Technology, politics have rendered public protest obsolete, according to Tony Judt
"I was amazed that people didn't take to the streets after the health care reform bill passed," said a politician of my acquaintance the other day. That got me to wondering about what has happened to the power of "the street" in affecting what governments do. It seems to have seeped away, stealthily, over the years. People can gather in great numbers in Washington, London and other capital cities, wave their signs, shout their slogans, voice their displeasure with war, abortion, taxation, etc.; they can scream themselves hoarse and fling rocks at the police, and nobody in power really seems to care.
Now, there seems to be a disconnect between governments and public opinion. British-born historian Tony Judt (tragically stricken with Lou Gehrig's Disease, paralyzed from the neck down yet still writing and talking about the things that matter to him) explained his thinking on this matter in an interview published in the London Review of Books. He said that what we might call "the connect" was a short-lived phenomenon that "began in the late 19th Century with mass newspapers, mass literacy, speed and ease of communication and, especially, trains."
"Governments were forced to be very responsive to popular feeling," said Professor Judt. "They felt very vulnerable. Elections could remove them from power, and if elections didn't work, then the masses on the streets might achieve the same results. After World War II, [European] governments retreated from politics."
As to what he means by that, he says, "There was a feeling, partly a consequence of fascism, that you couldn't trust mass opinion anymore. It wasn't reliable. Not only were the masses willing to throw you out, they might be willing to overthrow the whole system."
Now things have been so arranged that it really doesn't matter if a government is turned out of office, since such election results don't actually change the fundamental policies or laws of the country. Popular politics is an artifact of the past. That realization is dawning on the American public, agitated by its lower standard of living and the growing gap between those who have, those who have not, and those who have had — but worry they soon will have not.
Read entire article at Baltimore Sun
Now, there seems to be a disconnect between governments and public opinion. British-born historian Tony Judt (tragically stricken with Lou Gehrig's Disease, paralyzed from the neck down yet still writing and talking about the things that matter to him) explained his thinking on this matter in an interview published in the London Review of Books. He said that what we might call "the connect" was a short-lived phenomenon that "began in the late 19th Century with mass newspapers, mass literacy, speed and ease of communication and, especially, trains."
"Governments were forced to be very responsive to popular feeling," said Professor Judt. "They felt very vulnerable. Elections could remove them from power, and if elections didn't work, then the masses on the streets might achieve the same results. After World War II, [European] governments retreated from politics."
As to what he means by that, he says, "There was a feeling, partly a consequence of fascism, that you couldn't trust mass opinion anymore. It wasn't reliable. Not only were the masses willing to throw you out, they might be willing to overthrow the whole system."
Now things have been so arranged that it really doesn't matter if a government is turned out of office, since such election results don't actually change the fundamental policies or laws of the country. Popular politics is an artifact of the past. That realization is dawning on the American public, agitated by its lower standard of living and the growing gap between those who have, those who have not, and those who have had — but worry they soon will have not.