![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
The Goverment We Deserve?
The other day I posted in the forum an idea of Robert Anton Wilson’s that I really like riffing on. This excerpt is from an interview with him:
Communication only occurs between equals–real communication, that is–because when you are dealing with people above you in a hierarchy, you learn not to tell them anything they don’t want to hear. If you tell them anything they don’t want to hear, the response is, “One more word Bumstead and I’ll fire you!” Or in the military, “One more word and you’re court-martialed.” It’s throughout the whole system.
So the higher up in the hierarchy you go, the more lies are being told to flatter those above them. So those at the top have no idea what is going on at all. Those at the bottom have to adjust to the rules made by those at the top who don’t know what’s going on. Those at the top can write rules about this, that and the other, while those at the bottom have got to adjust reality to fit the rules as much as they can.
I‘ve been teaching this for over 30 years, almost 40 years. More and more I have been asking at my workshops, can anybody hold up their hand and say that they have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when dealing with somebody from the government. Nobody has ever held up their hand. Everybody lies when they are dealing with the government! You never know what they are going to come down on you for, so you tell them what you think they want to hear.
To boil this all down, our government is built on layers and layers of people lying to their bosses and their bosses and their bosses, and so on. And at the bottom of the pyramid is us lying to the government, on forms, on taxes, whatever examples you want to use. Anyway this raises what I think is a great question: if Wilson is right, that our government is basically a hierarchy of people lying to one another, then are we getting the government we deserve? In other words, do our small lies snowball and snowball into bigger and bigger lies until people end up in secret prisons, and countries get taken over? If everybody in the hierarchy suddenly began being totally honest and open, would all the darkness dissolve? Would you stop lying to everybody everywhere at all times if this were the case, if total brutal honest were the price of freedom and perfection?
Another tangent on this: there is a broadening trend to collect more and more data on citizens and their activities. Could this be understood merely as an attempt by the hierarchy to re-establish honesty and responsibility at the base, so that it self-corrects as it moves upwards into the system? Did simple morality and human value systems fail, thus inspiring an automated self-correcting regulatory mechanism? In other words, is your neighbor spying on you going to make Dick Cheney accountable for war crimes - either on a practical or perhaps esoteric level?
November 9th, 2005 at 9:43 am
I seriously doubt it. While I agree in principle with what R.A.W. says, there are a few reasons why I don’t necessarily believe that people in general being more honest will translate to a more honest and friendly Cheney or government, the big one being there would still be a disparity in economic, political and military power between the Cheney’s and government and the people at large. They would still have a reason to lie to us, even if we did not lie to them. But it depends on reactions.
In order for people in general to be more honest, I feel like individuals have to be “okay” with accepting whatever reaction or response their honesty illicits, which ain’t always a positive response. Sometimes, even, a negative response is backed up by negative actions. But you have to be okay with accepting that and also that, sometimes, lying or at least hedging the truth or with-holding information will maintain or increase the chance that you will get what you want from another person or persons, while telling the truth can have the consequence of eliminating that possibility. (Take, for example, a person who has accepted that monogomy ain’t for him/her, but laying down that truth and the implications of it to his/her love, for whom monogamy is the only way to “do” a romantic relationship, will probably result in the end of that relationship.) You gotta be able to accept that consequence of telling the truth (and the greater opportunities it affords–finding somebody he/she clicks with who also is polyandrous or polywhateve the kids call non-monogomous, but longterm, relationships these days). At the basic level, that acceptance of the consequences of truth telling and the bravery to expose oneself to them is the minimum necessary for an honesty revolution. When dealing with people within large systems that tend to take on lives of their own (and not necessarily for the good of the people within the system, but for the good of the system itself), this kind of honesty is that much harder. So Cheney, Rummy, Bushkin and the other neocon hawks want and believe radically altering the geopolitical and economic map is the road to their particular, warped brand of utopia and that war-mongering and war-profiteering are necessary parts of achieving that. Cool. For the sake of their goals and the system within which they operate, they have a very very high vested interest (and certainly a great deal of pressure) to withold and distort facts and to conjure up bullshit in order to get what they want. If they were honest, which these folks know, a goodly number of people would stand in their way and the chances of them achieving their aims will be radically reduced.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Not to mention that, on the systems side, you have defense contractors, global corporate entities and the like that are built into the process called government and industry and these parts of the system would be adversely affected by the thwarting of these war-profiteering plans. And the folks within the subsystems of these defense contractors and other corporations thus, also have varying intensities of vested interest in the neo-cons succeeded (keeping their jobs, increasing income, putting food on the table, etc.). So the cards, in some ways, are stacked against honesty . But that’s sort of R.A.W.s point, that and that eliminating all of these mental obstacles and fears and really thinking about, being honest about and acting upon what would be for the ultimate good (however uncomfortable it might immediately be) of the individual faced with the “honest or lie” choice and for everyone else on this planet would probably be another point in there.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:32 am
I agree with what R.A.W. says, for the most part, as usual.
My initial response is to say no, because, of course, bosses lie to their employees as well. And I don’t think corrupt leaders spy on their subjects so they themselves can become more honest. I’m not sure the culture of deception starts at the bottom, with the (seemingly?) less powerful. Isn’t the Big Lie that those at the base are dependent on those the the top, rather than vice versa - that we are powerless, when in fact their power exists solely because we follow their orders and their rules? Who started that deception, and what would happen if we ceased to believe it?
My opinion is that it ultimately starts in the parent/child relationship, where one side truly is more powerful than the other, when needy parents don’t allow children to be/discover who they are.
