
