Wealthy and powerful people clearly do sometimes consciously devise schemes and start conflicts of all kinds to divert and distract attention and to pit the “little people” against each other. But I don’t think their tendencies to rationalize and distract their own attention or to be overwhelmed by their own grandiosity, power, and influ…
Wealthy and powerful people clearly do sometimes consciously devise schemes and start conflicts of all kinds to divert and distract attention and to pit the “little people” against each other. But I don’t think their tendencies to rationalize and distract their own attention or to be overwhelmed by their own grandiosity, power, and influence should be overlooked. Howard Schultz and Andrew Carnegie are good examples. Both came from humble beginnings and were supporters of working (and woke) people during their rise to power, but both fought unionization and enjoyed the trappings of their wealth, sometimes finding it hard to be humble or reasonable.
George Bush the lesser apparently did see war as his sure ticket to political advantage. But his belief in the superiority of the Christian faith and in his own superiority along with his usefulness as a tool of warmongers such as Cheney and the oil and arms industries were probably significant factors in his decision to invade in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, many of the ideas in the right-wing sphere do also appeal to the wealthy elites and many have become true believers of much of that propaganda and self-promoting sanctimony.
If we follow the money, we can see that ego and a sort of messianic complex or wish for hero status are powerful motives. Some sincerely wish to solve problems and help people. Zuckerberg’s and Gate’s wives (or ex-wife) are both much more progressive and have become involved in great educational initiatives which promote progressive values and policies and Gates himself has shown a degree of humility and a desire to respect others. Unfortunately, they have overlooked the fact that those values and policies in schooling cannot proliferate and reach the general public. They must always remain as “experimental” or as models and test examples.
Everyone believes the rags-to-riches mythology. No one has the slightest doubt that the poor immigrants came to our shores, were well-educated in our schools, and had great success as a result. There were a precious few who did indeed have that experience. In reality, however, for the great masses and for ordinary people the story was very different. The schools were there to keep the poor and minorities in their proper place. They still are. If that were not true, there would not still be laws which mandate attendance and that put officials and authorities in charge of administering schooling. There would not be curricula which come down from on high sanitizing history and elevating the chosen movers and shakers who make certain people and attitudes look good and others as suspect or undesirable.
If someone could just educate Ms. Chan and Ms. Gates. Someone like Thom Hartmann. Then, some of those big bucks might go toward real change, instead of toward privatizing schools. But, I’ve seen no indication that anyone in the progressive community has given up on the childish mythology delivered by schools or on the paternalism and fascism of forcing attendance, thereby undermining education.
Wealthy and powerful people clearly do sometimes consciously devise schemes and start conflicts of all kinds to divert and distract attention and to pit the “little people” against each other. But I don’t think their tendencies to rationalize and distract their own attention or to be overwhelmed by their own grandiosity, power, and influence should be overlooked. Howard Schultz and Andrew Carnegie are good examples. Both came from humble beginnings and were supporters of working (and woke) people during their rise to power, but both fought unionization and enjoyed the trappings of their wealth, sometimes finding it hard to be humble or reasonable.
George Bush the lesser apparently did see war as his sure ticket to political advantage. But his belief in the superiority of the Christian faith and in his own superiority along with his usefulness as a tool of warmongers such as Cheney and the oil and arms industries were probably significant factors in his decision to invade in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, many of the ideas in the right-wing sphere do also appeal to the wealthy elites and many have become true believers of much of that propaganda and self-promoting sanctimony.
If we follow the money, we can see that ego and a sort of messianic complex or wish for hero status are powerful motives. Some sincerely wish to solve problems and help people. Zuckerberg’s and Gate’s wives (or ex-wife) are both much more progressive and have become involved in great educational initiatives which promote progressive values and policies and Gates himself has shown a degree of humility and a desire to respect others. Unfortunately, they have overlooked the fact that those values and policies in schooling cannot proliferate and reach the general public. They must always remain as “experimental” or as models and test examples.
Everyone believes the rags-to-riches mythology. No one has the slightest doubt that the poor immigrants came to our shores, were well-educated in our schools, and had great success as a result. There were a precious few who did indeed have that experience. In reality, however, for the great masses and for ordinary people the story was very different. The schools were there to keep the poor and minorities in their proper place. They still are. If that were not true, there would not still be laws which mandate attendance and that put officials and authorities in charge of administering schooling. There would not be curricula which come down from on high sanitizing history and elevating the chosen movers and shakers who make certain people and attitudes look good and others as suspect or undesirable.
If someone could just educate Ms. Chan and Ms. Gates. Someone like Thom Hartmann. Then, some of those big bucks might go toward real change, instead of toward privatizing schools. But, I’ve seen no indication that anyone in the progressive community has given up on the childish mythology delivered by schools or on the paternalism and fascism of forcing attendance, thereby undermining education.