If my (our) right to privacy was removed, it might help tilt the world towards becoming a more honest and egalitarian place. The transition would take a long time, however, after the people currently at the base have been punished and the people currently at the top have died in their privilege. But with a corrupt government the citizens would have good reason to try and be all the more deceptive.
November 9th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
As a kid, if you were trading with another kid (baseball cards, action figures, etc) and you didn’t trust them, what would you do? “Same time!” Both of you would agree to hand over the goods simultaneously, placing it into the other’s hand at the same time and only letting go when you had a firm grasp on your part of the bargain.
I think the same principle is at work here: it’s not even about lying, it’s about trust. If one side of the equation decided to be honest all of a sudden, it would automatically inspire the other side to take advantage of that honesty.
Thus, because I don’t trust my neighbor OR Dick Cheney, I don’t expect them to trust me. Sad? Yes, but I’m younger than both my neighbor AND Dick Cheney, so they’ve been untrustworthy longer than I’ve been alive. Therefore, I can wallow in my distrustfulness and blame THEM for what’s wrong with the world. I can smugly sit here and assume that, if given the chance, I would be honest while Cheney and Co. would still keep lying.
“Communication only occurs between equals”– I agree with that, and let’s face it– even if I think I’m Cheney’s equal, there’s no way he will ever think that about me.
Fortunately, I will never meet Cheney, and my neighbor… well, he’s not a bad guy, but he doesn’t need to know what I do behind closed doors, unless he turns out to be someone with similar tastes as me. However, past experience has taught me that even people with similar tastes can rub you ther wrong way, for whatever reason.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
NO!!
Tim, you always write these amazing posts, and then turn them into bullshit* in the last paragraph. I think I understand why you do it; you’re (1) trying to look at both sides of an issue and (2) trying to spark a conversation. Which is great, but in this case you’re dragging in a whole ‘nother big issue (privacy) into what was already a pretty meaty topic (honesty).
*not meant to sound hostile. Just getting a point across in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way.
Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Gah. Sorry. I just read through the other comments and they’re all much more well-thought-out than mine. And Hebrides basically makes the point that I was trying to get across with that GoT quote:
So many of the negative aspects of our culture are based on lies. If everyone told the truth all the time it might hurt a bit, but it would radically transform our world.
(I think the real power in Jesus’ sayings in the GoT and in Matthew is in their simplicity. If anyone or everyone hewed to them the change unleashed would be so powerful; unfortunately, their very simplicity makes them difficult to follow).
November 9th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Bingo! I like to think of it as throwing a hand grenade into a playground…. I’m not going to stop doing it either. It’s a waste of my time if everybody’s constantly agreeing with each other about everything that’s said here. Nothing like some purposeful creative tension.
Anyway, the real point you’re missing is that I’m asking a question, I’m not saying I believe it. Me asking a question gets other people to talk about what they believe and what’s important to them.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
But… the children… AAAGGGHHHH…. Won’t somebody please THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
November 10th, 2005 at 1:09 am
But the children have to think for themselves! (not that I’m calling anyone here children - just continuing the analogy)
November 10th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
As for the dishonesty being bottom-up, I disagree.
Those above buy the lies from those below, in both the literal and metaphorical sense. If I get a raise because I lied, isn’t that payment for that lie?
There is an art to hearing truth, to not being lied to. It includes careful thought about what is heard, and allowing people to tell you the truth without attacking the messenger, without over-reaction. Those who attack the messenger, who over-react to unpleasant infomation, who listen carelessly, are complicit in the lies they hear. The major moral burden is on the one telling the truth or lies, but when hearer is far more powerful than the teller and makes no effort toward hearing truth, the responsibility may tilt the other way. To take an extreme case, does anyone blame a tortured prisoner for telling his interrogator the lie the interrogator demands?
When you buy a lie, you at least partly own the lie. When, as a govornment often does, you buy lies wholesale, you own a lot of dishonesty.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
there is an art to hearing the truth and it`s in listening to your gut. feeling the changes in how your stomach feeds back to your awareness. having said that, when it comes to politics, it`s all lies. we don`t have to worry that there is a truth in any of it. the simple reason is that it
November 10th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
is not a game played for our benifit. you only need to realise it once, after that the default is to bullshit presented to manipulate. democracy? you may feel as if your opinion matters when your hand is on the lever, but as soon as you let it go, the certainty of the situation collapses back into chaos(to badly paraphrase schroedinger.).
after that realisation you merely become a fool hoping like charlie brown, that lucy will, one day, hold the ball still long enough for you to kick it.
we don`t get the government we deserve. the only time government recognises individuals needs is when they take up arms. read your history. i`m not sure that deserve is really the right word to describe what we need. the moral position is that we work hard and pay taxes and so we expect representation commensurate. o.k. so we know that`s bullshit.
what we really have is a state run tyranny enforced by guns. a feudal system of corporate dictatorship with a thin veneer of government inbetween. it may seem as if government is omnipresent, but look at the buildings downtown. these are owned by corporations that are providing the means for our survival.without them and thier prioritised feeding schedule we would be rutting around in the mud.
we are an inconvenience to them, and as technology advances we become less useful. computers can run whole factories. the only reason why they don`t is because of unions. we have this assumption that capital is money. capital is actually the means of production. that means money, labour, technology, equipment and everything else that produces products and services. who owns the means of production in this country? government? no. corporations.
maybe a better question to ask is do we get any chance to control the means of production, or even a say in the matter? i think that`s really the important thing.