Empire in Decline: Drowning out the “Vox Populi”

2012 is going to be an interesting year.  Assuming the Mayans got it wrong and the world does not end on December 21^st, we are looking at year of ever-increasing instability.  As the Arab Spring shows no signs of letting up, as the economy continues to struggle amidst the euro-crisis, and as the national debt continues to soar, we Americans will be charged with the task of deciding who it is that we believe can best guide us through these tumultuous waters?

Unfortunately, as we approach the November elections, we do so as a people newly crippled by what the New York Times calls the “most conservative” Supreme Court in decades.[1]   Back in 2008, a non-profit corporation called Citizens United fought for the right to air a film called Hillary: The Movie within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.  At stake was the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which sought to regulate the financing of political campaigns.  While the lower courts upheld the 2002 BCRA, the Supreme Court took up the case on appeal in January of 2008 and reversed the ruling of the lower courts.

So what does that mean in practical terms?  Well, in short, the case did not alter the ban on corporations and unions donating to either candidate campaigns or political parties.  Those limitations are still in effect.  But what it did do was make it legal for corporations and unions to pump unlimited amounts of money into politically oriented groups that theoretically operate independently of individuals seeking office.

Still not seeing the problem?  Well let’s take Newt Gingrich as an example.  Prior to this ruling, no one could make a contribution to Gingrich’s campaign that was greater than $2500.  And that is still true.  But now, what someone can do is make a $30 million donation to a theoretically independent group that can invest that money into the election cycle in any way that it sees fit.

So what are candidates such as Gingrich, Romney, Obama, etc. doing?  All of them are creating Super-PACs, which can raise and spend as much money as they want.  Technically, these Super-PACs are not allowed to directly coordinate with any particular campaign.  But what happens is that supporters of each candidate create a Super-PAC on behalf of their candidate of choice and use the money solely to support his/her campaign.  Then, as happened last spring in Gingrich’s campaign, an aide will leave the official campaign to take on a leadership role with the affiliated Super-PAC.  Following that, the candidate will legally begin to raise money for his or her Super-PAC, effectively by-passing the limitations on how much an individual, corporation or union can contribute to the candidate.

Can you see where this is going?  In the past, Big Tabaco was prohibited from contributing money directly to an individual candidate.  Sure, there were other ways that pressure was applied, but there were limitations in place that sought to protect the integrity of the election process.  Now, if Big Tabaco wants a favorable ruling to pass, it has all the power of its bankroll at its disposal.  “Hey Newt.  You want a nice $20 million dollar donation going to your Super-PAC?  This is how you’re going to vote.  And if you don’t, we’ll take our $20 million elsewhere …”

In an interview with Time Magazine, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter had this to say:

“We’re suddenly entering a very different world where people with large sums of money, if they choose, are going to be able to spend it easily in ways that may buy elections.”

This is a problem for all American citizens.  But for those of us who profess to believe in Jesus the Christ – for those of us who are charged with defending the poor – this is monumental.  For the voice of the poor, which is already severely muted in our society, is only going to get weaker when money of this magnitude is allowed to be funneled into politics in this manner.  This is why, we, as Christians, should be on the forefront of the fight to restore campaign finance restrictions.  While I understand the issues related to the first amendment and the protection of free speech, we have to ask the question: whose right to speak is being protected here?  The vox populi or the vox opulenta?

---

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1280031003-IhmBOL5/YE4siKRmrdcX8Q

Democracy in Action …

This morning, two images appeared at the top of the CNN.com newsfeed.  Has me wondering: is this Egypt in 50 years or the United States in 50 years?

Crowds swarming in Egypt for the right to be politically free.

Crowds swarming in the United States for the right to find a "great deal."

From Occupy Wall Street to “V for Vendetta”

Late last week, cnn.com, Time magazine and other similar news outlets carried a story about the appearance of Guy Fawkes masks at various Occupy Wall Street protests around the world.  Having just written on the subject of David Fincher’s Fight Club, I was not terribly surprised to see this, for I had concluded my review with a prediction that the Occupy Wall Street movement, modeled as it was on the Arab Spring, could only move in the direction of violent resistance.  So where’s the violence you ask?  How does a mask equal violence?  Well, in order to understand that, you need to understand another recent film that popularized the mask and explained its origins.

Still feeling a bit confused?  Let me break it down for you.  V for Vendetta is a film based on the now-famous graphic novel written by Alan Moore in the early 1980s.  The film itself is set in the near-future Britain, which is under the control of an extremist, right-wing government called Norsefire.  Having survived a nuclear war that has decimated other parts of the globe, “Britain prevails” by submitting itself to the policies of a planned economy, government-controlled media, and concentration camps that segregate racial and sexual minorities.  Moreover, the government itself is legitimated – or propped up – by religious images and language that are used to justify the harsh, totalitarian actions of the leader, who can only be charitably described as a Hitler-esque figure.

The cross depicted in the film is a papal or archiepiscopal cross, marked by two transoms of uneven length.

