Whenever there has been a major, and I mean major, crisis affecting the dominant class in a society, and the military isn't being helpful, their last resort for maintaining the status quo is to let (some of) them eat bread. Si! Si! Si! I took liberty with Marie Antionette's line before she, ...er, lost her head over the matter of poverty and oppression in the France of her day. The point here is if bread that they want, but haven't been getting, then, give them what they want...at least some of it...to a chosen few.
It is no different today in the 21st century. Check out "The Anatomy of Revolution" (Crane Brinton, author) and you read that the tactic is the same as applied by the same profile of people for the same reason with the same outcome in mind. In the book Brinton was comparing revolutions in France, England, and Russia. Today it would include the United States. The wealthy of this nation are looking to avoid "losing their heads" over the rising difficulties people in economic stratas below them are facing. The mortage lending industry, apathy towards and disenchantment with both major political parties, funding for war, mismangement of natural emergencies such as Katrina in 2005 and now Gustav are just a short list of things that have been on the surface but not in sight of certain people, until now.
The traditional middle class of Post WWII Euro-Americans have lost the capacity to maintain their accustomed standard of living without the entry of previously excluded people into the 'middle class' room. Now, and in very short period of time, the middle class can't pay for its own upkeep regardless of who is let in and how many. Many middle class debutantes are losing their homes in a loan scam that will only rectify itself when developers and speculators can re-purchase the houses and condos constructed and sold at a ridiculously inflated price at a much lower price. Profit at both ends. It's the running joke in NYC's inner-city. An unsuspecting victim steps to their car to find that their tires, rims and all, have been removed. Just as luck would have it, a stranger walks by, feeling their lament and listening to their justified anger, enters into a conversation with the victim finding out about their stroke of bad luck and offering to reverse it and offer a set of tires, rims included, that he (or a brother-in-law) JUST HAPPEN to have and are willing to sell it (back) to the driver at a bargain price.
The Republican party is certainly out of favor with the U.S. voter, Democrats aren't all that much ahead on the same point. King George (Bush) II saw to that with both the war on terror and the debacle of Hurricane Katrina. The question is "how to pacify the natives, prevent an uprising, and keep your scalp?" You do so by adding a bit of hope. It is just the 'bread' that voters want. But is it hope or just the ruling class distracting a hopeful number of voters into exhaling so as to not lose control? Does Barack know or thinks that he may be the pacifier being offered? OR is he a willing member? Maybe he has a inkling and thinks he can change things ONCE IN OFFICE, change from within?
Never mind the 'usual suspects' of white male candidates. They are an insurance, a face in maintaining the status quo regardless of who wins the elections. The pacifiers are the two little known of candidates along side them. A little know governor from one of the outlining states, Alaska, may also be as much a calculated move to squelch the restless as is Barack.
The last two and most remote states in the union are running for office side by side.
Obama is from Hawai'i and running for president. Palin is from Alaska and running for VP. OPposing parties, yes, but that doesn't change who they are and where they come from. Together they serve to pacify voters in several ways. First are two of the U.S.'s largest and traditionally excluded voting blocks (Blacks & women). Second is the inclusive of two states (numbers 49 & 50) that aren't taken seriously as are the lower 48, in my opinion. Being on the ticket both offer hope for change.
Should either of them choose to have either a Native American or and Asian in their cabinet, real history will have been made. Add some one disabled and who knows what is possible? Where are the Latin@s?
How much hope can there possibly and realistically be in one election?I am hoping that you aren't so enthusiastic about the elections as to over look these minor details. If you are; if you are disregarding the history of how the elite remain being the elite, you are playing into the cycle of pacification and maintaining the status quo. You can just consider everything you've read here in this blog as being a conspiracy (very popular these days) or a simple coincidence. The truth will reveal itself much later on and at a time when the (negative) consequences are being thought of as what always happens and there is no point in reversing the trend and starting over again.You stand more to lose, move on!
I'm not against either Obama or Palin running for office. I visited Hawai'i twice in my lifetime and I'll visit again. Alaska, I have on my travel-to list. Nor am I against hope either. Instead, I'm aware of the situations and I connect the dots in their historical context and mapping the similarities. In my opinion, that is being astute. The upperclass' hope in these elections is for voters to go along and take what is being offered as change. The adjacent fear tatic is that an unintended someone, not as worthy as you (Black people and/or women in this election case), will sieze the moment and leep frog over you and you'll have only yourself to blame for not accepting what the dominant strata offered, a step closer to achieving the (American) dream of wealth and owning a home (even at a debt cost so far above your head that you'll never pay it off). No one will have their bad loans reversed, re-evaluated, and re-structured. No one! What you'll hear is "It is too late for that. Too late to turn around or reverse the clock. and undo the loan. You are at fault for reaching over your head and not being smart."
One more historic reference is in the Caribbean. In Cuba prior to the Socialist Revolution's victory, there were Cuban middle class and elites who knew that the Bautista regime was corrupt, vicious, and bias. Well then, you ask, why didn't they acknowledge what they knew and join in the struggle for change? While losing their lives makes for a valid arguement many others who didn't have as much sacrifice themselves leaving the elite to think that they can remain on top and in time gather more wealth and influence if they survived.
The reason why the ruling class weren't visible standing against the regime was because they stood to lose everything their families have come to possess, the economic wealth, political power, and social status. In some cases they achieved these are material possession as far back as the Spanish colonial period. The risk of losing their wealth, not their lives, made becoming a rebel not worth the risk. They believed they can secretly favor the revolution as closet abolitionists and freedom fighters, but, maintain their status and wealth. They would agree that a change in the head of state was a necessity but not a change in their estate. You can't end slavery by simply just writing it in the law book. You have to also do away with its economic and social structures.
At times like these it is very easy to over look the obvious bribe and be distracted by what position and wealth becomes within reach. Stop and ask yourself, why now?
Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.
Posts
