13 March 2015

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on Congress and their 18 Percent Approval Rating

"Journalism is one of the devices whereby industrial autocracy keeps its control over political democracy; it is the day-by-day, between-elections propaganda, whereby the minds of the people are kept in a state of acquiescence, so that when the crisis of an election comes, they go to the polls and cast their ballots for either one of the two candidates of their exploiters."

Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check

Congress has an approval rating hovering around 18% according to the latest Gallup poll.  

Yikes! How can that be in a 'democratic' system?
Even President Obama's approval rating is hovering around 48% with about the same disapproval in our polarizing society.
Can 18% of the people pick the representative they like, while ignoring the other 82%?

Is it the fault of the people, the voting public?

Yes, but mostly by inaction, and their obvious confusion in the face of well funded onslaughts of command, control, and propaganda across most of the media spectrum. 
Gerrymandering.  Disgracefully obvious voter suppression. A insider controlled two party candidate selection process. Distorted primaries.  Rabid framing of the issues based on stereotypes and emotions.  Purposeful deceit.  Secrecy.  Manipulation.  Even the results of polls and headlines are distorted to support the 'messaging.'
And powerful private interests would definitely like to convince you that government is necessarily evil by its very nature, and that you should just get rid of it, and trust the monopolies and moneyed interests to be naturally benevolent and virtuous.  

They have been waging this campaign to overthrow democracy and repeal every reform, one by one, for thirty years.  And they seem to be winning, little by little, in overturning most safeguards for fairness and justice. 
The massive pollution of the airwaves by corporate funds and the moneyed interests with an almost incessant stream of persuasion and propaganda.  They phrase the questions carefully, and then give us the answers they want the people to hear.

And most people still believe what they see on television, the radio, and the mainstream media.
You give the 'wrong answer' on television, and you are never invited back.  You are also cut off from access to power and information.   You would not believe have many times I have heard this.  
The key morning message from Bloomberg Television this morning was an old meme from almost exactly this time last year by David Zervos, chief market strategist of Jefferies, with Eric Schatzker and Stephanie Ruhle nodding approvingly:
"Stocks are for lovers, gold is for haters."

"In short, he said that if you're somewhat of a pessimist — a hater — and think the Fed's monetary easing can't go on forever, and the system is destined to crash, then you think we're going back to the 1970s and want to be in hard commodities, such as gold. But if you think the U.S. economy is eventually going to emerge from this period of low growth and eventually recover, much like the 1990s, then you're a lover and should be in equities."
Yes, that 'worked' as stocks greatly outperformed metals for quite some time now, about three years.  The trend is your friend.  And so is the Fed and their method of implementing monetary policies.  Not so much for workers and real median wages though.  I think we can stipulate that Wall Street has been a major beneficiary of the Fed and the government.  Why not, they paid well enough for it.
And yes, we are just about at that point in the banal insipidness of our economic discussion.  Whatever works for whatever reason, just go with it.   Bear and bull markets make people economic forecasting geniuses.  Until they don't.  And then they blame you for listening.

Speaking of geniuses, next year will you may have the privilege to vote Bush v. Clinton, or Clinton v. Bush.

You get to vote for the candidates that the insiders select for you.

I am not sure about Wilkerson's assessment that 95% of the Congress are just stupid.  Jim McGill's opinion on lawyers in the second video is of course exaggerated, but has some merit.  And it seems applicable to quite a few other professions these days, where people say what their paychecks demand.