|
The US
Presidential primary elections will conclude in a matter of weeks.
Unfortunately, our society suffers from a number of myths about
our governmental system, namely that governmental power in the
United States is exercised primarily by the people.
A glance at the
evolution of liberalism effectively challenges this myth and
reveals a history of class control. Whereas classical liberalism
accomplished this through repression and excluding the popular
classes from the political arena, modern liberalism takes public
opinion as its object of government with the goal of manufacturing
the democratic legitimacy necessary to rule.
While Europe
stuttered through the last throes of feudalism, classical
liberalism offered a revolutionary approach to government.
According to mainstream interpretation, classical liberalism
offered a novel doctrine of natural rights and political-economy
as a mechanism of government which worked through a “system of
natural liberty,” in the words of Adam Smith.
But what has
escaped our understanding of liberalism is its central emphasis on
class control. The failure of liberal states to extend “natural
rights” to entire segments of the population – blacks, women,
non-propertied groups – was not simply the effect of racism,
sexism, or other prejudices.
Instead, it was
part of a systematic attempt on behalf of the governing “men of
best quality” to contain the “great beast,” or the general
population, to use the words of Alexander Hamilton. Hume and
Madison expressed similar sentiments, among other preeminent
liberal statesmen and theorists.
This system based
on the repression and exclusion of popular classes largely broke
down. By the early 20th century, “natural liberty,”
including the right to vote, had been won by most segments of the
population through their mobilization against repression; they had
broken into the political arena.
A counter-movement
erupted concerned with preserving liberalism as system of
government that maintained class power relations. For what became
modern liberalism, the primary problem was ensuring class control
in an era of democratization.
Two authors have
become iconic of this evolution in liberal government.
Walter Lippmann’s
solution was that if the class system could no longer control who
could enter the political arena, it could control the political
activity of “the bewildered herd” by the “manufacture of consent”
conducted by the “specialized class.”
Edward Bernays’
argument followed the same logic. The “engineering of consent” was
required for “organizing [the] chaos” caused by emerging popular
democracy. This would require the use of “propaganda,” dubbed
“public relations” by Bernays because “propaganda” became
associated with Germany during the First World War. In his book
“Propaganda,” he wrote: “The conscious and intelligent
manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is
an important element of democratic societies.”
These principles
went on to serve as the basis for institutions and practices,
primarily the mass media and public relations, intended to govern
“democratic societies” through the manipulation of information in
order to reproduce class power relations. We find ourselves in the
same brand of liberalism today.
In thinking about
political action, whether voting or otherwise, we must consider
the myths that make governmental power legitimate in our society.
Accepting this responsibility can uncover the roles and
motivations of the political, economic, and information
institutions and practices which seek to govern how we conduct -
and don’t conduct - ourselves.
Return to Home --
Return to News |
