|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
THE RISE OF A LIBERAL ARISTOCRACY AND THE FALL OF AMERICA |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sam Smith, The Progressive Review
(No verified email address) |
06 Nov 2001
|
|
Future historians seeking to discover why America so easily surrendered its democratic traditions and constitutional government in 2001 will find plenty to study in the rise of a liberal aristocracy that became increasingly disinterested in such values. Like all aristocracies, it existed primarily to protect itself, had an impermeable faith in its own virtue, and held in contempt those who did not share its values or accept its hegemony. |
For many years, 20th century liberalism was saved from becoming an aristocracy because of the dominance of such constituencies as labor, recent immigrants, and ethnic minorities. By the 1960s, however, these constituencies - thanks in part to successful liberal policies - had advanced socially and economically to the point that they no longer functioned as a massive reminder of what liberalism was meant to be about.
With the end of the Great Society, liberal Democrats began a steady retreat from liberalism climaxing in the Clinton's administration's systematic dismantling of liberal programs and paradigms.
The two greatest victims of this retreat were social democracy and civil liberties. It was not that the new liberal aristocrats actually opposed either; it just didn't matter much to them. Liberalism was no longer a matter of masses yearning to breath free, but of boomers yearning for an SUV.
While there were still repeated expressions of faith in a declining number of icons such as diversity, abortion, and the environment, the fact was that the liberal elite had become far more characterized by its capacity for self-defense than by its concern for others. After all, although seldom mentioned, the stereotypical boomer or yuppie was, in fact, a liberal. So were the rising elites of entertainment and journalism.
Most striking among these elites was the disappearing concern for those at the bottom. Liberal city councils went after the homeless and engaged in other forms of socio-economic cleansing; the Clinton administration attacked welfare in a manner once limited to the Republican right; prison populations soared without a murmur from the liberals; Democrats supported without question a cruel and unconstitutional war on drugs; the liberal media aristocrats prided themselves in faux realpolitik and patronizing prescriptions for the masses. And if you went to church or carried a gun you were a fool or worse.
The trend produced remarkable betrayals of liberal values. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus backed the war on drugs; the leaders of NOW repeatedly defended a serial sexual predator in the White House. And liberal academia provided all purpose justification through the magic of postmodern rationalization.
Meanwhile, for all the talk of diversity, the percentage of blacks in colleges actually peaked in the late 1970s. The gap between the percentage of young whites and blacks in college likewise actually grew over the past thirty years. And meanwhile, the prison population - disproportionately minority - soared from under 400,000 in 1970 to about two million today.
Through it all, the liberal aristocracy was the dog that didn't bark. Just as Sherlock Holmes' creature failed to warn of an intruder, so America's liberal leadership failed repeatedly to warn of infringements of civil liberties, of unconstitutional acts and legislation, or to rise to the defense of people beyond its own class.
When the liberal aristocracy backed the war on drugs, happily sacrificed national and local sovereignty to multinational corporations, yawned as the Clintons disassembled their own purported cause and became incensed when Ralph Nader dared to stand up for it, it was clear that this atrophied elite would not handle a real crisis.
And now it has happened - and only one liberal Democrat in the Senate opposes vast new police powers and hardly a liberal voice on TV or the op ed pages speaks for sanity. The irony is that the public will not reward the liberal aristocracy for its cowardice but will listen even more devotedly to those before whom the liberals have cowered. In the end, the liberal elite will not only have betrayed its own constituency, it won't even have saved itself.
THE LIST
[In the "Great American Political Repair Manual," your editor listed some of the restrictions on American freedoms that were less than a generation old, each instituted, we were told, to protect us from a danger, a crisis or a threat to national security. Many were advocated, supported or accepted by liberals. The book was written in 1997 and so includes nothing from the last four years]
n Roadblocks as part of random searches for drivers who have been drinking or using drugs.
n The extensive use of the military in civilian law enforcement, particularly in the war on drugs.
n Black school children in Prince George's County MD are being taught by the police how to behave when stopped or arrested. It is assumed by both school officials and the cops that it will happen.
n The use of handcuffs on persons accused of minor offenses and moving violations. - Jump-out squads that leap from police vehicles and search nearby citizens.
n Much greater use of wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance.
n Punishment before trial such as pre-trial detention and civil forfeiture of property.
n Punishment of those not directly involved in offenses, such as parents being held responsible for the actions of their children, employers being required to enforce immigration laws, and bartenders being made to enforce drinking laws. ¨
n Warrantless searches of persons and property before entering buildings, boarding planes, or using various public facilities.
n Closing of public buildings or parts of buildings to the public on security grounds.
n Increased restrictions on student speech, behavior, and clothing. ¨ Increased mandatory use of IDs. - Increasing restrictions on attorney-client privacy.
n Greatly increased government access to personal financial records.
n Loss of a once widely presumed guarantee of confidentiality in dealings with businesses, doctors, accountants, and banks.
n The greatest incarceration rate of any industrialized country in the world.
n Mandatory sentencing for minor offenses, particularly marijuana possession.
n Increased surveillance of employees in the workplace.
n Laws in 11 states that make it a crime to suggest that a particular food is unsafe without a "sound scientific basis" for the claim.
n Random traffic stops of blacks are so frequent that the drivers are sometimes said to have been stopped for DWB - driving while black.
n Increased use of charges involving offenses allegedly committed after a person has been halted by a police officer, such as failure to obey a lawful order.
n Widespread youth curfews.
n Expanded definition of pornography and laws against it.
n Increased use of private police forces by corporations.
n Persons being forced to take part in line-ups because of some similarity to actual suspect.
n Loss of control over how personal information is used by business companies.
n Eviction of tenants from homes where police believe drugs are being sold.
n Public housing projects being sealed to conduct home-to-home searches.
n Use of stereotypical profiles (including racial characteristics) to justify police searches.
n Seizure of lawyers' fees in drug cases.
n Warrantless searches and questioning of bus, train, and airline passengers.
n Random searches of school lockers.
n Random searches of cars in school parking lots.
n Increased number of activities requiring extensive personal investigation and disclosure.
n Lack of privacy in transactions such as video rental or computer use.
n Video surveillance of sidewalks, parks and other public spaces.
n Involuntary drug testing increasingly used as a prerequisite for routine activities such as earning a livelihood or playing on a sports team.
n Steady erosion by the courts of protection against search and seizure.
[Here are some other restrictions that were under consideration at the time the book was written. Some of have come to pass]
n Video surveillance of public bathrooms
n Strip searches of persons matching terrorist or drug courier profiles at airports, bus and train stations
n A national ID card encoded with any or all of the following: medical information, credit history, employment record, arrest and driving record.
n Checkpoints at the edge of selected neighborhoods.
n Random identification checks of pedestrians by police officers
n Curfews for adults in high crime areas
n A computer data search before you would be permitted to board a plane
n Daytime curfews for youths
n Random street frisks for weapons
n Mail covers: recording by Post Service of suspicious names and addresses on envelopes
n Mail surveillance: opening of suspicious mail by Postal Service.
n National database assembling medical, credit, criminal and other records in easily accessible format.
n Mandatory fingerprinting or ID chip implantation for purposes of positive identification.
n Incarceration in "public health centers" for those who fail mandatory drug tests required for drivers' licenses or school attendance.
|
See also:
http://prorev.com/indexa.htm
|
