Twee poseurs uit het Nederlandse literair-journalistieke wereldje. Links Bas Heijne, met naast hem Ian Buruma. 'Als schrijver moet je met de billen bloot durven gaan,' aldus Heijne, tot grote hilariteit van Buruma.
Uit een halve eeuw ervaring in de Nederlandse journalistiek weet ik dat hier de mainstream-pers en de academici die communicatiewetenschappen doceren het werk van Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, Jacques Ellul, C. Wright Mills, Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, misschien hebben door gebladerd, maar nooit intensief hebben bestudeerd, evenmin als het wetenschappelijk gefundeerde werk van de tientallen andere deskundigen die ik hier op deze weblog de afgelopen veertien jaar heb geciteerd. In het poldermodel wordt kritische informatie dermate gewantrouwd dat de enige manier om hier te kunnen overleven het internaliseren is van de zelfcensuur. De grootste praatjesmakers worden in het polderland als goed geïnformeerd beschouwd, met als gevolg dat conformistisch gezever doorgaat voor diep inzicht in welke materie dan ook. Overal, op de radio, de televisie, in de kranten en weekbladen zijn zij permanent aan het woord. Nederland is inderdaad een heel klein staatje van burgers die wisselend de rol van dominee en koopman spelen, en met een ‘intelligentsia’ die zichzelf heeft wijs gemaakt dat ‘wij’ een gidsland zijn. Zij vergeet daarbij dat de democratie niet alleen een vormkwestie is, maar eerst en vooral een doorleefde werkelijkheid. Men is democraat of men is het niet, een klein beetje democraat is hetzelfde als een klein beetje zwanger. Desondanks beweerde Ian Buruma op 8 januari 2019 het volgende:
Ondanks zijn eigen grote gebreken en misdadige oorlogen had Amerika tot niet zo lang geleden een imago van openheid en democratie.
En:
De VS zijn onder president Trump een stuk minder betrouwbaar geworden. Dit heeft misschien als gevolg dat Japanners (en Europeanen) moeten nadenken over hoe ze verder moeten zonder de Amerikanen. Maar ook wat betreft de liberale democratie en sociale openheid zijn de VS voorlopig geen voorbeeld meer.
Buruma’s totale gebrek aan logica bleek al anderhalf jaar eerder, toen hij op vrijdag 9 juni 2017 in dezelfde NRC Handelsblad met evenveel stelligheid beweerde dat:
we ons moeten voorbereiden op een tijd waarin we met weemoed terugkijken op het betrekkelijk goedaardige imperialisme uit Washington.
Dit alles is absurd, want hoe kan een gewelddadige, imperialistische mogendheid met ‘grote gebreken en misdadige oorlogen’ het ‘imago van openheid en democratie’ hebben gehad, als de zogeheten ‘vrije pers’ gewoon haar werk zou hebben gedaan, namelijk de werkelijkheid beschrijven? Buruma is juist één van de mainstream-opiniemakers die verantwoordelijk is voor het creëren van dit valse ‘imago’ door onder andere te oordelen dat, ondanks de ‘grote gebreken en misdadige oorlogen,’ er sprake is van een ‘betrekkelijk goedaardige imperialisme uit Washington.’ Als de VS daadwerkelijk een ‘democratie' was geweest, waarin de commerciële media in alle ‘openheid’ verslag hadden kunnen doen van de dagelijkse realiteit, dan zouden de ‘grote gebreken’ en de ‘misdadige oorlogen’ al lang tot het verleden hebben behoord. Dan zou in de VS de kloof tussen arm en rijk niet almaar toenemen, terwijl het militair-industrieel complex een steeds groter deel van het belastinggeld opslokt, en de macht van de staat blijft groeien ten koste van de vrijheid en privacy van de burger. Alleen door de propagandistische rol van de westerse journalistiek kon het ‘imago’ ontstaan dat ondanks de ‘grote gebreken en misdadige oorlogen,’ de VS een ‘democratie’ was, en dat dit neoliberaal bestel met grootschalig geweld elders kan worden afgedwongen.
