The Last Four Days of Politics

September 7, 2006

Okay, what is going on? Four days ago Blair proposed a freakish policy of mandatory state intervention in an attempt to “crack-down” on “antisocial” citizens. However, the freakish aspect is that he said he’d be willing to intervene pre-birth children that hypothetically could turn out to be “menaces to society.” And no, it wasn’t satire as far as I could tell. If it was it’d be the first satirical newstory that popped up simultaneously on CNN, BBC, Guardian.UK and a few associated press junkets. Then, about the next day, a letter was made and signed by 17 ministers of parliament asking for Blair’s resignation which has now been set for May 27th or 30th (or officially July 26th). Also, earlier today BBC broke news that there has been a “wave of resignations” throughout Britain under the explanation that Blair isn’t right for the UK or the Labour party. Granted, most of the signatories of the letter from a 2001 intake were unpaid bottom rung aides and I suspect a few of the resignations are of low-importance members, which doesn’t mean that their resignation is insignificant. It merely means that their resignation is meant to be symbolic and attention-getting so as to aid in creating a view of governmental weakness and use the justification of “Blair isn’t right for the UK” as a way of placing blame… while keeping the more important dissident figures still in power so there’s someone to take hold of the reigns when/if the strategy of shifting power-dynamics worked.

Basically, it’s a coup strategy. I mean, you’ve got it all. Propaganda meant to illegitamize the one already in power (the pre-natal behavioral modification policy), then organization for a focused opposition (the letter), the dessemination of information that change is occuring in favor of the focused opposition (The Sun article leaking the Blair’s supposed date of resignation), and now a further symbolic weakening of power coupled with more illegitmating (mass resignations).

Compare with the coup and re-coup made in Venezuela against Hugo Chavez. Massive propaganda suggesting that Chavez was ruthless one-track dictator killing his own people, a focused opposition (Oil company execs with friends), then an military-aided assault on Chavez’s compound requesting resignation [it should be noted that Chavez was being considered a criminal at the time because if the system is illegal then illegal activities against the system (like a coup de’tat) are permissable. Since Chavez didn’t give his resignation he was taken into custody], then the next morning Venezuela woke to a newsbroadcaster saying “Good Morning, you have a new President.” Who was, get this, the oil CEO.

Guardian – “We can clamp down on antisocial children, before birth, says Blair
BBC – Minister joins Blair exit demands 

BBC – Blair hit by wave of resignations

IMDB – Chavez: Inside the Coup 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “The Last Four Days of Politics”

  1. MaggiePixel said

    “Propaganda meant to illegitamize the one already in power (the pre-natal behavioral modification policy)”

    If Blair actually proposed the policy, how is it “propaganda” to report on the proposal?

  2. paintist said

    The propaganda could be taking a fairly legitamite proposal and making it sound absolutely absurd. Basically, Blair’s proposal was innocently wanting to help mothers in such dire straits that their children might not have all that is needed to provide for them – when that happens, when the system can’t provide for you legally, you turn to crime to survive. This makes them antisocial merely because the system has failed them. The “pre-birth” help could be as innocent as pre-natal medical care.

    But the propaganda is “spun” so as to make Blair’s plan totalitarian, facist, and wrong by conflating his policy with WWII Nazi eugenic policies. Or “genetic determinism”.

  3. MaggiePixel said

    ead the article (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10023.asp) it looks like he is recommending intervention (removal of children), and I can understand why many people would be uncomfortable with that. I agree in theory with his proposal (improving the life of children), but am very unwilling to let any state interfere – we know how state-run-programs work.

    My perception of “propaganda” is per the dictionary “information, ideas, or rumours deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”

    Blair should have known he was providing ammunition for those who were already gunning for him. I think there are many other ways Blair could have opened a public dialogue on this issue, without shooting himself in the foot.

  4. paintist said

    Unfortunately for Blair, a public dialogue with a society that mostly doesn’t care for him would probably not be the best idea. I mean, would Bush create a public dialogue now for one of his insane policies?

    And I agree with you in regards to the policy. It is well-intentioned but rather unrealistic and certainly not well thought out. The unintended consequences of such a policy could be enormously problematic.

  5. MaggiePixel said

    Well rats… I HATE it when people agree with me. It takes the wind right out of my sails!

    So, how to have “public dialogues” in this day and age, without falling into the rhetoric/propaganda pit? Are people these days still sufficiently educated (and informed) to be able to participate in democracies?

  6. paintist said

    Hard to say. How much education and information is neccessary to participate in a democracy? I guess the answer would be: as much as possible.

    I’m reading this book right now, Sophie’s World, and it’s about this teenage girl learning about the history of philosophy as told to her by a mysterious stranger in the neighborhood. She realizes somewhat early on that maybe we can’t “learn” philosophy but that we can learn “to think philosophically.”

    Maybe that’s how we could view how one should participate in democracy. We can’t “learn” all that is neccessary to vote in a democracy but we can at least act and think democractically.

  7. MaggiePixel said

    I guess I’m elitist. These days I look at people around me and say to myself all to often “I hope YOU don’t vote (or drive, or operate heavy machinery, or have children, or…)”

    Too many people don’t seem to THINK at all these days.

  8. paintist said

    Why think when you can be told the truth by FoxNews?

    Or the newly formed Foxfaith: http://www.foxfaith.com/

    And yes. That IS real.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: