Without a well informed and engaged public how can democracy prevail? The Mainstream media is more appropriatedly labled the Corporate Media these days as they have no incentive to offer points of views or information that is contrary to their corporate interests. Kucinich wants to re-introduce the Fairness Doctrine, if he does not succeed, I fear for the nation.

"while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. "
-------
I dunno. That sounds like "I'm the decision-maker" to me.

Maybe we could have Attorney General Gonzales come to this board and explain
the legal doctrine known as "the divine right of kings".

Hardt and Negri's Empire is excellent on this topic. And, it's a book Max Sawicky would have to respect!

Re MCS's comment "Ultimately, I think, Americans don't really oppose "overreach."
--------
I think MCS is wrong. How about the National Rifle Association? They have always argued that we need to accept 10,000 homocides per year as the cost of Freedom. They argued that we need to keep guns so as to deter a rogue President from ever trying to become a dictator.

During the Clinton Administration, I remember the NRA President waving a gun in the air and saying that federal agents could have his gun when they pried it "from his cold dead hands" Plus NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre denounced federal law enforcement as "jackbooted federal thugs" after they executed a judicial warrent at Wace.

Sounds like those guys could be shock troops for the resistance. After we got them likkered up , of course.

Who did the NRA support in the last two Presidential campaigns, by the way? Sound like Howard Dean supporters to me.

Well, I agree with you that a well informed and engaged public is essential to democracy, I am not sure about the rest of your post.

First, you should be careful to avoid the fallacy that with the proper amount of information and engagement, the public will automatically agree on a given point. A good example of what I am talking about is academic debate/disagreement. Most academics are incredibly well informed in their given field, and they are engaged in their field, but they still disagree quite often, and sometimes about basic principles.

Secondly, people use information shortcuts constantly. In fact, to function in the world I would argue that it is necessary for one to economize information

Also, I think the lack of the fairness doctrine is a great thing, inasmuch as not having the fairness doctrine forces political participants into a more open marketplace of ideas. Rather than granting monopolies to the two major mainstream points of view, I believe it is better to have wide open discussion, which forces one to find a better manner in which to sell one's ideas. Related to this point is what would the efficacy of the fairness doctrine be nowadays? Questioning the efficacy of the doctrine is important given the diversification of the distribution of information well beyond the broadcast media. It is unclear to me if cable channels would be susceptible to such a doctrine, which would exempt the national fox news, as opposed to the local broadcasts. So what if talk radio has to present both sides?
How many people would be affected? To some extent the lack of the fairness doctrine has allowed people to self select their media outlets. What I mean is that because conservatives predominate on talk radio, how many people are going to have their minds changed by a fair presentation of the issues if large numbers of the listeners are conservatives to begin with?

Lastly, what corporate interests does the MSM advance beyond their own bottom lines?

A "progressive" press for a progressive foreign policy?  I don't see it when TV networks are owned by the likes of GE (with their ties to the military-industrial complex).  It was tough enough for the press to just cover the Iraq War honestly (in terms of it's operational effectiveness) do you think the MSM will ever describe the US's foreign policy as what it is?  A imperialistic empire building endeavor, very short on practicing abroad what we preach at home.  And attacks like 9/11 and opposition to our foreign policy (like Chavez is doing in Central/South America) will continue to be portrayed as "they hate our freedoms" by the MSM instead of "they oppose our tyranny".

First off the meme that "freedom and democracy" can be spread at gunpoint needs to be repudiated for what it is...only a justification for trying to expand our empire.  And free markets do not represent somekind of benchmark for freedom.  They only represent an opportunity for our corporations to exploit new markets (and peoples) solely for their (the corporation's) benefit...and like all empires before us we want to dominate the world for our own self interests, having nothing to do with being the "spreaders of freedom". 

Wait a second -- how would a "Progressive Foreign Policy" not fit this definition of "imperialism"? Nothing I've read regarding liberal foreign policy goals has suggested isolationism, or even a lessening of American military presence across the world. PFP may not see us in the Middle East, but I haven't heard anyone arguing for us to get out of Italy or Japan. Would progressives really be willing to give up the ability to intervene in other countries at will? Even if it's to do things like stop genocides, clean up after natural disasters, and strike at terrorist sites (as Clinton did in Afghanistan, Sudan, etc...)?

Your comment is incorrect.

