Active Citizens or Passive Consumers

BBC ^ | 01/31/2010 | JohnQuincy

[wizkid]

The "Century of the Self" documents how Freud's ideas and various counter arguments have dominated how big business and government have interacted with the American masses over the past century. It was produced by the BBC roughly ten years ago and is regarded as one of the best documentaries of all time. The central thesis is the tug of war between the idea that the great mass of citizenry is an unstable swamp of barbaric instinctual drives and anxieties or is capable of using their better selfs to dominate these drives. It is a competition between the views of treating people as active citizens to be dealt with rationally or passive consumers to be pacified by catering to these underlying irrational drives.

[wizkid]

Of particular fascination is how the left when out gunned by the establishment in the 1960s sought to change society through individual, personal tranformation. Surprisingly, it was Reagan that won over this newly individuated class with his ideas on personal freedom and smaller government. This newly individuated class was also one of the main drivers behind America's economic resurgence under Reagan.

It is also fascinating how the left to regain control used life style marketing techniques to target these groups by promising a government that would fulfill their whims. This was a government that catered to base and often conflicting drives by use of focus group questionnaires lacking in context. It is/was a government that treated people as passive consumers not active citizens.

[sinanju]

My regard for “the masses” and their “childlike whims” has gone up a notch. Methinks the community-organizer-in-chief has lost control of the mob and is about to find himself on the receiving end of “the savagery and barbarianism that lurks just below the surface”.

My own “irrational self” has definitely been stimulated against the “leadership”.

Must need more “drugs and electroshocks”.

[Bhoy]

So Dems pander to Id. Or as POTUS said in SOTU:

“I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people,” Obama said. “And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering

what’s in it for them.”

As though “what’s in it for me” would be the only consideration of the wisdom of a decision.

[wizkid]

Obama was sold to the American people as the ultimate life style candidate. Axelrod wanted a tabula raza on which his focus groups could project whatever they wanted. The ethnic angle was played up to let self actualizers pat themselves on the back for being so open. Duval Patrick in Massachusetts was the regional test run of this marketing campaign.

Unfortunately, there is a second act to this, which we are now witnessing. Now that citizens have a clearer idea of what Obama represents and have rejected these ideas; the swing voters will be identified, their every whim/fancy identified and every effort made to cater/pacify them.

It should be no secret that the Obama campaign views citizens as dangerous object that require manipulation.

It is a shame that there is so much focus on analyzing Obama, himself, when he is an empty package to be marketed. Of more interest to me is the murky web of foundations that are behind this campaign. These foundations have had a hold on Obama throughout his life up to and including employing his mother. More than personal scandal, it is the cover up of these associations particularly during his stints at Columbia and Harvard that troubles me.