THE CLICHE DRIVEN PRESS -- AN EXCHANGE!

THE CLICHÉ DRIVEN PRESS – AN EXCHANGE!

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© January 2, 2008

“Let him who would move the world, first move himself.”

Socrates

Reference:

This is a response from my Canadian friend who sent me the article from THE ECONOMIST. It is interesting that I left off the final sentence to my reply, which I found redundant. The sentence: “I sense that is precisely what THE ECONOMIST meant for me to see.” You will see the relevance of this sentence in the reader’s thoughtful reply.


* * * * * *

A READER WRITES:

Jim,

Thanks for dissecting that article for me and sharing your views. I now wonder if I should have stated my own views to introduce the article. http://www.economist.com/theworldin/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12574180

I entirely agree with you, the article in the Economist was written in "code", but frankly that is the point. It was written for those familiar with a certain closed language, a cultish shorthand or jargon. These code words and phrases have profound meaning to certain proponents of an economic system called "THE MARKET". As written, I concur, the article can rightfully be condemned as "closed language", unclear and imprecise. But this language is not entirely beyond the grasp of lay people (non-economists) who make the effort to do some translating and to understand the underlying meaning.

Your translation is a starting point but I strongly suggest it is worth the effort for all of us to decode and interpret the central message of the article.

Imprecise language notwithstanding, this article (declaration in fact) is outstanding news for all of us (citizens). The Globalists are raising the white flag in light of the recent financial system upheaval. Since, we can safely say most newspapers and magazines understand their audience (who they are), it follows that they become a mirror reflecting the views of that audience (bias' etc.) to survive as a business. Hence, the Economist article is a clarion call to their faithful (their market fundamentalist audience) that a new world order must be formulated. As you say, something has been learned that could not be learned any other way than by painful experience ("We learn slowly if at all, and then only when we must.").

Importantly, we must all appreciate that presently there is a vacuum where once the true-believers in Globalism were absolutely certain of their religion and aggressively insistent that we (the citizens) submit passively to its inevitability, which we have, for about 25 years. The experiment has now ended badly and suddenly we now inhabit a critical period of opportunity for those brave enough to think and speak for themselves... expressing our ideas clearly and honestly (as you do Jim). It's urgent that we all get busy talking and writing to our elites, both our elected representatives and the non-corporate think-tanks who are suddenly listening as never before. They and we now know for certain, the Globalists were wrong. In the present vacuum it is now possible to reassert the citizen as the source of legitimacy in our democracies. Economic fundamentalism, as represented by free trade and unrestricted flows of capital, is the now failed passive approach, thank God.

Again, thank you for the time and effort you took to read and respond to the article and if you are so inclined please feel free to comment on my interpretation.

Very best wishes to you and BB,

George


DR. FISHER RESPONDS:


Your response is so on target that I will say only this. We live in an elitist culture of the worse kind, not elitist in ideas but in celebrity.

The walls have been coming down for elitists who live in jargon, or special branches of knowledge, as knowledge is becoming accessible to everyone. In one of my books (not published) I call this new age the ‘Age of the Amateur.”

Knowledge is the amateur’s tool. Knowledge is the celebrity's uniform.

The encroaching importance of the amateur is unsettling for those who know who they are only by who they aren’t. Put otherwise, people who live in celebrity have gone from a peculiarity or fringe factor (Hollywood, etc.) to a major industry. The only point you make that made me queasy was when you said “writing to our elites.”

We have no elites of ideas. Therefore, we have no elites.

We only have celebrity. And only last night, I heard a commentator say, “Barah Obama is the greatest celebrity president in history.”

You can imagine how that made me feel. We don’t need a presence we need a performance. We need people who perform without taking bows but quietly accomplish the mission. JFK and Jacqueline Kennedy created the “Camelot Presidency,” and we are still in its celebrity shadow.

Kennedy is considered a “great president” because we went to the moon, something that was already in the works. Forgotten is his part in the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” “The Cuban Invasion,” “Vietnam War,” and the little he did for the “Civil Rights Movement,” president Johnson being the true “Civil Rights President,” and yes, even previously, the defrocked president Nixon did his bit.

I am weary of all media, but especially media that emanates from the church, school, government, workplace, television and the Internet that promotes celebrity as elitism.

I hope you are right. I hope people are starting to think for themselves. I am not as optimistic as you are.

Be always well,

Jim