When Tacitus speaks of Livia's manipulations, he is talking about the situation when Augustus is in old age and feeble. That is, Tacitus is describing Livia's attempts to control the succession so that one of her sons takes power.

Tacitus says nothing to indicate that Livia had any power in the first few decades after Augustus took power. Indeed, Tacitus suggests otherwise --by noting that Augustus made descendents other than Livia's sons into princes and potential successors.

If you think Tacitus is merely prejudiced, look at other Roman sources for that period.
Suetonius etc.

Or consider what Clodia did to Cicero as payback for his gossip about her love life
during legal proceedings.
A useful anecdote for the next conference of the American Bar Association.

I genuinely like the quotation from Tacitus and the other pithy comments from the ancients. It's useful to remind ourselves that we are not quite as unique as we would like to believe. I've been reading and re-reading Everett's bio of Cicero, and it's great stuff.

Still, I find it curious that when people refer to the ancients it is almost always to insist that resistance is futile. The defenders of the republic failed in Rome, just as we will fail in the time of Bush the Second, and beyond. That's using a particular moment of history to draw pretty defeatest lessons.

Is the modern press too often supine and slavish? Yep. Is the MSM owned by mega-corporations? Yep. Is the fight to protect democracy a tough fight? Right again. But it's always an uphill fight, and the press is often sensationalist and reactionary. Throughout American history the 'free press' has had a checkered history.(Remember 'yellow journalism'?)

Still, it seems a little politically irresponsible, or perhaps just a different reading of history, to suggest that the American people are all brain dead, passive and don't realize they are being ripped off. Look at the political energy around health care, failing schools, outrageous CEO pay, and now the opposition to the war in Iraq.

The disconent is there. It just hasn't been effectively mobilized.

I'm glad to hear an optimistic take on Chalmers Johnson's Empire vs. Democracy Ernest.

We are starting to see documentaries that "question authority" now - some that can be rented at Blockbuster and those plus others available as pay per view movies on demand. This is better than nothing - it's a start. Let's face it, most Americans don't read, they watch TV.

The Net is another positive development, and probably more positive than documentaries on demand since there are so many choices and since it is interactive / collaborative / participative.

Let's hope sites like this plus the aforementioned documentaries are cracks in the status quoe that will open the flood gates.

As I posted in another thread just now, and it is accentuating the obvious but that is necessary sometimes, I posted "there is a difference between being dumb and being ignorant."

I myself fall into the 2nd category so I'm speaking from experience.

And I realize it's my fault for being ignorant, but on the other hand you can hardly blame me (and all the others like me) for forgetting that CNN isn't covering the whole story nor the big picture. Plus I live in the boonies and the closest large bookseller is one hour away.

Perhaps I should have subscribed to a newspaper. Which I don't remember the last time I did. On the Net I just grab news quickly from google or yahoo and I get emailed breaking news announcements.

I became more abreadst of political thought different from the status quo from being an environmentalist. I voted Democrat just on the single issue of environment since I was old enough to vote. (I'm 44.) Both from volunteering as a webmaster within the environmental organization and from getting email action alerts about environmental politics, I became more involved. But I still believed in a "strong military" minus the need for huge numbers of foot soldiers, post cold war, and I was ignorant of such analyses as the Imperial nature of the US, although I believed wars should be limited to defensive wars not pre-emptive wars. Of course we were all hood-winked into the necessity of the pre-emptive Iraq war. What salesmen we have in this administration. I was not entirely ignorant -- I knew of some of the adverse affects and "imperial" quality of multi-national corporations. Environmental, cultural, and human rights affects. But I didn't have a grasp of the big picture.

Both documentaries on demand and blogs are grass roots. It is possible the cable companies could be strong armed into not airing question the status quo documentaries. But I don't think it could happen with blogs. Not unless we really go the Big Brother route.

It's hard to swallow such "breaking news" of the big picture sort as Mr. Johnson's. And even if it isn't entirely true, or even if it is only half true, if we aren't exposed to it we won't be able to see the signs if it becomes half or more than half or all the way true soon enough.

I get the feeling blogs like this are where many journalists are starting their day for the same reason as my previous paragraph. It seems obvious to me that the news starts in many cases on blogs like this nowadays. Although there aren't that many participants, and I consider 90% of the participants to be in an intellectual elite class, it seems to me journalists are taking advantage of the "push the envelope" nature and "multi brain processing" to make their jobs easier and work more cutting edge. (Although they still don't have the courage to cover the big picture like political blogs do.)