Het belang van een dergelijke ideologische versie van de werkelijkheid werd al in de achttiende eeuw door David Hume ingezien toen deze Schotse Verlichtingsfilosoof schreef over 'the easiness with which the many are governed by the few' en 'the implicit submission with which the men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.' Hume concludeerde in zijn essay Of the First Principles of Government (1768):
When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about we shall find, that as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan (sultan. svh) of EGYPT, or the emperor of ROME, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion.
Op het beheersen van de opinievorming berust de macht van de elite. Vandaar haar belang de massamedia in handen te hebben, zoals nu het geval is. Onprettige feiten en dissidente opvattingen kunnen zodoende weg worden gefilterd. Welnu, wanneer Ian Buruma het na het aantreden van president Trump betreurt dat ‘ook wat betreft de liberale democratie en sociale openheid de VS voorlopig geen voorbeeld meer’ is, verzwijgt hij het feit dat er nooit sprake is geweest van een ware ‘liberale democratie en sociale openheid,’ en dat hijzelf en zijn broodheren dit ook nooit hebben nagestreefd. Sterker nog, zij hebben alle moeite gedaan om een vrije ‘democratie’ met een maximale ‘sociale openheid’ onmogelijk te maken. Zowel Buruma als de neoliberale elite, voor wie hij werkt, zijn doodsbang voor wat de Amerikaanse Founding Fathers in de tweede helft van de achttiende eeuw en begin negentiende eeuw het ‘excess of democracy’ noemden. Zo was de tweede president van de VS, John Adams, ‘een van de belangrijkste figuren bij het opstellen en opmaken van de Amerikaanse Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring,’ van oordeel dat
Democracy Would Lead To Anarchy. In an 1807 essay, John Adams cautioned about the aspirations of men. According to Adams, democracy allowed men to satiate their base and unjust desires at the expense of the masses. He didn't believe the government could control men that had already been corrupted, suggesting that:
‘Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mold itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues, and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.’
John Adams always had a lot to say about democracy. In an 1814 letter to John Taylor, Adams bashed what he believed was a flawed structure. He wrote:
‘Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.’
Elbridge Gerry (vijfde vicepresident van zijn land. Gerry was ook een van de ondertekenaars van de Amerikaanse onafhankelijkheidsverklaring) Believed That Democracy Flooded The Country With Evil
During a 1787 debate, Elbridge Gerry argued that democracy allowed self-interested and malicious men to mislead the masses under the guise of patriotism. He noted:
‘The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.’
George Washington (de eerste Amerikaanse president en destijds de rijkste man van het land.) Believed That Democracy Led People To Make Bad, Emotional Decisions.
In a 1786 letter to the Marquis De Lafayette, George Washington wrote about the risks of democracy; he didn't believe that most people could be trusted to make good decisions. Washington acknowledged that the newly formed Constitution still needed work, suggesting that:
‘It is one of the evils of democratical governments, that the people, not always seeing and frequently misled, must often feel before they can act right; but then evil of this nature seldom fail to work their own cure.’
Alexander Hamilton (de eerste Amerikaanse minister van Financiën) Warned That Democracy Could Lead To Another Monarchy
Alexander Hamilton knew that establishing a democracy would be difficult, especially if offices were only open to men of a certain wealth or status. During a debate in 1787, Hamilton cautioned that a constitutional class would lead back to an aristocracy and royal reign. Colonists had already rebelled against that. Hamilton acknowledged their fears, saying:
‘If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.’
John Jay (minister van Buitenlandse Zaken en de eerste Opperrechter van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof.) Thought Religion Could Make Democracy Better
First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay thought democracy would be okay as long as it was regulated. He suggested that democracy could give unwarranted opportunities to greedy men, however. According to him, morality and religious belief could keep democracy in check. Jay mentioned:
‘Too many... love pure democracy dearly. They seem not to consider that pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.’
Fisher Ames Compared Democracy To A Fiery Volcano
Fisher Ames (an important leader of the Federalist Party in the House) was not a fan of democracy. He believed it was an incredibly dangerous form of government that could give way to precarious factions. The ancient civilizations that tried democracy centuries earlier all crumbled and Ames wanted to avoid that. He said:
‘A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation (verwoesting. svh) in their way.’
Alexander Hamilton Wanted A More Moderate Government
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, believed wholeheartedly in moderation. If the government didn't value self control and restraint, Hamilton was convinced the nation would fall. He mentioned:
‘Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.’
