Lately, discussions with other Medium contributors have been inspiring me to write unique articles about my alternative democracy. In February, one such discussion led me to write my own article about the famous book by Dr. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman: Manufactured Consent.
Maybe because my title was on the controversial side or maybe because I used a celebrity’s name, this article attained 12 times my usual average of Medium traction. But I’m a bottom writer, so 12 times “next-to-nothing” is still not very much. Despite this, the few responses were interesting.
Being an out-of-the-box thinker, I gave my out-of-the-box perspective on Dr. Chomsky’s book. The responders to my article seemed to have missed my point. I will explain myself better with this article.
Changing in the 1960s
The founding fathers put in the right to peaceful protest into the American constitution. Many other countries have copied that idea. But we should not be so naive as to how this democratic feature actually works.
For example, politicians do not change their mind because 10 or 100 or even 1000 voters are outside their office window, shouting slogans and waving signs. Most politicians would look at the protest and say: “Well, they are not voting for me anyway.”
Here’s how peaceful protest really works:
1. The protest garners attention of the media.
2. The media covers the protest.
3. The media coverage gets more citizens thinking about the cause.
4. The next protest gets a little bigger.
5. The media pay more attention.
6. The cycle repeats until public opinion starts shifting to the point where some politicians realize their political life is on the line. They had better address some of the claims of the protests before their political opponents do. Now that’s Machiavellian motivation for you.
The Civil Rights of the 1960s followed this plan. The resignation of Richard Nixon followed this plan. The end of the Vietnam War followed this plan. It took much media attention and many protests and several years, but these plans achieved their objectives. Let’s just say that the relationship between peaceful protest and the media worked quite well.
Back to Manufactured Consent
Admittedly, I have not read this book. Having seen Dr. Chomsky in many media interviews, I anticipate I will agree with what much of this book is saying.
If we use the protests movements of the 1960s as our template, his book should have generated a popular movement to start fixing the media and vested powers behind the media. Manufactured Consent is still a well-read book. It is required reading of many university courses. It got Dr. Chomsky in front of many podiums and panels about improving the media--for several decades. We cannot claim the vested powers stated in this book buried this book.
There has been more than enough attention on Manufactured Consent to turn Dr. Chomsky’s vision into thoughtful discourse, political pressure, and effective legislation.
Manufactured Consent was written in 1988. It has had 35 years to effect social change. For whatever reason, it has not moved society forward. If anything, we have gone in an opposite direction.
The responders to my original article did not seem to understand my point. So I will repeat it again.
Manufactured Consent was written in 1988. It has had 35 years to effect social change. For whatever reason, it has not moved society forward. If anything, we have gone in an opposite direction.
Maybe one more time to make sure everyone understands.
Manufactured Consent was written in 1988. It has had 35 years to effect social change. For whatever reason, it has not moved society forward. If anything, we have gone in an opposite direction.
Let’s not blame the message or the messenger. The message was fine in 1988; it is fine today. The techniques to implement this positive change no longer work.
If we continue to believe that political techniques of the 1960s will bring the positive results we are looking for in 2023, then we should expect the same kind of result as Manufactured Consent.
Should I repeat this two more times?
Machiavelli Again
I’ll bring back my allusion to Machiavellian political motivation. Let’s think about this: We threaten overly ambitious people who are craving more political status, influence, and power. We use our votes to entice them to behave in a certain way — as if they were incapable of any thoughts other than their own little political victories.
And we can do this behind the comfort of our keyboard or occasional protest march while these overly ambitious people put in their 80-hour political work weeks. With 1960s techniques, we are in control, not they! They are Pavlov’s dog. We are Pavlov. We can make them drool! Right?
Methinks the dog has figured things out; he no longer needs to play silly games in our political lab to get fed. He is no longer drooling. So I should bring this excerpt back again:
If we continue to believe that political techniques of the 1960s will bring the positive results we are looking for, then we should expect the same kind of result as Manufactured Consent.
My Solution
I have invented an alternative democracy. In my Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG), there will be no need to amass great public pressure to force those overly ambitious people who aspire for public office to earn our votes. In fact, the TDG electoral processes will find capable people who will willingly and readily consider the ideas in Manufactured Consent. They will find ways to put Dr. Chomsky’s concerns into proper deliberation and effective change.
We on the outside need not write internet articles and protest and protest and protest and write more internet articles until we get our way.
The TDG is not 1960s-type democracy. The sooner we get the new TDG way, the better.
Published in Medium 2023
