Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | The Evolution of Our Prison Nation |
»
|
|
Friday, January 27, 2012
Minorities
An aside before we begin: As regular readers of Eternity Road probably all know by now, I rise very early in the morning, typically about 4:00 AM, for reasons beyond the scope of this tirade. The early morning hours have become precious to me for an unusual reason: the way I think when I've only just departed from sleep differs substantially from the way I think when I've been awake for an hour or more. My earliest-morning cogitations are less linear, more amenable to breadth and the cross-connection of nominally unrelated ideas and motifs. As the morning ages and my pattern-recognition ability kicks in, I find patterns and parallels that might not have been visible to me in other conditions.
And I resolve to write about them.
It's well established that a coherent, highly motivated minority with a short, coherent agenda will usually out-maneuver and out-politick a much larger group with a broad, diffuse set of concerns. The power of such a minority waxes as the majority fragments. For example, in cases with political relevance, it acquires the appearance of the "swing vote," capable of deciding a closely contested election. Thus, it is to the advantage of such a minority that the larger society be multiply divided according to as many "issues" as possible.
Though it isn't always possible for a minority to encourage such fragmentation, some minorities have made a specialty of it, and have deployed the capacity with abandon. Much depends on the existence of political fault lines: special interests, actual or potential, by which the greater number of persons can be corralled into contending groups.
Consider the environmentalist movement as a case for study. Nomenclature notwithstanding, environmentalist activists generally don't think much about "the environment," whatever that means; their concentration is on preventing others from doing anything. (If you haven't yet heard them called "BANANAs" -- "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything" -- it strikes me as the perfect label for their real agenda.) Ironically, it's because consideration of objectively measurable things such as air and water pollution, or the well-being of specific creatures, seldom enters into their thoughts that they've become so effective in thwarting human development. It allows them:
- To lobby for the preservation of old things -- forests, buildings, neighborhoods -- simply because they're old;
- To agitate against various projects on bases other than pollutive or habitat concerns (e.g., aesthetic values);
- To invoke "issues" that are objectively nonsensical as arguments (e.g. "We can't allow off-roading in the desert. When you scar the desert, it doesn't heal!");
- To substitute anecdotes, isolated incidents, and scare talk for verifiable data.
Is it not perfectly clear that, were "environmentalists" truly concerned with continental biomass, they would encourage the destruction of climax ecologies such as "old-growth forests" to make room for younger, faster-growing, more vigorous vegetation? Is it not perfectly clear that, were the "environmentalists" of the Massachusetts coast as favorable toward renewable energy as they claim, they would not have agitated to block the seaborne wind farm, proposed to stand thirty miles from their coast? Is it not perfectly clear that, were environmentalists really concerned about the caribou and the polar bears, they would be applauding the developments of recent years -- in particular, the Alaskan oil pipeline -- that have correlated with a substantial increase in those populations? Is it not perfectly clear that, were "the ecology" a real priority to them, they would favor the displacement of activities such as "off-roading" into the deserts, where disturbances to "the ecology" are closely confined by the lack of water?
Don't all rush at once, now.
I selected environmental activists as my test case mainly because "the environment" has been so much in the news in recent years, owing to the Gulf oil spill, the Keystone XL pipeline project, the harnessing of oil shale and tar sands, the development of hydrofracking, and similar developments. When the verifiable facts are presented to a fair-minded man, he invariably sides with development and against environmentalist crisis-mongering. Thus, it's critical to environmental activists that they either prevent the facts from being disseminated, or overbear them with political action to fragment the opposition.
Pick a prominent activist minority. It hardly matters which one. You'll find that the pattern applies. Its activities, if successful, will be guided by a "by any means necessary" credo. Its members will argue whatever will prejudice the "issue" in their favor, whether the argument connects with their overt agenda or not. Its victories, however, will be trumpeted as victories for "the cause," even if "the cause" has taken an objective setback from their machinations.
If you're already aware of this pattern -- and the Gentle Readers of Eternity Road are bright enough that I'd expect you to be -- you're probably asking yourself, "What's his point?"
The point, as it is so often, is the underlying dynamic.
A group intent on achieving a specific aim will always be organized into circles:
- Outer: Persons who favor the overt agenda with votes and / or donations.
- Middle: Persons willing to labor in the group's interests.
- Inner: Top operators, strategists, and keepers of the covert agenda.
