Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
yes....who is controlling the "controllers"?
|
My first response--"no one"--was off-hand, a bit facetious, but not completely off the mark. The real answer would be that the "controllers" and those "who want to be controlled" are controlling each other in a symbiotic relationship. As I've mentioned before, the progressives cannot escape the necessity of feeding the beast they have created. If they do, they both become extinct. The transfers of wealth, the ever-expanding "safety net," the promises of guaranteed security and comfort, of health care and unsustainable benefits, of jobs created by fiat rather than effort, of a social utopia, must be sustained, even if beyond reason or economic viability.
When Jim in CT keeps wondering why the left cannot recognize simple math in relation to the "economy" he doesn't recognize the life and death struggle to which the progressive movement has evolved. It is not about some mere recognition of simple math, it is about maintaining the perception that the progressive agenda "works." That it is ultimately beneficial more than is what they consider outmoded notions of individualism and self reliance and the restraints of the Constitution.
"Perception is reality" as a mode of conduct is a misapplication of relativity. Perception may be relative, but it is not reality. Relativity may explain why an object may be perceived to be standing still in relation to a viewer when in reality both the perceiver and the object are not standing still but are moving at the same pace in the same direction. The notion that perception is actually reality is saying that there is no such thing as reality in an objective sense. It is mostly a useless notion. One who will cross a busy intersection when for whatever personal "perception" he sees no cars may soon be perceiving his own funeral. Taken to its apogee, such a notion assumes the perceiver is God--"reality" is merely a creation of his perception.
But the notion is very useful in politics. At least in the nefarious practice of politics. The molding of mass perception is that method that used to be referred to as propaganda. That word was used a lot in much of the 20th century, especially during the "cold war" between Communism and the West. You don't hear the word used much anymore. Perhaps, the cold war is perceived to have been won. Or, perhaps, those engaging in it prefer not to call attention to the method. And if the media is complicit, or cowed into being called reactionary if it calls attention to it, the thought, or perception, of such a notion disappears.
So the symbiotic relation between the controllers and those who want to be controlled is facilitated by creating the perception that the controllers are constantly fighting for their underlings. That the negative economy, and the conflicts in society are problems they have inherited from a rapacious and oppressive past, but that there is and has been constant improvement due to their effort. And if those being controlled keep perceiving that things are getting better for them and the controllers are working hard at making it so, they will keep voting for them. If, however, there is a collapse, the votes will not be forthcoming. So it is necessary for the controllers to keep the controlled happy--or, at least, that they perceive they are happy.
And if such a time arrives that the perception is lost, and the reality of an unsustainable society becomes obvious, then do the controllers simply admit their error and go away? Or do we move on to a 1984ish or Brave New Worldish perception of reality.