As IF Times

There’s an old saw that says “people get the government that they deserve”. The reason that old saws reflect wisdoms is that they are proven to be correct again and again through time. This is to say that while times change, people and the predictability of human nature does not.  In our current modern era, it’s conspicuously evident that a large contingent of heretofore ‘free and democratic’ states are experiencing situations which are anything but free and democratic.

If you observe the nations where the populace is most strongly at odds with government policies, it happens to be in the nations which were once most revered for their attitudes towards personal rights and freedoms. This includes France, The United Kingdom and Canada which have all devolved into states which oddly resemble those totalitarian regimes that they notionally abhor.  They resemble Orwellian states where freedoms are vaunted but not really allowed.

One may argue that all of these governments were democratically elected and thus, must represent the collective will of their people. This would be a specious argument since in the majority of cases, the selection of political parties is usually restricted to either a bad choice, or a worse one. As discussed in a previous commentary, the choice of political parties is really created by a very small contingent of political operatives.  Thus, the choices are for the people to be democratically oppressed by villain party A or by incompetent party B.

Recently in Canada for example, there were at least 2 representatives of the opposition party not in power who crossed the floor to side with the party that is presently in power.  This was probably not how the democratic process was designed to work.  Thus, if you had cast your vote to have someone represent your views, you’re out of luck.  Welcome to the Uniparty. We shall see if this finally engenders real outrage in a docile Canadian public.

But how do politicians push policies that are so out of sync with the wishes of their constituents?  We can all guess of course.  The usual influence of money and power are probably always at the root, that’s Occam’s Razor.  But no one votes to have their lives oppressed by excessive taxation, by restriction of their movements and speech and by curtailment of their activities.  I’m pretty sure no one votes to have their online activities monitored under threat of jail, for removal of long term property rights, for wanton taxation and for cancellation of legal protests.  Unless of course you’re a New Yorker.  Say what you want about their new Mayor Mamdani, but he was at least explicit on what his agenda and platform. He may be misguided, but he is not a liar.  He got the people to believe him.  Thus, the people got what they wanted; or deserved.

In the case of the other nations mentioned above, it’s pretty certain that no one ran on the platforms that they’re trying to enforce today. Politicians learn pretty quickly what works and what works is that you pander to soft sensibilities, promise everyone a chicken in every pot and then instead give them an old shoe once elected.  Thus is perpetuated the age-old game of bait and switch.  They promise to rid your home of pests, which sounds good, but then they kill your pets too,

Recently, nations with lesser traditions of ‘democracy’ have moved en masse against their oppressive overlords, with great effect.  We saw this in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru and now recently in Bulgaria. The fact that this hasn’t been replicated in the West is because of their traditions of lawful conduct.  Of course, the goalposts of ‘lawful conduct’ are moved all the time by Western governments, thus it may be just a matter of time.

The idea of democracy was that people in given society were to be given a voice in how the underlying society would be run. Thus, people who had a long term stake in a society would have people represent their views.  Somehow, this model has perversely turned the other way with elected people enacting programs directly at odds with their own constituents. This can be remedied if the populace decides that it must.  As is the case with any task that you hire someone to do, politicians must be made to explicitly state their goals and strategies.  ANY contradiction of these goals MUST be grounds for removal from office, not by the end of the term, but immediately. The people themselves must DEMAND this.  They cannot expect things to just work out.   Otherwise, they really do get the government they deserve.

One of the surest ways to be successful in life, at least in the monetary sense, is to sell a product that people want or need.  Basic essentials to be sure, but there are lots of obstacles in that realm; thin margins, competition, economies of scale etc.

Another way, and which is better by far, is to sell something that people don’t really need but think they do.  The entire luxury goods industry is built upon this premise and this includes most everything we see advertised daily on all media fronts.  This consumerism is the engine behind all robust economies.  Think of watches that cost as much as a small villa when you could just as easily ask someone the time for free.  Once you have planted the idea in people’s psyches that they must have something, they will go to great lengths to get it, including of course taking on great debt.

This peculiar human frailty is rooted in insecurity.  People feel that they won’t measure up to others if they don’t achieve or possess that which everyone else seems to have.  The advertising industry figured this out long ago and they are very adept at tapping that inner need of humans to belong to a group.  Oddly, they sell group think in a me too kind of way.  A prime example of this is the Peloton fitness machine.  The idea of a stationary cycle was bad enough, but they’ve managed to sell a machine costing thousands of dollars to be hooked up to a network of other people riding in place.  Heaven forbid they should go out and ride a real bike in the fresh air.  The costly stationary bike is essential because there’s no money involved in having people run in place.

This same innate insecurity prevalent in people also has an associated emotion and that is fear. The combination of these two elements plays a big role in the human experience.  As we’ve noted, advertisers have already figured this out, but increasingly governments are also employing techniques to influence people using methods which address people’s fears. When governments use fear as a tactic to influence people, we know it by the more nefarious label of propaganda.  Looking back through history, this was the most powerful tool that governments had at their disposal.  Once you’ve convinced a populace of a narrative, the people will absorb the message and embrace it regardless of observable logic.

A man named Edward Bernays is probably unknown to most people, but he is considered by many professionals to be the father of Public Relations.  Bernays’ publications include the frightening titles of “Propaganda”, “Crystallizing Public Opinion” and “The Engineering of Consent”.  His ideas were considered quite dangerous by many, including a Supreme Court Justice at the time.  Essentially, Bernays opined that democracy should not be held in the hands of the unwashed masses, but that the world’s wealthy and powerful must “protect” those lower on the class rung….from themselves.

It’s patently obvious that the events of the past 20 months worldwide are manifestations of the ability of governments to tap into the fears and wants of the general public.  If you were to turn the clock back even 5 years, the very notion of people being masked, of being segregated from families and friends, of being denied access to places would be laughingly preposterous…much less a mandatory vaccine with unproven and questionable efficacy.  Governments could not impose such a regime unless they have carefully conditioned the populace to want such actions.  In essence governments have successfully made their citizens imprison themselves.  There is even a label for this kind of behavior and that is Stockholm Syndrome whereby imprisoned people eventually begin to actually identify with their captors.  We are now witnessing this on a global scale.

No amount of logical counter narrative is enough to move the opinions of the public once they have been convinced of the official narrative.  It’s no longer about fear anymore, it’s about belonging to a larger group.  It’s hard to know when or how the delusion will end since every day, governments get emboldened by ever more restrictive measures without pushback.  There is hope as some nations are experiencing more and more outrage by average citizens that have realized that government actions are not about health.  The absurdity of “do this for your own health or we’ll beat you” has finally beginning to dawn on people.  It’s no longer a health challenge, it’s an IQ test.