Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Audacity of Hype
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 433408" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p><span style="color: red">Conclusion:</span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000"><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><span style="font-size: 22px"><span style="color: black">How the State Co-opts the Opposition</span></span></strong></span></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Meanwhile, people come to oppose a subset of the population more than the state that divides them and causes unnecessary social conflict. When they get power, they punish those who used power against them. We all lose in the long term. But the state thrives. </em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Some gay activists and Mormons, major victims of the state in this country not that long ago, have recently turned to fighting over state power in California because of the gay marriage issue. Neither side seems to want a truce based on the idea that the state should get out of marriage entirely, leave people to their own consciences and religious and secular arrangements, a position most Americans would probably agree to if it were presented to them. Instead, the two sides of the polarized debate all fight over control of the state. </em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>In all types of systems, the state wishes to co-opt other potential competitors for social authority, but this is perhaps easiest under democracy. The artistic, scientific, journalistic, academic, legal, and religious communities – each at points in history the most reliable opponents and critics of tyranny – become bought off, intimidated or tricked into rallying for more state power. Churches begin lobbying for tax exemptions – a separation of church and state – and sometimes end up pushing for subsidies. Artists go from being against the establishment to being propagandists for it (witness how Obamania has co-opted the counterculture; those who used to wear anti-U.S. Che Guevara shirts now sport the likeness of the next head of the U.S. empire). </em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Journalists, whose job is to monitor the regime and be the people’s great check on the state and to make good on the First Amendment, become corrupted by political access and positively enamored of the government.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p>]<span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Scientists, who have historically struggled for the freedom of inquiry, get research grants and public status for how well they play ball. Economists whose science was born as a discovery of the mechanics behind </em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>spontaneous social order become paid shills for central planning. Academics and intellectuals of all types become friends of the state, which claims to appreciate them more than the market ever will. </em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Law, once the great constraint on state power, has now been monopolized by the state and has unleashed state power. The lawyers were licensed and as a trade turned into state supporters, although some retain their radical sense of justice.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>The working class, who would benefit greatly from overthrowing the corporate state, becomes despotic when it takes over. When the underdog becomes the ruling class, they are no longer the underdog, after all.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Socialism is the promise of freedom cloaking the advancement of tyranny. So is conservatism. The conservative movement has largely been a perfect example of the state co-opting the opposition. Reagan probably set the freedom movement back more than almost any other president, by expanding the state in the name of shrinking the state, inspiring free marketers to cheer on the president rather than oppose his works, muddling the debate over free enterprise vs. crony corporatism, and convincing opponents of big government that they could woo power for the sake of freedom.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Consider how little conservatives actually complained about taxes and spending when Bush was in power, compared to now. Just by saying he felt their pain and offering some token cuts, Bush co-opted fiscal conservatives, who soon became sycophants for the largest government ever. And now everyone blames the supposed free market for the financial crisis.</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>The liberals are now talking about Afghanistan, defending the war there as the Democrats have been since 9/11. The antiwar center has become co-opted by the regime. Of course, appeals to protecting individual rights and liberating foreigners are part of the rhetoric of the war. They always are.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>The party in power, by adopting the rhetoric of freedom, gets the best of both worlds. Those who tend to oppose what the government is doing at least appreciate the government agreeing with them in the abstract. Opponents of the welfare system support the profligate Republicans; sincere peaceniks support the bloodthirsty Democrats. Those who want bigger government can always use the disingenuous libertarian rhetoric of politicians to blame the state’s stewards for not being active enough, not regulating enough, not waging enough war.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>The pressure was on Bush not to be too laissez-faire. The pressure will be on Obama not to wave the white flag of surrender. The liberals who would oppose a Bush war will split over Obama’s.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>So as we see Bush’s term end and Obama’s just around the corner, we can anticipate a new rhetorical dynamic emerging. The failures of the Bush administration will all be misinterpreted as examples of not enough government. Those who have supported Obama as an alternative to excess neocon imperialism and unbridled police statism will become temporarily placated. The election cycle means throwing out the bums, but it is often actually quite good for the state itself. It gives a new image to the same old racket. </em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>Until the true partisans of liberty understand how the enemy co-opts our message, our struggle will seem futile and our gains will be illusory. The key to championing freedom is in staying dedicated to true free-market principles, property rights, individual liberty, free association, and peace – and eschewing all forms of warmongering, socialism and statism, no matter what rhetorical games are being played or whether the conditional friends of liberty have become duped into accepting the state’s aggrandizement in the name of anything, especially freedom.</em></strong></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><em>It is a good sign that politicians feel they must use our rhetoric, for it means the message of freedom is popular and resonates widely and deeply. But this is all the more reason to be on guard. One good rule of thumb: If the state itself is claiming the banner of freedom, which is the opposite of all it represents, it is almost surely lying and should be watched more closely than ever.</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p></p><p><em><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px">November 20, 2008</span></span></em></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory172.