Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Monday, September 01, 2008


That the word "branding" is commonly used now in media discussions of political candidates and campaigns says it all. There was a time when such concepts were avoided in public discussion. The public wasn't supposed to think that candidates were being sold like laundry detergent. But no more. It's all a sales job. Openly. It's all B.S.

1 comment:

Jimi G said...

Yes, there apparently was a time when the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes" had currency. It might be reasonable to presume that people in the past understood the moral.

America has come so far, so fast, that "The Emperor's New Clothes" has lost its relevance. Now, the Emperor walks nakedly with pride.

The little boy recognizes the nakedness of the Emperor, looks at the adults standing around him, and realizes with quiet resignation that they have no problem with it. They are just fine with the naked Emperor. Maybe they're pretending, maybe they're zombies. What are they going to do about it anyway?

So the little boy, being a perceptive lad, keeps his mouth shut like a good little boy and maybe if he plays his cards right, when he grows up, he'll get a pretty clown suit in which to play dress-up and assume a very important role as a lieutenant in the Emperor's syndicate.

I wonder which version of the fable is better? In the original, the Emperor's clothes represent the artifical concealing of his political omnipotence and the violent means necessary to preserve it, a denial of sorts. In this update, at least this omnipotence is exposed -- to what avail, I have no clue.

I guess we're left with Goethe's hopelessly enslaved people deluded into believing they are free.

How interesting to be an anti-statist in this culture!