The Family

smacl wrote: »

Anyone else here watching the new Netflix documentary, The Family, which covers the exceptional influence of a well-funded American right wing group in undermining democratic process initially in the states and later worldwide. Having also recently watched their documentary following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it looks like democracy is being attacked from quite a few angles at this point and struggling badly if not failing outright as a result.

It would be an idea to put the word democracy in "". Especially so when your talking the U.S.

The mere ability to choose between two massive machines, who exercise control over huge swathes of the means by which we can be informed, isn't what I'd call a democracy.

It would be like supposing the choice between a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder n' Cheese an actual choice. Forgetting all the while that you had no choice but to eat in McDonalds.

smacl wrote: »

It is a fair point to the extent that the choice that people are offered doesn't include the choice they might want.

That would be a rather conservative slant. If German voters had been offered a choice between two parties, that of Hitlers and that of a German Mussolini, we would have more to say than the voters weren't being offered the choice they want - which is always the case

At the same time, what we're seeing here is the undermining of whatever democracy that does exist, warts and all. This effectively results in an oligarchy of right wing Christian conservatives.

My point was that a baseline needs to be established from which to measure a particular element (such as right wing christian conservatives).

In the case of the US, it can be argued that there is no democracy there such that any particular current element can be said to be damaging it in any significant way. There is, for instance, no choice in the matter of neo-conservatism, engorging capitalism, imperialist foreign policy, perma-war.

The bail out of Wall Street (and the middle fingering regarding it arising from bankers not being jailed, indeed the practice of same bankers taking up financial policy roles in Government/the Fed) kind of indicates the state of democractic play over there.

smacl wrote: »

The argument made in this documentary is that the group involved have been successfully undermining the American democratic process since the days of Eisenhower. My take on it is that this "Family" of far right religious conservatives have played a significant role in the damage done to democracy, in that it does not serve the will of the people.

Out of interest, have you seen the documentary in question?

No I haven't. But I would lay the idea that America is as it is because of a right wing 'family' firmly at the door of the conspiracy theory forum.

I'm inclined more towards complexity theory - one which sees human nature as a significant (and unforeseen in its influences and consequences) player. Rather than any small grouping of lever-pullers (the Jews being another some such).

It can make for convincing TV but the truth is probably more... er .. complex

smacl wrote: »

So while all this is bizarre enough to give the feel of a conspiracy, I've yet to see anything to suggest that it actually is. Maybe you know different?

I'm not at all suggesting that there aren't groupings working to undermine "democracy" (NRA? Big Tobacco/Pharma/Food?). Nor that groupings exist which operate far more in the dark than the lobby groups/industries mentioned.

I'm suggesting that democracy in America has long been an illusion and that any group working to undermine democracy is undermining something long since hollowed out by any number of factors beyond the actions of any one group. I mean the American Electoral College system is utterly democracy-busting all on it's own. As is the two party of the rich system there which means only anti-democrats can wield power.

I don't buy some supergroup pulling the strings of something that can be explained by far more mundane mechanisms, such as the sociopathic nature of corporations with shareholders, and not democracy, to serve.

The argument made in this documentary is that the group involved have been successfully undermining the American democratic process since the days of Eisenhower.

It was already bad enough in Eisenhowers day, him being the one to issue warning in his coining of the phrase "military-industrial complex". That democracy-destroying entity coming about not because of any family but because of a world war which saw great wealth generated from weapons manufacturing, the desire to maintain that wealth generation and a Cold War to provide a rational for having the goose continue to lay golden eggs.

Add Americas dominant position immediately post-war vs. the ruination of former empires and powers and you've the simplest of paths into America-as-empire (or "world policeman" as they used to have us believe). All as natural as the weather (a now redundant phrase). The world order was there to be mopped up post WWII

Its not a family that causes someone to decide to use a €1mil smart cruise missile to take out a sheep herder and his flock of sheep in Iraq, it's much more simple than that. The €1m cruise missile has to be replaced.

Like I said at the outset: the phrase "American Democratic Process" is meaningless. The horse has already bolted. Figment of imagination.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes so let's ignore the Republicans' blatant voter suppression and gerrymandering. Nothing to see here, move along. :rolleyes:

I don't recall drawing a distinction between 'democrat' or replublican. My comment apply to both equally.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You'll find it's the Republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters of colour. Yes Democrats were masters of gerrymandering decades ago, but today you'll find it's the Republicans at it. America has a liberal majority but its politics do not reflect this.

I recall the Democrats disenfranchising just about everyone with their bailing out of too-big-to-fail banks after the GFC.

And it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who permitted the banks to become too big to fail.

You might also recall that same democratic government disenfranchising by means of perma war, lack of gun control and a host of other business as usuals.

The point being there is little difference of substance between red and blue.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's not what disenfranchising means.

No point engaging with you if you alter the meaning of words to whatever you like.

Disenfrancishment: deprived of a right or privilege. The right not to have your money stolen from you by government and given to gambling banks?

Perhaps you take a very narrow, technical view? You suppose the fact you can cast a useless vote every 4 years means you live in a democracy?

smacl wrote: »

Not so. You would seem to have cherry picked the first line of the Merriam-webster definition. The full definition is as follows;



and the explanation;



Nothing narrow or technical in Hotblack's use whatsoever.

He was commenting on my posting on democracy - which a little wider an issue than whether or not you can vote. In that context his use of the word is narrow.

Hotblack seems to be confusing two players in a loaded game exerting effort to ensure their loaded dice is the one played, with an attack on democracy.