Those in the inner circle are the "voice of the organization." They determine what appearance the group will present to public. Often, they direct the specific activities of the middle-circle activists, always with an eye on the covert agenda. That agenda will invariably include increasing the power, perquisites, and prestige of the members of the inner circle. Indeed, self-serving action of that sort will often trump all other kinds.
Those in the middle circle are the organization's foot soldiers. They go and do as the inner circle has directed them. The more naive among them are convinced that the inner circle's choices of strategy and tactics really are in the best interests of the overt agenda. Others aware of the covert agenda, or less starry-eyed about group activism, mainly hope to rise among their fellows, perhaps into the inner circle, by conspicuous service. The distribution will vary according to many factors, prominent among them the ages of the middle-circle activists -- and of the group itself.
Those in the outer circle are seldom even aware of the activities of the others. Their allegiance, such as it is, is to the overt agenda. Were that agenda proved to be a deceit perpetrated to conceal other motives, their allegiance would lapse. Thus, it is critical to the longevity and potency of the group that the deceit not be revealed.
The overarching political dynamic of our time, in which activist special-interest groups are so many and so prominent, is the one inside each of those groups. Their agendas -- both overt and covert -- differ widely; their internal structure and dynamics are uniform.
The constitutionalist appalled by the degeneracy of American government and politics will naturally be massively outraged by the success of special-interest activists at subverting the limitations placed on Washington. The idea that such groups could lure Congress into setting aside the explicit limits on its powers is an offense against the Supreme Law of the Land -- indeed, against the idea of law as such. Yet we have found ourselves to be powerless against those groups; they are far too numerous, and maneuver far too adroitly, for the believer in freedom and Constitutionally limited government to counter.
So far.
Yet the objective facts are plainly in our favor. We can't shake the sense that victory is achievable; we just don't know how. We keep recurring to our fundamental principles -- the value of freedom; the importance of objective law; the dangers from unlimited government; the specific nature of the Constitutional compact and its underlying concepts -- and finding them insufficient to carry the day.
Which brings us to the key insight, which might just turn the tides for us:
If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten....If what you're doing doesn't work, do something else! -- Michael Emerling
In part, this will require an alteration in our mindsets. Most of us think of ourselves as champions of freedom and allegiants of the Constitution. That we are, and have been, and there's no denying it. But that should not determine our tactics.
The great military breakthrough of World War I, which I studied intensely for twenty years, was a simple innovation by the German General Staff in the use of its forces. Prior to that contest, the usual course of a war involved hurling one's main force at the main force of the enemy, and hoping to prevail by superior strength. The underlying assumption was that one cannot win without breaking the enemy's main force, and that the only way to do that is to meet it head-on. The Germans very nearly won the war by rejecting that assumption; they pioneered infiltration tactics that emphasized the search for vulnerabilities, and the use of small, highly mobile strike forces to exploit them.
A successful assault on a vulnerability brings several consequences:
- Disruption of the enemy's near-term plans;
- A "hole in the line" through which a larger force can penetrate;
- An artificial "flank" -- a border to the enemy's holdings toward which his defenses and operations are not oriented -- that can far more easily be assaulted than his defensive front.
This is a considerable improvement on a frontal assault. Yet it took six millennia of human warfare to reach that conclusion. But more important for today's topic, the insight applies to political combat as well.
I wrote some time ago about the nature of American "quilted fascism." That essay remains accurate, in both its observations and its strategic and tactical implications. Please reread it and reflect on it for a few moments.
If, as I have argued, the problem is that the numerous, mobile, coherent special-interest groups have been outmaneuvering us for decades -- with the able assistance of a completely amoral political class, of course -- then the core of our problem is that the interest groups have been using the Germans' infiltration tactic against us while we've sat still.
The solution to the problem follows logically:
- Rather than merely argue for Constitutional principles and governance, we must form small battle units;
- Each such unit must select one and only one special-interest group as its target;
- The unit must study its target's vulnerabilities, and concentrate its firepower on them.
If my earlier assessment of the internal dynamics of special-interest groups is accurate, the major vulnerability of any such group is the divergence between its overt and covert agendas. By attacking that gap, we can divide the Outer Circle allegiants, whose money and votes are critical to the group, and some of the more idealistic Middle Circle activists, from the clutches of the Inner Circle power-mongers. Whenever the facts are on our side -- and they always are -- the group will lose cohesion and fade away.
I call this the Freedom Commando strategy.
The essay linked immediately above is more than seven years old. It didn't get much attention or commentary at that time. But the time has arrived when it must be taken seriously. The nation is on the brink of disaster. We might not have more than a single year left to us to pull it back.