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red"><strong>http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory172.html</strong></span></a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 433408, member: 2189"] [COLOR=red]Conclusion:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff0000][B][SIZE=3][B][SIZE=6][COLOR=black]How the State Co-opts the Opposition[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] [SIZE=3][B][I]Meanwhile, people come to oppose a subset of the population more than the state that divides them and causes unnecessary social conflict. When they get power, they punish those who used power against them. We all lose in the long term. But the state thrives. [/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]Some gay activists and Mormons, major victims of the state in this country not that long ago, have recently turned to fighting over state power in California because of the gay marriage issue. Neither side seems to want a truce based on the idea that the state should get out of marriage entirely, leave people to their own consciences and religious and secular arrangements, a position most Americans would probably agree to if it were presented to them. Instead, the two sides of the polarized debate all fight over control of the state. [/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]In all types of systems, the state wishes to co-opt other potential competitors for social authority, but this is perhaps easiest under democracy. The artistic, scientific, journalistic, academic, legal, and religious communities – each at points in history the most reliable opponents and critics of tyranny – become bought off, intimidated or tricked into rallying for more state power. Churches begin lobbying for tax exemptions – a separation of church and state – and sometimes end up pushing for subsidies. Artists go from being against the establishment to being propagandists for it (witness how Obamania has co-opted the counterculture; those who used to wear anti-U.S. Che Guevara shirts now sport the likeness of the next head of the U.S. empire). [/I][/B] [B][I][/I][/B] [B][I]Journalists, whose job is to monitor the regime and be the people’s great check on the state and to make good on the First Amendment, become corrupted by political access and positively enamored of the government.[/I][/B][/SIZE] ][SIZE=3][B][I]Scientists, who have historically struggled for the freedom of inquiry, get research grants and public status for how well they play ball. Economists whose science was born as a discovery of the mechanics behind [/I][/B] [B][I][/I][/B] [B][I]spontaneous social order become paid shills for central planning. Academics and intellectuals of all types become friends of the state, which claims to appreciate them more than the market ever will. [/I][/B] [B][I][/I][/B] [B][I]Law, once the great constraint on state power, has now been monopolized by the state and has unleashed state power. The lawyers were licensed and as a trade turned into state supporters, although some retain their radical sense of justice.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]The working class, who would benefit greatly from overthrowing the corporate state, becomes despotic when it takes over. When the underdog becomes the ruling class, they are no longer the underdog, after all.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]Socialism is the promise of freedom cloaking the advancement of tyranny. So is conservatism. The conservative movement has largely been a perfect example of the state co-opting the opposition. Reagan probably set the freedom movement back more than almost any other president, by expanding the state in the name of shrinking the state, inspiring free marketers to cheer on the president rather than oppose his works, muddling the debate over free enterprise vs. crony corporatism, and convincing opponents of big government that they could woo power for the sake of freedom.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]Consider how little conservatives actually complained about taxes and spending when Bush was in power, compared to now. Just by saying he felt their pain and offering some token cuts, Bush co-opted fiscal conservatives, who soon became sycophants for the largest government ever. And now everyone blames the supposed free market for the financial crisis.[/I][/B] [B][I][/I][/B] [B][I]The liberals are now talking about Afghanistan, defending the war there as the Democrats have been since 9/11. The antiwar center has become co-opted by the regime. Of course, appeals to protecting individual rights and liberating foreigners are part of the rhetoric of the war. They always are.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]The party in power, by adopting the rhetoric of freedom, gets the best of both worlds. Those who tend to oppose what the government is doing at least appreciate the government agreeing with them in the abstract. Opponents of the welfare system support the profligate Republicans; sincere peaceniks support the bloodthirsty Democrats. Those who want bigger government can always use the disingenuous libertarian rhetoric of politicians to blame the state’s stewards for not being active enough, not regulating enough, not waging enough war.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]The pressure was on Bush not to be too laissez-faire. The pressure will be on Obama not to wave the white flag of surrender. The liberals who would oppose a Bush war will split over Obama’s.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]So as we see Bush’s term end and Obama’s just around the corner, we can anticipate a new rhetorical dynamic emerging. The failures of the Bush administration will all be misinterpreted as examples of not enough government. Those who have supported Obama as an alternative to excess neocon imperialism and unbridled police statism will become temporarily placated. The election cycle means throwing out the bums, but it is often actually quite good for the state itself. It gives a new image to the same old racket. [/I][/B] [B][I][/I][/B] [B][I]Until the true partisans of liberty understand how the enemy co-opts our message, our struggle will seem futile and our gains will be illusory. The key to championing freedom is in staying dedicated to true free-market principles, property rights, individual liberty, free association, and peace – and eschewing all forms of warmongering, socialism and statism, no matter what rhetorical games are being played or whether the conditional friends of liberty have become duped into accepting the state’s aggrandizement in the name of anything, especially freedom.[/I][/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=3][B][I]It is a good sign that politicians feel they must use our rhetoric, for it means the message of freedom is popular and resonates widely and deeply. But this is all the more reason to be on guard. One good rule of thumb: If the state itself is claiming the banner of freedom, which is the opposite of all it represents, it is almost surely lying and should be watched more closely than ever.[/I][/B] [B][I][/I][/B][/SIZE] [I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]November 20, 2008[/SIZE][/FONT][/I] [URL='http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory172.html'][COLOR=red][B]http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory172.html[/B][/COLOR][/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Audacity of Hype
Top