Its not an attack democracy (since that doesn't exist in the US). Its an attack aimed at preventing another player getting to hold the conch instead of you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not at all suggesting that there aren't groupings working to undermine "democracy" (NRA? Big Tobacco/Pharma/Food?). Nor that groupings exist which operate far more in the dark than the lobby groups/industries mentioned.

I'm suggesting that democracy in America has long been an illusion and that any group working to undermine democracy is undermining something long since hollowed out by any number of factors beyond the actions of any one group. I mean the American Electoral College system is utterly democracy-busting all on it's own. As is the two party of the rich system there which means only anti-democrats can wield power.

I don't buy some supergroup pulling the strings of something that can be explained by far more mundane mechanisms, such as the sociopathic nature of corporations with shareholders, and not democracy, to serve.



It was already bad enough in Eisenhowers day, him being the one to issue warning in his coining of the phrase "military-industrial complex". That democracy-destroying entity coming about not because of any family but because of a world war which saw great wealth generated from weapons manufacturing, the desire to maintain that wealth generation and a Cold War to provide a rational for having the goose continue to lay golden eggs.

Add Americas dominant position immediately post-war vs. the ruination of former empires and powers and you've the simplest of paths into America-as-empire (or "world policeman" as they used to have us believe). All as natural as the weather (a now redundant phrase). The world order was there to be mopped up post WWII

Its not a family that causes someone to decide to use a €1mil smart cruise missile to take out a sheep herder and his flock of sheep in Iraq, it's much more simple than that. The €1m cruise missile has to be replaced.

Like I said at the outset: the phrase "American Democratic Process" is meaningless. The horse has already bolted. Figment of imagination.

Smacl. It occurs to me that I'm arguing naturalistic ToE for the destruction of democracy in the US. And that you, with the family are arguing special creation ☺

smacl wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by the above.

My position is that democracy doesn't exist in the States. And that that state of affairs is the result of a myriad of circumstances which have naturalistically arisen and evolved over time. ToE. You can include the present day banking system protected by the taxpayer - something that finds its roots back in the troubled times of 1929 and before .. as something which arose naturalistically and evolved. Or the militaryindustrial comex with its roots in wwii.

The alternative view is that democracy does exist in the States and that a secret grouping is at work to undermine it. (Or democracy doesn't exist and a secret group brought that about). That would be special creation. ☺

The issue put forward in the documentary was the gerrymandering by this group and senior government officials that were part of the group setting up unofficial political back-channels on behalf of the group. Along with Donald Trump, other recent attendees at the Family National Prayer Breakfast were Mariaa Butina and Jared Kushner, later investigated by the FBI in relation to Russian collusion in the Trump campaign. Interesting article on this no less a source than the National Catholic Reporter.

I made the point that the likes of gerrymandering is merely the attempt by one potentially controlling side into gain a jump on the other potentially controlling side. Its not denocracy destroying since democracy is already deestroyed.

We don't view gerrymandering that results in a tinpot African dictator obtaining 90% of the 'vote' as democracy destroying.

We know there is no democracy in that country to start with. We know that the tinpot dictator is merely displaying the same childish attempt at subterfuge that he displays when he stands viewing military parades with soldiers barely able to keep time marching - him wearing western style military regalia with rows of medals pinned to his chest. In that case the non-democracy is obvious. Laughable almost.

And so too is it in the US. The notion of democracy is laughable. The country is firmly in the hands of big money and big power.

This Family is merely one of the power players desiring to ensure they are the power player with the most power.

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, but that sounds like a flimsy excuse concocted to justify the actions of a bunch of over-privileged megalomaniacs attempting undermine the legitimate running of a state, as created by many successive democratically elected representatives over an extended period of time.

I really don't think the comparison between a tinpot dictatorship in Africa and a major super-power stands up. Nor for that matter is the American government, for all of its many flaws, comparable to a rather hateful elitist right wing conservative Christian collective who lack any popular mandate.

Mandate? Does the NRA have a mandate? Does Wall Street have a mandate? Does Lockeed Martin have a mandate? Does corporate media have a mandate?

Politics in the US is sewn up. You get your mandate from big power and big money - for without those you don't get to run the show.

What is flimsy is the idea that people have a choice in this. They get what's on the menu and whats on the menu is in the hands of anyone but the people.

Hence tinpot.

I'm not sure where you get your 'successive democratically elected' idea from. Do you suppose a choice defined by big money and power is a democratic one?

You'd have a funny idea about democracy in that case.

It is instructive to track the careers of the various financial top dogs in the US government and the Fed (a private bank). Invariably folk have had careers on Wall St. and/or return to such careers. Bernanke, Greenspan, Volker, Mnuchin, Geitner, Paulson et al.

Now you might say that people drawn from Wall St is necessary for such office (despite the GFC demonstrating in no uncertain terms just how much Wall St. renders one fit for such office).

But you have a clear conflict of interest when folk in office are invariably taking up careers in businesses their office permits them to muzzle or no. Somehow 'standards in public office' doesn't quite sound toothy enough.

Again, I'm not suggesting an alternative. But if you don't see a democracy-busting issue here then I don't know what would cause you to see it.

Guys working and connecting in private high finance spend a few years in public office and return to private high finance. A closed loop.

And we are expected to believe that for that brief period in public office they are going to do whatever is necessary to best serve the public. Like putting bent bankers in jail or regulating the banks or nationalising the ratings agency ratings-4-$ methodologies.