Imagine that your interests are opposed to those of the common citizens. You wish to enforce policies that benefit you and your supporters at the expense of the rest of the population. What method would you use to create support for your agenda and derail the efforts of your political and ideological opponents?
The most obvious answer is dictatorial control of media, religion and politicians. But dictatorships have serious problems, including the opposition and rebellions that inevitably arise. A far superior method is to create the illusion of a fully functional democracy and subtly control the opinions of citizens by indoctrinating them into believing your goals are theirs.
By using the media to persistently trumpet carefully chosen talking points, you control citizens’ beliefs without them realizing their opinions have been manipulated for political purposes. If you could accomplish this to the fullest extent, you could create a situation resembling the French Revolution in reverse, with the common people rallying to violently and verbally attack anyone who would promote the interests of the public over those of the powerful elite.
Ideally, the public would be so indoctrinated into the belief system that they would view any government policy in opposition to your interests, such as health care reform, as a step toward fascism, socialism and communism.
Fascism is a form of government whose core belief is that a society must function as a single body, with government and business interests working together, not against each other. The different sections of society are controlled and sacrificed when necessary to strengthen the body as a whole. War is considered an important part of maintaining the nation’s coherence and power.
Under socialism, the economy and society proceed entirely according to the plans of the government instead of proceeding according to the will of the free market and the unregulated actions of individuals. A socialist believes all forms of capitalism inevitably lead to increasing income disparity and exploitation of the lower classes. Thus, defaulting complete control of the media, educational system and economy to the government is seen as necessary to create a healthy society that protects the interests of citizens from the chaos of unchecked capitalism.
Differing from socialists and fascists, communists believe the destiny of society is the rise of the proletariat (lower class) to overthrow the bourgeois (upper class) and take control of the means of production (land, factories, schools, etc.). The elite few of the proletariat who rise to power are seen as the appropriate leaders of society.
In contrast to the other three forms of government, democratic republics emphasize the importance of leaving power equally distributed in the hands of all people. Laws and economic policies are chosen by the equally weighted consensus of elected officials, instead of by an unelected elite few. In this profound difference lies the inherent superiority of democratic institutions: the power structure is bottom-up (grass roots), not top-down (dictatorial).
However, a democratic society lives and dies by its ability to regulate the healthy functioning of its government, economy and citizens. A truly free and open media system is a feature of a real democratic republic that is tragically absent from the United States. Such an honest media system would inform the public that a democratic society passing laws to protect the interests of the poor is not necessarily leaning toward socialism, fascism, or communism. As in Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Germany and countless other industrialized countries, universal health care is merely a part of the healthy capitalist economic balance that promotes symbiotic class harmony.
The original health care bill, which would have created a strong, cost-effective, single-payer universal health care system similar to the successful programs of other industrialized nations, was gutted by the same special interests groups who created the previous ineffective system. The modified bill that was passed is a ghost of the original, leaving many of the problems with the current system intact and catering to the will of the insurance industry at the expense of the American people. The shortcomings of this bill will no doubt be used as talking points to further discourage real progressive legislation.
On the bright side, at least the Democrats have accomplished some change. It will be easier to keep the ball rolling and fix the problems with the current bill than it will be for special interests to take health care away from so many previously uninsured Americans.