I don't consider myself part of the 90% intellectual elite, but if I pay enough attention to these grass roots information sources, and the books they reference, I could become a self educated part of the 90%. I hope I am speaking for a lot of people. And that is the $10,000 question that Ernest asks in this thread.

How about email breaking news of the big picture variety. Blogs like this could have email subscription lists which would email the day's or week's big stories. For those who are not addicts visiting the site regularly. The Huffington Post email subscription list is an example of breaking news email alert "of a different variety." A lot of articles in the Huffington Post are too far to the political left for my opinions. But I gather my opinions will in some if not many cases morph as I become more familiar with the big picture.

Brooksfoe --

Having a deep water navy -- indeed, the best deepwater navy in the world -- is important because of the things it obviates, like other big powers feeling compelled to build their own, competing fleets. I'd certainly rather not see a situation where China enters into a Admiral Tirpitz/Kaiser Wilhelm type race to fill the naval vacuum.

Ben Cronin

Ambition of Ceasar, talent of Crassus?

I may be wrong, but I do not remember any naval vacuum that enticed Imperial Germany to build their High Sea Fleet. Wasn't it more like the other way round?

And hence, if I am right, an American deep water navy may rather invite a revanchist Russia or an assertive China to take up the challenge, wouldn't it?

Mahan's key idea of the "fleet in being" suggests, and many deterrence analysts still believe, that it can be a strategically stabilizing force. MAD wasn't pretty, but it obviously worked and was stabilizing.

While it might seem even more unusual, than Tom Clancy, to cite a science fiction novel as a conceptual reference, for those who have read Frank Herbert's Dune (an outstanding book), think of the way he discusses the "Family Atomics", prohibited from being used against humans, but still a MAD situation. For that matter, compare his reference to the galaxy's most valuable resource, the Spice, found only on a desert planet with a people clearly modeled after Bedouin, with oil in our society.

Rambling a bit, Herbert has also written a book about oil in the future of this planet. It's been printed under two titles, Under Pressure and The Devil in the Sea. Highly recommended, as one of the few novels to deal with a hard science problem, and simultaneously religion and psychology.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

With respect

I don't think I can accept this distinction, at least not in historic terms.  The great progressives in the era that coined the term were all of the roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-to-work school of improving the human condition.  Think Lincoln Steffens, Jane Addams, Jacob Riis, Bob LaFollette, and many less famous, including the man who knew them all, Ray Stannard Baker.  They weren't theoreticians...they were doers, all of them.  The link above leads to information about Baker and related links to the original Progressive Movement.

aMike

My goodness. Moralism & Idealism, the twin anti-gauntlets of the isolationist wing of the party. Certainly two characteristics never to be confused with anything progressive.

Well, I agree with you that a well informed and engaged public is essential to democracy, I am not sure about the rest of your post.

Not sure? Have you been living out of the country for the past twenty-five years? The preferred method of disinformation practiced by the seven or so giant corporations which monopolize the major media is malignant neglect in coverage while hyping sensational distractions from important events. Of course Fox, under Murdock rule, just tends to lie where necessary.

Tell me friend, what is the difference between a Communist state where powerful bureaucrats head the government through authority of a single party that offers the only candidates for election, and those bureaucrats control/own the means of production and distribution, the press and education and a state where powerful corporations control the major political parties, offer two candidates for each office both in thrall to them, control the media through corporate monopolistic practice and control private educational institutions seats by the power of check book and of course control public education by purchasing the government.

There is no difference, no practical difference for the majority of citizens living in a Soviet styled Communist state or a Fascist state, i.e. a state merged with corporations; only the rhetoric underlying those two terrible extremes differs. Just because the establishment running the US works hard at consensus creation does not diminish the fact that they are on the bottom line a pack of Fascists. The major media is an organ of the corporate state and is controlled from the boardroom just as the government has come to be.

As we have so clearly seen the past six years corporate bean-counting monopolists have no clue as to how to run a state economically, produce successful diplomacy or manage a war/wars. The only thing they seem to be good at is looting the middle classes to fill their own pockets and propagandizing the American people. It is past time for a Jeffersonian revolution to get rid of these corrupt, bumbling fools, to purge their pernicious influence from the government, educational instructions and the public airwaves and press.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

"many less famous" I might be showing my ignorance here but I've never heard of any of them!

---WORLD CITIZEN---