Benjamin Rush (een van de ondertekenaars van de Amerikaanse Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring.) Thought Democracy Was Devilish
As the debate over democracy raged among the founding fathers, writer and doctor Benjamin Rush, argued that democracy was, in fact, evil. He believed that democratic men would do anything to get what they desired; corruption and greed ruled them. Rush noted:
‘A simple democracy is the devil's own government.’
James Madison (een van de voornaamste auteurs van de Grondwet van de Verenigde Staten en de daaropvolgende Bill of Rights.) Didn't Have Any Faith In The Majority Of The Population
Fourth American president James Madison was incredibly wary of the strength of the majority. Madison cited Greece and Rome as examples of nations that subjected the poor and undereducated people to disgraceful circumstances. He went on to say:
‘Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure.’
De Amerikaanse elite ondertekent de Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring.
Zonder overdrijven kan gesteld worden dat de Amerikaanse elite van vóór en na de Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring op haar minst sceptisch stond tegenover de democratie. De rijken waren destijds bang voor de boerenbevolking, die in 1786 de zogeheten ‘Shays' Rebellion’ begon, ‘an armed uprising in Massachusetts in opposition to the state government’s increased efforts to collect taxes both on individuals and their trades.’ De elite die de kosten van de Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog afwentelde op de arme boeren was zo geschrokken van de ‘Shays' Opstand’ dat Generaal George Washington zich er politiek mee bemoeide, ‘leading to his two terms as the first president of the United States. There is still debate among scholars concerning the rebellion's influence on the Constitution and its ratification.’ De angst van het establishment voor het volk is in de westerse wereld nooit verdwenen, met als gevolg dat er nauwlettend op werd toegezien dat de macht in handen bleef van de gevestigde orde, bijgestaan door hoge ambtenaren en plooibare politici, een feit dat de bevolking nooit is vergeten, getuige de aanhang van de zogeheten ‘populisten.’
In een bespreking uit juli 2019 van het boek The End of Democracy (2017), een studie geschreven door de Belgische historicus Christophe Buffin de Chosal stelt de recensent Antonius Aquinas:
Not only was propagation of the myth of popular support for democratic ideals propounded for the survival of the new social order, but putting these tenets into practice was accomplished, in large part, by the role of the ‘intellectual’ an often neglected feature of standard historical analysis and the reason behind much social transformation:
‘The “nation” met the desires of the philosophers
who wanted to transfer power from the monarch
to an enlightened, philosophical, and philanthropic
class who, moreover, ought to be financially
comfortable. The educated bourgeoisie of the
time were the protagonists of this idea, and a
portion of the nobility formed their audience.’
The intellectuals promoted Democracy because it would open up for them considerable opportunities for position and income in the nation state. It must be remembered that it was the intellectuals who justified the idea of Absolutism. Later, the intellectuals turned on the monarchies and sided with the emerging republican classes rightly believing that democratic governance would give them greater opportunities for power in the emerging nation states.
While most historians see the advancement of democracy and the development of legislative bodies over the course of the last centuries as an advancement in the human condition and one that has emanated from the people’s desire for greater political representation, Buffin de Chosal presents a far different and more accurate interpretation. ‘Democracy,’ he asserts, ‘is not, in its origin a system of the people.’ All of the social movements which eventually led to the destruction of Christendom did not come from the people seeking a greater ‘voice’ in their governance.
‘The ‘people,’ he argues, ‘were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.’ Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was not a popular cry, but one coined and used by the ‘enlightened’ classes to mobilize and justify their overthrow of the French monarchy and with it the destruction of the Church.
‘The French Revolution was built on the
idea of the “nation,” which claimed to bring
together the intellectual, social, and financial
elite of the country. It was on this foundation
that democracy was established and that it
functioned during almost all of the nineteenth
century.’
A similar historical narrative can be seen in England.
The rise and eventual triumph of representative democracy in England was not one that percolated from the masses itching for more freedom. ‘The appearance of the parliamentary system in England,’ Buffin de Chosal contends, ‘was tied to the great movement of Church property confiscation begun under Henry VIII and continuing until the coming of the Stuarts.’