As for the protagonist of the story, V is a man that has been deeply scarred by the appalling experiments carried out under the authority of this government.  Enraged, and permanently disfigured, he adopts the persona and mask of Guy Fawkes, a true-to-life historical figure that attempted to blow-up Parliament in 1605.  As an anarchist, V’s violent plan of action is driven forward by two overwhelming desires:

1. The desire to expose the lies that undergird the actions of the government.
2. The desire to awaken the political consciousness of the dulled masses that have been drugged into a stupor by the idiocy of the television and propaganda.

Sound familiar?  At the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement — at the heart of the Arab Spring and the G20 protests – lies a deep, globalized dissatisfaction with the way that governments have conducted themselves.  Moreover, these movements are founded on populist ideals that don’t propose a way forward, so much as they propose a revolution in which society is reordered for the purpose of meeting the needs (or wants) of those that are either legitimately oppressed or those that mistakenly see themselves as such.

So the only questions that truly remains are these:

How long will it be before one of these mask-wearing protestors takes their dissatisfaction to the next level? 

How long before “Fight Club” becomes “Project Mayhem?” 

How long before the people tire of “peaceful resistance” and go looking for salvation in the form of revolution? 

V for Vendetta is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America.  It contains: strong violence, some language and a scene with dead, naked bodies being tossed into mass graves.

“There are Two Rules in Fight Club …”

This is the first post in an ongoing series on the subject of film and culture.  Please be aware that many of the films reviewed in this series will contain material that is highly antithetical to the Christian faith.  Nevertheless, there is value in understanding these films for the role they play in the formation of the greater culture at large.  Any decision you make to either watch these films or not is entirely up to you.

Fifteen years ago, in 1996, a struggling writer by the name of Chuck Palahniuk published his first novel entitled Fight Club.  Three years later, a young director by the name of David Fincher decided to adapt the book to film, and the world witnessed the birth of a genuine “cult phenomenon.”

So what was Fight Club about?  And why are we still talking about it 15 years later?  Well, let’s start by taking a look at the trailer:

Right away, you can that this is an incredibly violent film, filled with all sorts of nihilistic aggression.  But the real question we have to ask is this: is that all there is to Fight Club? Is Fight Club just another violent film in the same vein as Resevoir Dogs, Saw, or A Clockwork Orange?  I would argue that the answer is “no.”  Fight Club is far more than an orgy of mayhem.  It’s about one central idea that is best summed up in the words of one of the central characters, Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt):

“I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who’ve ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.”

What begins as mere disillusionment, however, rapidly escalates into something much more electrifying, much more insideous:

“Fight Club was the beginning,” says Durden. “Now it’s moved out of the basement, it’s called Project Mayhem.”

You see, genuine disillusionment is not a static entity.  By its very nature, disillusionment must progress in one of two directions.  It either degenerates into personal apathy, or it escalates into a state of confrontation.  In Fight Club, apathy is not an option because apathy itself  is viewed to be part of the problem.  So in Fight Club, there was never a question as to where this disillusionment would take us.  And thus, we shouldn’t be surprised when Pitt’s character finally states his real philosophy:

“Fuck damnation, man! Fuck redemption! We are God’s unwanted children. So be it!”

Now unfortunately, this is the part of the post where I now have to betray the famed ending of the movie.  For in order to understand what Fight Club is really about, in order to understand why it still resonates in 21st century, you have to understand the conclusion.  Throughout the film, you have watched “The Narrator” (played by Edward Norton) take a journey out of apathy into a place of action.  But as he witnesses the greater and greater extremes of Durden’s (Pitt’s) nihilistic actions, he becomes more and more concerned.  By the end, “The Narrator” has learned two great truths:

1. Durden has planned to blow up buildings in the financial district of the city.
2. Durden is not actually real.  He is “The Narrator’s” alternate personality; and thus “The Narrator” is actually responsible for everything that has transpired.

So what does he do?  Does he “fuck redemption” as the movie has lead us to believe he will?  No, he does not .  Instead, he fashions his own form of redemption as he shoots himself in the head (thus killing his alternate personality), and then grabs the hand of the his girlfriend and watches in satisfaction as the buildings come crumbling down.

“You met me at very strange time in my life …”  Now stop and think about that.  What’s he really saying?  In short, he sees himself as someone who changed: ” I was apathetic, but I no longer am.  My disillusionment has become action.  I was a follower, but I no longer am.  Now I stand alone, in complete control of my actions.  I was weak, but now … now I am Nietzsche’s ubermensch.  I define my own morality; and in my world, the corporations that sell us dreams are to blame for everything that makes society ill.  I … I am a savior; and if you follow after me, I can redeem society by tearing it down …”

So why are we still talking about Fight Club?  Why am I writing about it this morning?  Because I believe the themes of Fight Club are still being played out in society today.  I believe we see the massive dissatisfaction with the transnational corporations that dominate our world.  I believe we see apathy in the youth and a growing sense of powerlessness amongst the “middle class” of the Western World.  In the G20 protests, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the Arab Spring, we see the seeds of dissatisfaction growing and I wonder whether we see the beginning of a far more violent revolution.  I wonder what this new form of “redemption” will really look like?