Dangerous Thinking in the age of the new authoritarianism by Henry Giroux

The ideas I am discussing in this post result mainly from a book I read by Henry Giroux titled, Dangerous Thinking in the age of the new authoritarianism. I highly recommend it. It may be irritating to some, but I think most of us can relate to it.

For those supportive of the present state of the economy and that includes all facets, including education, we are living in at a time of great efficiencies. The economy is driven by a dominant neoliberalism that defines the market as the only true judge of what works best. The educational system is geared to training students to fulfill the requirements of corporations. What could be more rational than that, an economic system that determines winners in the most efficient way and an educational system that supports the corporate market winners?

Helpful in supporting the above view is a historical loss of memory regarding our democratic roots, that there is more to democracy than a market economy, that the basis of what we consider democratic ideals came way before the advanced capitalistic system we live in today. A key to any democratic form of government is a citizenry that understands the advantages of a just society. That to have a just society there must be trust in the institutions that are created to advance the principles that undergird a truly representative government.

Understanding does not materialize out of thin air. It must be taught and for years the basis of such an education included the mandatory inclusion of the principles of a free society, the maintenance of trust without which no representative government can long endure. And it must be emphasized that the basis of a free society must depend upon the majority of the people believing in the common good, that it is the obligation of society to provide support for those who often through no fault of their own need support from the community. Now those who have opposition to such views might rightly say that under such circumstances there are those who will take advantage of such generosity and they are correct. But, it should be understood, the few who would game the system should not be the reason that we don’t believe in societal support. By emphasizing the few who will take advantage of supportive actions as a reason for its elimination, we take away the ability to focus on the far greater number of those who with timely support can contribute in the long run to a healthier society.

Examples abound. Free lunch programs for students so those who come from such dire circumstances that they are often undernourished and impaired in their ability to learn no longer suffer from this deficiency. Would this not be better than writing off these youngsters as eventual losers that then become a greater societal burden as they face a future devoid of promise?

How about improving on law enforcement establishments that consider inner city populations as hostile enemy territory and treat them as such? When an indigenous police force is viewed by the inhabitants of the community as the main source of threat, the purpose of law enforcement in a democratic society is turned on its head. How much better could it be, if there were community outreach programs that were funded sufficiently to offer pathways to a productive life? Is that idealistic? No more idealistic than those who believe in a “defense” budget that borders on a trillion dollars a year, with the exception that these ideals are being fulfilled. It would take a minuscule portion of that budget to be directed to the needs of people who are presently the victims of a society that writes them off.

One of the great transitions that has occurred over the past 40 plus years is the lower taxation on the morbidly wealthy along with a reduction in the regulations on corporations that make these individuals so wealthy. Another transition that has occurred over this time is where the rewards of greater productivity are directed. From the 30’s through the 70’s increased wealth as a result of increased productivity was shared fairly evenly throughout the economy. Over the past 40 years 95% of the productivity gains are directed to those who own the corporations rather than equally sharing those gains with those who are the actual producers.Those who believe that those who own the capital should be entitled to the rewards rationalize their position by negating the responsibilities we all have in a functioning democratic society.

Do you see a trend here? What started out as a republic that offered a far broader opportunity to individuals when capitalism was in its early stages of development is now so universal in its power that the major winners have the economic means to control all aspects of our society including the legislation that is passed, where the taxes raised come from and the loopholes purposely incorporated to further aid the already wealthy and powerful. Do you see a problem when the wealthiest pay a much lower percentage of taxes than the secretaries who work for them?

Beyond that, consider the fact that the 2008-09 recession that resulted from the housing crisis that was brought about by the default of subprime securities that were sold in the trillions to investors throughout the world as a result of criminal activity by bankers, loan originators, and financial credit rating services were considered too big to fail and too big to jail. Not so for a minority citizen in a poor community caught with weed.

What are the causes that have introduced such distortions to a society that was originally based on a philosophy described in the Constitution as one that supports life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The answer is uncontrolled capitalism, often described as casino capitalism, an economic system that concentrates on short term gain by focusing on financial manipulations rather than investment in long term productive growth to redirect more and more of the country’s assets into the hands of the wealthy few.

So, the major corporations have developed the strategies that maximize their profits and set the pattern for still substantial, but smaller corporations. As I have stated in previous posts, education is not geared to a more informed citizenry. It’s function is to supply corporations with workers who are purposely not taught to think critically for to think critically is to challenge authority. The goal is to create graduates who are proficient at performing the tasks the companies ask of them, but no further. The companies are obviously most comfortable with workers who are comfortable in an authoritarian environment for that is precisely what a corporate structure represents. In educating to that task, making the graduates good consumers is also a welcomed accomplishment.

This is the world we live in today affecting the economic rules we are forced to live under as well as the education we receive. For me, in the world of endodontics as primarily a practicing endodontis and secondarily as the owner of a small company developing endodontic products I am well aware of the impact corporate sponsorship has in this phase of education. As I stated earlier, a democratic society ultimately must be based on trust. How is it possible to trust an educational process where it has been documented that 80% of academic endodontists are the recipients of industrial payments? To further add to that distrust how is it possible that reporting such corporate encroachment results in no outrage? Those who support the status quo say corporate influence is controlled by those who sign conflict of interest statements that preclude such abuse. I posted a detailed impact statement of corporate influence and it clearly stated that conflict of interest statements are not universally applied or a consistently accurate reflection of the relationship researchers have with their sponsors. It is available to read in one of my recent posts.

Hopefully, things are changing just a bit with the realization that corporate power and influence in the hands of the few is unsustainable. Perhaps, some of the more enlightened capitalists realize that in the words of John F. Kennedy, “where evolution is prevented, revolution is inevitable”. We have an election coming up. One party offers at least some hope and the room for further progress. The other requires no description.

Regards, Barry