After Henry gorged (zich volpropte. svh) himself on the Church’s wealth, he sought to bribe as much of the nobility as possible with his ill-gotten gains to insure his power. An envious Parliament, however, wanted its cut of the loot which led to the great internecine struggle between Crown and Parliament which eventually ended in the suzerainty of the latter with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The real power from then on rested with an oligarchical legislative branch:
‘The families who had thus helped themselves
to the Church’s goods, morally justified by
Protestant ethics, formed the gentry, the class
of landowners who sat in Parliament. Parliament
was not then, as one might believe today, an organ
of poplar representation. It was an instrument
in the hands of the gentry (de elite. svh) to defend its own class interests.’
That Parliament and the monarchy would become the two dominant ruling structures was the result of the breakdown of the feudal structure which was taking place not only in England, but across Europe. European monarchs continued to gain more and more power at the expense of the feudal landed elite. The gentry’s power and wealth was also on the wane with the rise of commercial centers which most of the time aligned themselves first with the kings and then later with Parliament. The eventual triumph of Parliament, however, did not mean greater democracy for the people:
‘The financial incentives for England’s adoption
of the Protestant Reformation are therefore
intimately connected with the bolstering of
Parliamentary power. The Parliament in England
was used to put the monarchy in check and to
replace it with an oligarchic class of wealthy
Protestants to whom the kings were required to
submit. This is why the overthrow of James II
in 1688 was a true revolution. It was not a
popular revolution or the overthrowing of a
tyranny, but it was the rebellion of a class
implementing the transfer of sovereign power
for its own profit.’
The Market Economy
The author takes a refreshing look at the market economy that sets straight the inaccurate and often times hostile analysis of it that frequently comes from conservative circles. He distinguishes and rightly points out that ‘pure capitalism’ or the ‘unhampered market’ is an ‘excellent thing.’ The free market is intimately tied with private property which is a prerequisite for a just society:
‘[Capitalism] proceeds from respect for private property.
As capitalism is the reinvestment or saved money for the
purpose of making new profits, it presupposes respect for
property rights and free enterprise. It has existed in Europe
since the Middle Ages and has contributed significantly to
the development of Western society.’
He insightfully notes that ‘bad capitalism’ often gets lumped in with its ‘good form’ while the latter gets the blame for the baneful excesses of the former. ‘Monopoly capitalism,’ ‘corporatism,’ ‘the mixed economy,’ and ‘crony capitalism’ are not the result of the market process, but stem from ‘intervention’ brought about by the State in favor of its business favorites through participatory democracy. In a truly free market, entrenched wealth is rarely maintained but is constantly subjected to challenges by competitors:
‘But what one ought to designate as bad
capitalism is the concentration of wealth and
power this wealth procures. This danger does
not stem from capitalism itself but rather from
parliamentary democracy, for it is democracy
that enables money powers to dominate the
political realm.’
The ‘monied interest’ did not exist under ‘traditional monarchy,’ but was a product of Democracy and the protection and extension of the ‘bad capitalistic’ paradigm that came into being and was expanded by the rise of popular representative bodies. Assemblies, legislatures, and congresses, which emerged, became aligned with the banking and financial interests to bring about the downfall of the monarchies.
The concentration of political power could only be attained after the control of money and credit were centralized in the form of central banking and the gold standard was eliminated. Central banks have been an instrumental part of the democratic age, funding the nation state’s initiatives and enriching the politically-tied financial elites at the expense of everyone else.
Wealth concentration is not a by-product of the free market. Rarely are firms able to maintain their dominance for long periods of time. Many turn to the State to get protection and monopoly grants to ensure their position in the economy:
‘capitalism only becomes harmful when
it grants political power to the money powers.
This was only made possible thanks to the advent
of parliamentary democracy, which was an
invention of liberalism. It is therefore the
foundational principles of political liberalism
(equality before the law, suppression of privileges,
centralization of political power, censitary suffrage,
and the accountability of ministers to the legislative
houses) which have enabled the rise of a wealthy class
and its power over society.’
Such sound economic analysis abounds throughout his tome.
De vraag is dan ook waarom Ian Buruma en de ‘corporate press’ van mening zijn dat de ‘liberale democratie en sociale openheid,’ het grote voorbeeld dienen te blijven voor de gehele mensheid. Waarop berust hun propaganda? Volgende keer meer.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten