Truth is, There's No One Behind the Wheel

"The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand the New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie chart format. ... The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country, and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much. ..."

And so on. The list gets updated from time to time, and it usually includes, "The National Inquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store." You get the point.

I don't mean that as a knock on President Obama. No president "runs" America because the government doesn't run America -- and the president barely runs the government. He can scarcely tell his own employees what to do. Civil service laws and union rules make it darn near impossible to fire even grossly incompetent employees for anything short of pederasty or murder.

I don't have the space to rehash the Federalist Papers, but at the federal level there are three branches of government and each one monkey-wrenches the other, all the time. Meanwhile, do you know how many local governments there are in the United States?

Time's up, and you probably guessed too low. There are, by the Pew Charitable Trust's count, just over ninety thousand of them (90,056 to be exact).

What the joke gets right is that lots of groups think they should be running the show. But they all resent the fact that they're not. From Ivy League eggheads to Wall Street fat cats, everyone talks like a backseat driver to a driver who isn't there.

In recent years, I've had the good fortune to get to know some famous .001-percenters. Guess what? Not only do they not run the country, but they're often desperate to find out who does.

For instance, listening to the Democratic Party or, say, the editors of the New York Times (tomayto-tomahto, I know), you'd think the Koch brothers owned America. Of course, if they did, they wouldn't be spending so much money on elections, would they? Also, if the Kochs were half as evil and powerful as some claim, nobody would be criticizing them.

Meanwhile, for every rich conservative out there, there's a rich liberal cutting checks, too. In other words, the one-percenters who supposedly run everything aren't some homogenized class of economic overlords; they are, in fact, at war with each other. And, trust me, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess no more think they are running the country than liberal super-donors Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Tom Steyer do.

The notion that there's a class or group of people secretly running things is ancient. It was old when the Roman consul Lucius Cassius famously asked, "Cui bono?" ("To whose benefit?")

The reason is that we seem to be hardwired to assume there are no accidents, that the world is the way it is because people -- hidden people -- want it that way. The more extreme expressions of this cognitive reflex take many forms, whether anti-Semitic (Who benefits? The Jews!) or Marxist (Who benefits? The ruling classes!) or comedic ("Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes!").

Today, on the left, such thinking has become institutionalized. When the champions of social justice can't find an actual culprit, the villain becomes systemic racism or sexism or white privilege. But there is always evil intentionality lurking somewhere, like a ghost in the machine. The right has its bugaboos, too. For instance, there are many who think the mainstream media is biased (it is) and that its bias is somehow centrally orchestrated like a scheme by some Bond villain (it isn't).

I think some people are scared of the idea that nobody is in charge, in part because they want someone to blame for their problems. Others don't like this notion because they have an outsized faith in the power of human will. If villains aren't to blame for our ills, then some problems cease to be problems and simply become facts of life.

Me? I like knowing no one is running things because, for starters, it means I'm free.

Goldberg runs interference like Medved and others to de-legitimize the idea that their exists a coordinated “power behind the throne” orchestrating events. The question always posed is what group and prove it; and if one cannot do this in two or three succinct statements they are a crazy wacko birds. I can agree with many things people like Goldberg say in their writings but they leave out or confine the realms of discussion much like spiking a story and or controlling the bookends or parameters thus serving to obfuscate or poison the well as far as understanding what’s really going on in the world and America.

Perhaps in your snarky reply to SeekAndFind ( SeekAndFind's post )you might have done a little homework first.

This article comes from two different sources. The first is from Townhall with the title "Truth is, there’s no one behind the wheel", and the second is National Review with the title "Who’s Running the Country?

You locked down his thread from the National Review with the oh so polite "Do you ever search before posting?".You didn't even provide a link to the article you claim was posted first.. You should know better than most how unreliable FR search function is. It's legendary for its inconsistency and failure to find the easiest things.

I think you owe SeekAndFind an apology and if you're tired of duplicate posts then FIX the damn search function.

The right has its bugaboos, too. For instance, there are many who think the mainstream media is biased (it is) and that its bias is somehow centrally orchestrated like a scheme by some Bond villain (it isn't).
”The Mainstream Media” is biased, yes - but that doesn’t begin to cover it. Adam Smith famously asserted that
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
The mere fact that members of “the mainstream media” read/listen to each other would be sufficient to qualify them as “meeting together” - not for merriment or diversion, but precisely about business. But in fact all of “the mainstream media” are associated, via their common membership in the Associated Press. And that has been continuously true for over a century and a half. The only question, then, is, “What motives do the members of the AP share which are distinct from the public interest?” Identify that, and you can explain the particular way in which the membership of the AP conspires against the public.
We know of the “bias in the media” as a "left wing" phenomenon. But what is “left wing,” anyway? I put it to you that the defining characteristic of "the MSM” is that its membership doesn’t do anything, it talks about others doing things. Theodore Roosevelt famously defined the public interest when he said, “It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena” getting things done, or at least trying to. As illustrated by Liz Warren’s formulation, “If you have a business, you didn’t build that,” the idea that the critic and not the doer is the one who counts is precisely the leftist conceit.
The “bias” in “the mainstream media” is its role in promoting the members of the AP and the “liberals”/“progressives” (call them what you will, I like “Grubercrats” myself) in an intensive go-along-and-get-along campaign against “the man in the arena.” There may not be any one single “Mr. Big” in charge. But that does not mean there is no conspiracy. There is. Members of the AP are so completely absorbed into the Borg that they lose all consciousness of the fact that the Borg even exists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.