- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
Yes Iuutzu, and as drsmith and I said in the 'who will replace Tony Abbott' thread, Scott Morrison appears to be the only politician who can see the wood despite the trees.
To me, he seems to be the only one of either side, that has the courage of his convictions.
However having said that, I've been conned before.
I still have a slight bit of smoke left over from my youth, whether it would be classified as fire, is questionable.
I think we've all been conned before. So I'm quite wary of politicians and try not to have any idols - that way will be pleasantly surprised when good work is done, but otherwise can enjoy the fun from both sides.
Saw this lecture by this American journalist/historian in his 70s (Robert Scheer I think) for his book - The Pornography of Power. And man, you could hear his heart broke when he talks of Bill Clinton and Obama.
How he supported both of them, have great hope that since they came from the common people they would be friendlier to the masses, know struggles... then how he just see them selling out to money and power, literally selling out to big business and Wall St.
He said Bill Clinton was asking his advisors why Wall St. didn't like him, and how to make them like him. Advisors came back and a bunch of Wall St. bankers were put in high powered position and the Cabinet. Then came deregulation of derivatives and all that fun stuff Bush Jr. is mostly taking the blame for.
Same with Obama - all hope and change became just a slogan once he became the Democratic nominee and got the same set of advisors Bill Clinton got.
But the way money and politics are, even the most thoughtful politicians will put their career first and everything else second.
Listening to Howard Zinn... there is hope but he had found that hope do not come from great leaders, it had never came from the top - despite what history books teaches us. All great change and revolution came about because the people mobilise and organised - then politicians, being opportunitistic as always, will lean with the people once it look like the people are winning, they then came in and "lead".
So even if there are great leadership and geniunely civic-minded politician out there, them few cannot affect change and the stubborn ones will be isolated and spit out if the masses do not threaten to storm the gates and demand change. Hence we have public relation, propaganda for the manufacturing of consent; we have job insecurity to keep the masses occupied and easy access to light entertainment to pass the day; a great public educational system that doesn't teach much about thinking or enquiries; and a couple of big bad wolves out there just waiting to terrorise our children if we don't permit imperial grand strategy abroad and invasion of citizen's privacy at home.
So if Scheer's conclusion about Clinton and Obama - that politicians from poor families, won scholarship and know who has the money and who has the power and know that to get both you need to serve money and power - best to not put faith in leadership;
If the blue blood are like those Chris Hedges - a poor kid on scholarship to studies with the elite - observed; that they are a different breed very isolated from the world and whose world revolves around ordering poor and generally ethnic adults; whose schooling revolved around literally running the world; and whose failures are always taken care of... Hope in them is probably misplaced too.
What about the people?
They're too busy putting food on the table and keep the lights on; too well educated to question much; and so will only rise when the world's about to go to heck.
Maybe the only hope is a real, serious and imminent external threat at the time where a real leader just took office, when the masses are marching and the oligarchs are momentarily shaken and lose their grip on power.
Until all that align, it's business as usual and money trickles up but dreams and fine speeches trickle down.