Think about that. Slightly less than a year remains before the investiture of a new Congress and the inauguration of a new president. I can guarantee you that the majority of those men, no matter to which party they belong, will not be where they are out of a sincere desire to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the freedom it was written to guard. They will be persons who think themselves brighter and more cunning than you and I. They will be there, with few exceptions, to advance their own interests.
In other words, they will be "the wrong people," having risen to their stations through the operation of the mechanisms Friedrich Hayek described in The Road To Serfdom, specifically the chapter titled "Why The Worst Get On Top." It's our task to actuate Milton Friedman's insight: to make it politically profitable for "the wrong people" to do "the right thing."
And with that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers.
Comments
Education. I don’t even know where to start.
I’m in the San Francisco Bay Area. My daughter is graduating this semester from Mills College. I’ve imparted some of my “rational cynicism” to her, but where do I begin to challenge the environmental/Europeans-were-evil/technology-and-progression are bad meme?
The two times I’ve contacted state representatives about education, they seemed entrenched in the idea of, “public schools are the last bastion against leaving lesser-privileged children behind.”
I can’t quite put it into words. but it seems that the argument is that everyone should nearly drown if we can keep one student from actually drowning, no matter how well anyone else can swim, or how other places could teach them to swim.
It’s the “lowest common denominator” argument, and it’s turning California into the lowest common denominator.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/27/2012 at 10:38 AMTake a second look at the conclusion of the essay:
If my earlier assessment of the internal dynamics of special-interest groups is accurate, the major vulnerability of any such group is the divergence between its overt and covert agendas. By attacking that gap, we can divide the Outer Circle allegiants, whose money and votes are critical to the group, and some of the more idealistic Middle Circle activists, from the clutches of the Inner Circle power-mongers. Whenever the facts are on our side—and they always are—the group will lose cohesion and fade away.
Now ask yourself:
—What do the Outer Circle of public-education supporters think is the goal of public education?
—What do the Inner Circle—the union kings, the flacksters for public education, and the educrats themselves—really want? Does it have any connection to actual education?
—Provide those you seek to persuade with evidence that illuminates the Inner Circle’s covert agenda, and how it differs from their publicly proclaimed “dedication to the children.” Let them draw their own conclusions—that’s critical—and let them go the rest of the way by themselves.Nothing else will work.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 01/27/2012 at 10:57 AMI’ve been interested in this phenomenon for many years, ever since reading Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” in the 1950s. There is another line of attack which targets the inner circle, the covert agenda. Follow the money! Trace how the inner circle is funded.
For example, many of the feminist organizations are funded by the abortion industry. The environmentalists draw from many interests, most recently those who hope to profit from the green energy boondoggle. Notice how T. Boone Pickens and GE have spent millions on promoting wind power. GE builds the engines for high speed trains…
I believe that exposing the web of lies perpetrated by the overt agendas can be undermined by exposing cui bono.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/27/2012 at 04:30 PMIf I didn’t know better, I’d say you were beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Welcome to the club!
As to tactics, I think this is pretty good advice. I typically jump straight to the conclusion, that the FED exists to subsidize banks and government borrowing at the expense of everybody else, using a bunch of fractional reserve gibberish to sell the idea of stabilizing markets to the masses. Maybe I should stick to showing people how they are getting screwed by the process and let them figure it out. I usually can’t help myself, though…
Posted by Scott Angell on 01/27/2012 at 11:51 PMLet’s look at one of the most effective small battle units, the NRA. In the mid-90s, it seemed obvious that the gun-rights movement was doomed by social changes. Since then many gun-control laws have been rolled back and the Other Side is hardly mentioning gun control any more. As far as I can tell, they did this with a single-minded focus on their issue and a refusal to be distracted. I doubt if there was much of a focus on a split between the outer and inner circles.
Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on 01/28/2012 at 11:42 PMIn point of fact, Joe, the NRA, GOA, and other allied organizations put a great deal of effort into uncovering the funding sources and alliances of the major anti-gun groups. The effort, which revealed that organizations such as the Brady Campaign were intertwined with the ACLU and heavily funded by socialist and Communist organizations, resulted in a severe diminution of the credibility and resources of the anti-gunners.
Remember always the importance of the “open-minded man,” willing to “listen to both sides.” Invalidating one side by tarring it as operating from sinister ulterior motives is one of the best ways to reach him. The Left has known that for quite some time.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 01/29/2012 at 05:41 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
