In 1988, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a popular book about how the corporate media were controlling the national narrative for its own profit. The book sold well. It became required reading for many university courses. Dr. Chomsky was often on the lecture circuit and made many guest appearances on political TV panels. His cause got lots of attention.
With all this publicity, it should have been logical to conclude that this book should have had an effect. And yet, in 2024, the USA is dangerously close to the outcome Dr. Chomsky was warning us about. And this drama ain’t over. So what went wrong?
In 2007, Naomi Klein wrote a popular book about how neoliberalist economics has failed the average people of the world. And in 2024, we still have unelected neoliberals running our economic engines. So what went wrong?
In 2017, Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt wrote a popular book about extrapolating the first few months of the Trump presidency to a future oligarchy. They offered a solution to the Democratic Party, to which I believe the Democratic Party had been following reasonably well (up until the “34 convictions”). This book, too, was widely popular, staying on the New York Times best seller list for a long time. Despite the almost perfect prophecy of these two writers, the USA could not stop the prophecy from reaching the edge of the cliff. The USA may still go over. So what went wrong?
In 2019, I joined Medium. Having no followers, my feed was full of the popular Medium writers of that time. One of those writers was Umair Haque, giving his daily warnings of the upcoming fascism. If Umair is the clarion he claims to be, his work should have set the USA and the rest of the world in a more peaceful direction. Instead, the USA is set for a lot of violence after November 5, 2024. Even with the Harris/Walz upset that seems to be formulating. So what went wrong?
So what went wrong?
All of these writers were working with a 1960s approach to politics.
Let me explain with a little story of the 1960s. I was a little young to understand this story at the time, but it made more sense as the decades moved on.
I grew up in a farming community in southern Alberta. This region was being exploited for its natural gas reserves. The Alberta government, eager for economic benefits, gave the petroleum industry the right to drill oil and gas wells and run pipelines in farmland. The farmers had little say in the oilfield construction — and were given a pittance for the inconvenience the wells posed in their fields. There were complaints, but the 1960s was the time of Big Government and Big Business. The little people were bowled over when business needed to move forward.
One farmer in my community had a bigger grievance than the other farmers. He took the petroleum company to civil court to fix the damage to his land. He lost.
He was not the only farmer to lose. More cases ended up in court. Farmers were not happy with their government. Judges were starting to side with farmers. Farming votes were on the line.
Eventually the Alberta government gave the petroleum industry a big rulebook to abide by when developing oil and gas fields on farmland. And farmers were given the right and mechanism to appeal through a more friendly “landowner’s court.” The petroleum industry did not like that rulebook. But it liked less the penalties the rulebook imposed on them for “non-compliance.” To me, this rulebook was one of many signs that the cozy days between Big Government and Big Business were over.
People were finding their voice on so many other issues in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The American Civil Rights movement and the end of the Vietnam War are two great examples. The people spoke and spoke and spoke. And eventually these social movements found the results they were looking for. Although this was not an easy road, we had a working formula for effecting positive change.
So when Dr. Chomsky released his book in 1988, we probably thought his ideas, which resonated with so many readers, would eventually become the values of society.
You know, people talk to each other about Chomsky’s work. Chomsky readers talk to people who did not read Chomsky’s work. The media amplifies the message of Chomsky’s work. Then people talk to their elected representatives about Chomsky’s work. The elected representatives talk to other representatives about Chomsky’s work. Eventually, the elected representatives create legislation that moves the media in a more society-friendly direction, based on Chomsky’s work. That is how social change can work, right?
Except it really has not worked in turning Chomsky’s work into an effective outcome. The same for Klein, Levitsky & Ziblatt, and Haque. We cannot blame the lack of exposure for these writers. Rather, we can no longer depend on the model of social change that worked somewhat well a few decades ago.
Let me say this in a different way. Chomsky, Klein, Levitsky & Ziblatt, and Haque have let their readers off the hook for their responsibility for improving democracy. According to these authors, the readers need only read their works, nod their heads, and make a little noise. Eventually the overly ambitious people who aspire for elected office will be bent in the right direction. Such little effort is required to nod our heads. No wonder these writers are popular.
What more proof do we need to show this way is not working?
Dave’s New Way
We need a new way. I have that new way. Unfortunately, the way I suggest requires more effort than reading and head nodding. And protesting and voting.
I do not let my readers off the hook. They have to get to work. I explain their mission in Chapter 6 of my book Tiered Democratic Governance.
Yes, you will have to do most of the work and figure out many little things for yourselves. But the reward is a better democracy for your great-grandchildren. And the rest of the world can learn how to do politics a lot better — with your example showing how.
For only 10 hours a month.
And I’m not asking you to invade Normandy.
Published on Medium 2024
I Tried to Save the World in 2009
Popular Ways to Improve Democracy
