Politics, Plato, and the Establishment
P. Schultz
May 25, 2015
Recently, I
read a book, Inside Out, by Barry
Eisler, a former spook with the CIA that presents a rather clear and
provocative view of the American political order. That view is accurately summed
up, in part, in the following passages. The first to speak is Ben Trevon, a
spook, who is being educated by another spook named Horton about the character
of our political order. Horton is Ben’s boss and is showing Ben he has little
choice but to go on working for him and for the Establishment, also called the
oligarchy.
“Come on,
Hort, Republicans, Democrats . . . they hate each other, right? There’s
competition.”
‘Hort
laughed. “That’s not competition. It’s suppose to look that way, so people think
their interests are being looked after, they have a choice, they can make a
difference, they’re in charge. But they don’t.’
‘”That
doesn’t make sense.”
‘”I’m
afraid it does. You see, there’s more money to be made in cooperation than in
competition. It’s the same dynamic that leads to cartels. You can argue that
cartels should be competing. But they don’t see it that way. Their profit
motive enables them to rise above the urge to compete. In the service of the
greater good, naturally. People who think there’s actual friction, and real
competition, between Democrats and Republicans, or between the press and
politicians, or between the corporations and their supposed overseers, they’re
like primitives looking at shadows on the wall and believing the shadows are
the substance.”’
First, this
is a rather provocative view of the American political order, but not one
devoid of foundation. Time and again, if one is looking for it, the collusion
Horton describes here is visible. In fact, it isn’t too much to say that if it
is hidden at all, it is hidden in plain sight. Being that the United States is
said to be a republic, one to which school children pledge their allegiance
daily, some obfuscation of the true state of affairs is needed. Moreover, those
with power need to genuflect, as it were, toward our “republic;” they must make
people think “their interests are being looked after, they have a choice, they
can make a difference, they’re in charge.” But this is, for the most part,
smoke and mirrors.
Second,
though, as Horton here refers to the allegory of the cave in Plato’s Republic, I cannot resist adding
something here, viz., that Socrates/Plato knew, unlike Horton, that the shadows
on the wall thing was not a primitive
phenomenon. In fact, given the context of the allegory, it seems apparent that
the shadows on the wall are more likely to exist and more likely to be mistaken
for “reality” in what we call “civilized” or “developed” societies than in
primitive societies. It is “civilized” societies that need such shadows, much
more so than primitive ones.
Consider
that primitives, because their lives are far more endangered than the lives of
civilized people, cannot afford to take the shadows too seriously or mistake
them for reality. Were they to do so, their lives would be endangered in an
immediate way. Being “closer” to death, primitives must be far more sensitive
to “real reality” than we civilized types.
Also,
consider the following question: Who is more comfortable with such shadows as “success,”
“wealth,” or “social status,” Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn? It seems pretty
clear it is Tom Sawyer. It is Huck who refuses to be “sivilized,” as he puts
it, and “lights out for the territories,” because he knows he will never be
happy being “sivilized.” Perhaps this is Twain’s way of endorsing Plato
allegory of the cave, while illuminating that it is in civilized societies that
people are most dependent upon shadows and, hence, most willing to believe “the
shadows are the substance.”
See the following blog: http://www.anti-federalism.com/2012/09/how-oligarchy-governs.html
See the following blog: http://www.anti-federalism.com/2012/09/how-oligarchy-governs.html
No comments:
Post a Comment