![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A note on power process in authoritarian politics
I mentioned this elsewhere a few days ago, but I'll remind people about it here too: a key step in the consolidation of power in an authoritarian system (of any form) is the purge of your supporters once you attain a power goal. Make no mistake: once you secure the power, you are specifically purging the people who helped you achieve it. This is by design.
This purge may be committed in the name of corruption, it may be committed in the name of ideology, or there may be some other reason - how you select doesn't even really matter, as long as you target the most potentially independent members of your base, the ones who will object, the ones who will not put loyalty before principle. This is due to the necessity of informing and/or reminding the remainder that they are dependent upon you, not the other way around, and that without your support, they are nothing. It also removes potential future obstacles.
In this sort of culturally-republican-ish environment, and in this case, that means the instant marginalisation of ideas, regardless of merit and/or reality and/or history (c.f. the Democratic Party leadership, Olbermann, et al). In a more openly authoritarian system, it of course means far worse. Fortunately we are not there yet, various GOP rank-and-file desires to the contrary.
It is important to note that I do not suggest here that Senator Obama's actions are a particularly bad or violent example of this phenomenon. This is also not to suggest that there are no differences between the two candidates of the authoritarian establishment; there are, and they are mostly domestic, except for the issue of Supreme Court justices, which could offer the last possibility of resistance. (C.f. the 5-4 vote to retain habeas corpus.) This is also not a call to change your opinions about any token vote you might cast this November, except insofar as the election of an "opposition" party in support of the same things as the "outgoing" party casts these policies more firmly into stone. I instead remind the readers of this stage of power because this is the reality of politics in an authoritarian system; this is simply how that game is played. I suggest that the Obamaniacs take their lessons from this, and be happy that at least they'll live to fight again another day.
I, of course, also suggest that they form a new party, or take over and repurpose an existing national small one; I do not believe the Democratic Party can be salvaged, as I've said many times before. As for the reformers - they're done, certainly, for this act. See that bus, that one on their necks? That's for them. If they realise that quickly, then perhaps they might salvage something.
If you are in that opposition, you'll need to be ready for the next opportunity for turnover rather than the current one, because the Democratic Party plan is now moving into action: to embrace and extend the soft authoritarian system that Chief Executive Bush expanded so dramatically, and which, frankly, I think most Americans have at least been convinced they want. They wish to embrace and extend the lawless Presidency, to preserve the illusion of power in the legislature without the reality, to have control over those absolute powers via the Executive, and, of course, to peddle a use of these powers with different rhetoric and with perhaps a modicum more intelligence as "reform" and "opposition."
The problem, of course, is that it typically takes a significant shock to trigger a significant change in a system without a functional opposition party - by which I mean one which actually opposes - and the current situation was made worse, not better, by such a shock. And I don't think the next one will be far enough off to function as a truly separate event, or to build an actual, functional opposition.
But one, I suppose, can always hope.
This purge may be committed in the name of corruption, it may be committed in the name of ideology, or there may be some other reason - how you select doesn't even really matter, as long as you target the most potentially independent members of your base, the ones who will object, the ones who will not put loyalty before principle. This is due to the necessity of informing and/or reminding the remainder that they are dependent upon you, not the other way around, and that without your support, they are nothing. It also removes potential future obstacles.
In this sort of culturally-republican-ish environment, and in this case, that means the instant marginalisation of ideas, regardless of merit and/or reality and/or history (c.f. the Democratic Party leadership, Olbermann, et al). In a more openly authoritarian system, it of course means far worse. Fortunately we are not there yet, various GOP rank-and-file desires to the contrary.
It is important to note that I do not suggest here that Senator Obama's actions are a particularly bad or violent example of this phenomenon. This is also not to suggest that there are no differences between the two candidates of the authoritarian establishment; there are, and they are mostly domestic, except for the issue of Supreme Court justices, which could offer the last possibility of resistance. (C.f. the 5-4 vote to retain habeas corpus.) This is also not a call to change your opinions about any token vote you might cast this November, except insofar as the election of an "opposition" party in support of the same things as the "outgoing" party casts these policies more firmly into stone. I instead remind the readers of this stage of power because this is the reality of politics in an authoritarian system; this is simply how that game is played. I suggest that the Obamaniacs take their lessons from this, and be happy that at least they'll live to fight again another day.
I, of course, also suggest that they form a new party, or take over and repurpose an existing national small one; I do not believe the Democratic Party can be salvaged, as I've said many times before. As for the reformers - they're done, certainly, for this act. See that bus, that one on their necks? That's for them. If they realise that quickly, then perhaps they might salvage something.
If you are in that opposition, you'll need to be ready for the next opportunity for turnover rather than the current one, because the Democratic Party plan is now moving into action: to embrace and extend the soft authoritarian system that Chief Executive Bush expanded so dramatically, and which, frankly, I think most Americans have at least been convinced they want. They wish to embrace and extend the lawless Presidency, to preserve the illusion of power in the legislature without the reality, to have control over those absolute powers via the Executive, and, of course, to peddle a use of these powers with different rhetoric and with perhaps a modicum more intelligence as "reform" and "opposition."
The problem, of course, is that it typically takes a significant shock to trigger a significant change in a system without a functional opposition party - by which I mean one which actually opposes - and the current situation was made worse, not better, by such a shock. And I don't think the next one will be far enough off to function as a truly separate event, or to build an actual, functional opposition.
But one, I suppose, can always hope.
no subject
no subject
I wonder if people read what you wrote here and think you're loony.
I don't get a lot of that, mostly because I document things pretty well.
I don't think of myself as an insane conspiracy theorist
Unsurprisingly, neither do they ^_^
but I do think that we have one party in the government and they're pretending to be two so we don't just rebel and slaughter them all.
We have a large political class which is beholden mostly to itself. When it has disagreements about things, popular views and things like law and Constitution are invoked as weapons against the other factions. But when it's in agreement within itself, nothing really is going to stop it, no matter how hideous or illegal the agreement might be.
no subject
Crazy theories, and people can think about me what they will
The most likely version of a shadow government (imo, and granted I could be totally wrong and I'm not even 100% convinced of this one) would be more a set of sometimes competing loose corporate mob-type things that through bribery and blackmail manipulate which candidates/parties gets a shot at being elected and limits what they can do economically (and in various other things that effect profits indirectly; thus why I think we have two opposing candidates favoring the alternative energy source that would be as easy to oligopolize--I know that's not a word--and as impossible to decentralize as oil -- if we must have a replacement, let's make sure it is one that keeps power consolidated), but doesn't much care about social issues except insofar as they can be used to manipulate opinion against one set or another.
Though with the telecomm/spying stuff, I'm not at all sure various elements of the rethugs weren't trying to get a lot more blackmail info so that all this behind-the-scenes power could be permanently consolidated into one entity.
None of this is that farfetched or beyond what various elements in our and other governments have already done or suggested, btw.
What I *can't* convince myself of is one single shadow entity pulling strings to the exclusion of all others -- to be very vague and oversimplistic, too much ebb and flow.
All that said, I do see a lot of differences in individual politicians, some being less connected to the various establishments than others, thus the rather less favorable media treatment of some than others, and still others simply being ignored in the hopes that no one will notice what they are saying, though some of this is simply our media being easily manipulated and/or not very good at their jobs, if their jobs are other than propagandists.
(sorry, I'm in a rush and don't have time to do this right, if I'm gonna go out on the conspiracy theory limb, which is why I usually don't except in really obvious specific individual cases, especially since I think I'm a minority view even on some of what I think are obvious specific individual cases)