How the Neo-conservative Mind Has Been Trying to Out-smart Democracy

Today, when it’s too clear how costly, in terms of human lives, suffering and wasted resources the ideas of Communism and German racial superiority have been for humankind, to ask the rhetorical question “Did it make sense to go through the Russian revolution and Civil war or through WW2”, seems even more necessary than ever. We, Europeans and Americans are, today, trapped in a period when politico-economic convulsions (created by the reckless – the obsessive behavior of the financial elites) put the citizens of democracies in front of economic disaster. With disbelief, we find ourselves before the necessity to compensate the wealthiest 2% of the population with our growing pauperization, with losing our medical care, decent education for our children and grandchildren, and our social security retirement fund.

This situation makes us more conscious about the social costs of human compulsive dreams (rooted in megalomaniacal narcissism) personified by our financial leaders. It is impressive with what an ease the conservative politicians are trying to reduce to poverty the 98% of the population, and this makes us start to feel doubts about genuineness of the American prosperity itself in hay days of “democratic boom” between 1960 – 1980 and democratic retreat after, until Bush Jr. thrown us into the abyss of fake wars crowned with the 2008 financial collapse as a result of incompetent financial practices of profit-hunters who don’t want to be responsible for what they have done.

The neo-cons (conservatives oriented not only on direct power but more on financial power) thought for a while that superficial prosperity for the majority of Americans is good for the rich minority because it pacifies and distracts people from political criticism of the financial elite. But today, neo-cons are switching from the idea of mass prosperity back to the traditional idea of mass austerity. Why these miraculous cultural shifts? After WWII the American neo-con financial elite feverishly tried to prevent the growth of interest among American population towards Soviet Russia. Victory over Nazi Germany, alliance with the Soviet Union, memories of the Great Depression and deprivations connected with it, and Franklin Roosevelt’s humanistic stance during those hard times became in the perception of many fused and mixed with humanistic phraseology of the Soviet propaganda. Some Americans developed sentimental attraction towards Soviet Russia (SRussia), based on unconscious dream about utopian happiness, and others gave themselves to frivolous socio-political curiosity. This situation created a real challenge for the calculating minds of the neo-con decision makers. And they took this challenge with a virtuoso strategic maneuver – they tried to put on their harsh faces of hard-liners the cosmetic make-up of “compassionate conservatives“ (teary-tearers) – not leaders-greeders, but leaders-greeters who are, as if, not at all against the democratic progressivism with its orientation on improving the material conditions of life for most and care about issues of civil rights.

Everybody can dream about an alternative way of life. People for centuries dream of paradise and Shangri-La, pristine lands and noble savages. But SRussia as a country of people was a purely idealistically purified projection of dreams of many Americans in the 50s – 60s who looked at SRussia but saw US without unemployment, economic depressions, McCarthyism, Witch Hunts and selective poverty. The funny part of it is that the American financial elites believed in the same ideological illusion about SRussia as did those among the masses who psychologically were not tied to extreme conservative ideological beliefs (psychologically rooted in the complimentarity between individual’s megalomaniacal self-image and scapegoating posture towards people and groups symbolizing for him otherness/dissimilarity). Of course, for neo-cons this fairy-talishly benign image of SRussia was rather a phobic projection, but operationally it corresponded to the version many Americans upheld. American financial elite (AFE) and the masses had the same illusion about the Soviet Union but by opposite reasons – mass Americans wanted human happiness of a Hollywood cuisine, but the AFE was/is afraid of, exactly human happiness for masses. The both groups – the demos and the elites were victims of not only the Soviet propaganda but of archaic human dreams as a part of a collective unconscious, masses positively and the elites negatively. Neo-cons didn’t want the realization of human dreams – equality, justice and brotherhood in their country and for this reason they accepted democratization in US as the only, as they thought then, way to distract the mass Americans from their sympathy for Soviet alternative to American way of life, although Soviet Union was just another variant of hierarchical society where the decision-making in the name of all was the prerogative of the 2%.

The result of this double illusion was a partial “liberalization” and “democratization” of the American system – allowing the widening the structure of a democratic care about the people based on a systemic, rooted in flesh and blood of the politico-economic organization, public care for the needy (including youth in need of education and women in need of careers). Rich and their politicians tried to show the American people that “democracy” is much more generous to its 98% of the population than “Soviet socialism” with its low level of material prosperity – that there is no need to dream about “socialism” because “democracy” cares about its people much better. The 2% of the population agreed for mass democratization of the financial, medical and educational needs of the population – with a tragic split in their hearts and minds. They hated what they believed they had to do – to give American democrats the political leadership and to the 98% – benefits, medical care, prosperity, education, property and consumerism. And simultaneously they feverishly searched for solutions how to undermine what they were supporting. Their chance to undo what was achieved came just in a couple of decades – the “collapse of Soviet Union”. The success of a globally deployed mass culture was already providing the masses with much more intense and extensive pleasures than the dreamy archetype of paradisiacal life. Drugs, pop-music, fast food, idolization of celebrities, idolization of success, fun with electronic gadgets, catharsis through sports and athletic events, gay sub-culture, opportunity to make quick bucks with quickly developing quick profit-making strategies, etc.

It is not just a coincidence that the “American conservative revolution” with Cute Gingerrich as its standard-bearer, started after the “collapse” of the “socialist alternative” to the American values. Today, this revolution is reaching its victorious phase: factual austerity for the 98% is in the process of being realized. In 21st century the rich solemnly return to their real position that becoming richer by the price of pauperization of the rest of the population is right and moral thing to do. The American prosperity of democratic years had the same reason for its existence as now does the neo-cons’ program of American austerity. As mass prosperity’s task was to perpetuate stability of the financial elites’ dominance over population, the austerity of 21st century is designed to directly serve the pocket interests of the 2%. It is the same thing again – when they put on us austerity and shock therapy it is to their benefit, but the same is true even when they feed us.

That’s why when they allowed post-WWII democratization they simultaneously spoiled it – the cheap food was/is silently destroying our physical health, like pop-entertainment – our aesthetic sensitivity and our potential for semantic competence. Massive de-financing of humanistic education makes us less capable of imagining the future of our country, and transformation of writers into journalists is a warning sign of wearing down the heart-and-soul of Western culture, when technicality becomes goal in itself and only our psychological fragments are plugged in while our psychological wholeness (human intelligence which includes human Being and human destiny into any specific problem) becomes silent and mute. And this puts us in danger of all kinds of fundamentalism and extremism, making us sandwiched between terrorism from below and terrorism from above.

The ultimate fertilizer for all this is the conservative hate towards life, towards everything what is life and dedicated to life and not to making profit by any price.