2006 May 27 Saturday
Dennis Dale On Our New 3 Branches Of Governance

The three famous divisions of American government, Executive, Congressional, and Judicial branches are no longer the three branches of ruling power in America today. Dennis Dale thinks that power is held by political, media, and corporate elites.

I will soon be done with this immigration issue; sometime after our leaders have codified into law the principle that human beings can be viewed as units of labor, subject to strict cost analysis and valued entirely thereby. They bring nothing more with them; except perhaps a deep love of the ideals we are currently rendering hollow at home and abroad.

Culture, intelligence, group thought and resentment, human nature in toto; I'm relieved to learn from my betters that these things have been rendered meaningless by globalization and the conspicuous tolerance of our mandarins. Pay no attention to the angry mobs waving foreign flags; disregard the triumphant language of racial demagogues. Don't inquire what's to become of what's left of our republic. Comfort yourself with the knowledge that you haven't entertained thoughts that the nicely dressed people on television would find gauche. And don't forget: American Idol's finale is tonight!

Our political, media, and corporate classes have become the operative three branches of governance. Like the nominal triumvirate set forth in the constitution, they have their internal rifts, and sometimes struggle for power amongst themselves. But unlike the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, (now comprising one foundation of the new order; the political element of our oligarchy), they can work together with remarkable cohesion and little overt direction. A template has been fashioned over the past generation, the result of years of pandering and demagoguery dressed up in lofty rhetoric (or not-so-lofty rhetoric), and each element knows intuitively how to behave in a remarkable variety of situations.

The liberal media, members of the US Imperial Senate, and corporate interests all are fighting for the abolition of America through a massive increase in the rate of legal immigration combined with continued illegal immigration.

Dennis takes a dim view of Imperial Senate member John McCain and I agree.

One more lesson we'll have to learn painfully: heroism doesn't necessarily make one a good leader. McCain's forced verbal dullness can only mask a man with extremely limited patience. We are not led by the wise; I'm not sure we're even led by the sane. We are led by the ambitious.

When the British Empire was on the rise ambitious Brits could make a name for themselves and also strengthen the Empire by channelling their ambitions into acts that would strengthen the empire and win them knighthoods and other honors that placed them higher in the social pecking order. Something has gone very wrong in the status competition in the United States. Today, unfortunately, the ambitious in the American Republic's political class and not a few of its capitalists find it expedient to promote policies and ideas that weaken America. We'd be a lot better off if these people found more generally beneficial outlets for their ambitions.

For an example of what I'm talking about see this National Council of La Raza ("The Race") list of "Insitutional Corporate Partners":

The Allstate Corporation
Bank of America
The Coca-Cola Company
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
MBNA Corporation
PepsiCo Foundation
The PMI Group, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Yes, these corporations are funding your enemies.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 May 27 12:32 PM  Politics American Decay

Rick Darby said at May 27, 2006 1:22 PM:

Absolutely. And this shift of real power is probably the main reason that tens of millions of immigration restrictionists are feeling frustration almost beyond endurance. They are Great War cavalry regiments charging machine guns.

Most of them still fondly imagine that if they collect enough signatures on petitions or send enough letters and faxes to their representatives in Congress, the scales will fall from the lawmakers' eyes and they'll change their votes. That's to completely misunderstand how the system works nowadays, in contrast to how the textbooks say it works or what may have been mostly true in the past.

Of the three real branches of governance that Dennis Dale notes, the old political class is a trailing indicator. It follows the corporate and media branches. The first defines the favored policy and the second sets the terms of public debate in a way that supports it. Legislators, although technically still responsible for regulation, can at most dissent from the conventional wisdom that the corporations and media have constructed. And most of them understand that there's no future for them in that.

The political branch actually needs to be subdivided into the judicial sub-branch and the representative sub-branch, with the judicial sub-branch now having the power and the will to trump any act of the people's representatives that they don't like, with no one to say them nay other than a higher judicial authority.

Finally, you've got one more huge stakeholder: the government bureaucracy -- huge, opaque to outsiders, operating according to its own values and a palimpsest of complicated regulations applied on top of one another for generations, taking on a life of their own. The bureaucracy, as so many have pointed out to so little effect, exists not to fix problems but to manage them until the end of time. And it grows like kudzu, providing ever more managerial positions for up-and-coming gray suits.

Any serious member of The Resistance is going to have to come to terms with the true flow chart of power, not concentrate on legislators whose position is now mainly ceremonial. There are pressure points where at least some of the real power centers are vulnerable. Corporations in particular are easily panicked by claims that they have "offended" some group and by credible threats to their profit margins.

John S Bolton said at May 28, 2006 2:00 AM:

This misunderstands power and resembles marxist analysis. Money tries to buy power; one has to discriminate between literal power and influence. If influence is to be equivocated with literal power, why is the 'power' of government schools swept under the rug?
The ideas for setting up the terms of debate start among smart people in academia, not with the journalistic mentalities.
Juridicial power is camouflaged by setting it lower than that of media whose near monopoly has been broken up.
Money goes to government audiences as a supplicant, not as a ruler. Marxists say otherwise, but they have propaganda reasons for so doing.

John S Bolton said at May 28, 2006 2:20 AM:

If war propaganda were being made against the citizenry, one part of it would sound like: surrender, give up, political, media, and corporate elites have decided that relations between nations and ethnic groups are their special province, upon which the majority should not expect to have any say.
How is it that we have millions in prison today, when formerly such elites had announced that the correct policy answers were gun control and rehabilitation and welfare projects out to the horizon?
These elites don't like it, but they are being slapped and humiliated as hard as when the League of Nations was jeered out of its chance of effective existence by the US Senate. American diplomats never again posessed dignity in the eyes of foreign elites after that. They had given assurances that they were in command of the people, but they couldn't deliver any more than the current administration can deliver on its connivances with dirty Mexico.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright