Who is this “silent majority”, and why do they want to shut us up?

tricky-dick-mask.jpg

I have always found the phrase “silent majority” irksome. Not just because Tricky Dick used it (and was, of course, lying his ass off when he did so), but because makes no sense. How do you know people who share your smugly conservative views are, in fact, a majority, when they’re silent?

You don’t, and that’s just what makes this phrase so stupid. It takes a lot for granted.

It takes for granted, as Tricky Dick did, that just because a majority of people aren’t out there at any given time demonstrating against some huge injustice, that they must therefore be FOR it, rather than against it and unable to do anything about it (like take time off work or travel many miles to go to a demo, say). It takes for granted that people are constantly free to speak their minds publicly, and if they don’t, it’s because their mind is already made up in favor of the prevailing order, or the ruling class, or whatever trash the TV is trying to sell them.

Of course, that’s ridiculous. Not everyone who opposes the G-20 fuckery is going to be able to turn out to demonstrate against it; I’d say that maybe just one opponent in ten made it to Toronto for the big demo, and that’s an optimistic number. Fewer still made it to the subsequent protests against police brutality and the violation of civil rights, but that hardly means, as Dalton McGuinty claimed when he appropriated Tricky Dick’s phraseology, that those who showed up to speak out were a vocal minority. They were just the few who could afford to spare the time and energy to be there.

More insulting is the notion that the so-called “silent majority” assumed to be in favor of the fuckery has more wisdom and sense on the issues. In fact, those in favor are the ignorant ones. And to anyone who had the nerve to snark on the protesters, claiming they didn’t know what they were against, here you go. Chow down on this open letter from someone who WAS there, and who knew full well what it was about:

First, why did we even protest the G20?

The G20 is the meeting of 20 leaders from the 20 richest countries in the world. They meet to discuss and implement economic policies. There is no administrative body, and the G20 is accountable to no one. The one thing that came out of this G20 meeting in Toronto was an agreement on ‘austerity measures’.

In a nutshell, austerity measures is another way of saying cuts to public spending in order to bail out banks and corporations, which are the reasons for economic crisis in the first place.

A lot of people have been talking about neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is a cluster of policies or an ideology based on belief in the free market: that the market can best regulate itself, and should not be subject to interference. This includes taking for granted the assumption that capitalism is a good thing and that it’s necessary. Capitalist enterprises such as corporations involve increasing profit by whatever means necessary: the responsibility of corporations is to their stockholders, not to those who are affected by corporate policies.

[…]

Neoliberal policies and practices have resulted in the economic crisis that we’re currently in the midst of–where folks are laid off work, factories close, or companies move overseas where they can capitalize on more cheap labour to increase their profits.

Rather than questioning the roots and assumptions behind neoliberal policies, the G20 leaders have decided that the solution for neoliberalism, is, in effect, more neoliberalism. Rather than taxing banks or corporations, they are taking public money to bail out these institutions, which are by their nature unsustainable. Put simply, this is taking money from the poor, to bail out corporations and banks, which result in more money for those who own the companies or the people who own a lot of stocks.

This is a big part of why we protest the G20. Because we disagree with a small population imposing policies that make a few richer, while increasing the divide between the rich and the poor, and continuing to harm the majority of the world’s population and the environment.

Those who protest are vocal, yes, but they are NOT a minority. Nor do they protest on behalf of a minority. They protest on behalf of the overwhelming, and TRULY silent, majority of the world that is NOT represented by the G-20 and its unethical, unaccountable so-called leaders.

The people Dalton McGuinty and Tricky Dick claimed for their own, as a “silent majority”, are in fact the minority. They are every bit as vocal when they say that the “anarchist thugs” who were there “got what they deserved”. I certainly don’t see THEIR opinion being under-represented in the news, nor in online polls, nor in “official” polls by Angus Reid et al.

In fact, this manufactured opinion has been made to carry the day, because the discourse has been hijacked since before the G-20 summit began. The cops who arbitrarily decided to not let protesters within five metres of the fence were the terrorist musclemen, and the three levels of government who gave the keep-’em-out orders were the same who determined in advance what the tone of the discourse was to be: Everything going on inside the fence good, everyone protesting outside it bad. Everything inside the fence order and propriety, everyone protesting outside it anarchist thug.

Thus was a billion dollar security boondoggle sold to a thumb-sucking public who would, of course, be the ones footing the bill. And thus was said public manipulated into thinking, against all evidence to the contrary, that the cops had done the right thing when they arrested more than a thousand people on no actual charges.

A billion dollars and a thousand arrests for nothing. Nothing, that is, but a vastly unpopular fuck-over of the vast majority of the world’s people–with cutbacks and shitty macroeconomic policies already proven by all of Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia not to work. Seems pretty steep, but it’s nothing compared to the price the world’s exploited people–and yes, Canada has ’em too–are going to pay.

Must keep that majority silent, since they weren’t in on the consultation, right? Must ridicule, suppress and just plain shut them up. At all costs.

I propose that the so-called “silent majority” referred to by the Dalton McGuintys and Tricky Dicks of the world be referred to, instead, as the Silencing Minority. Because that is, in fact, what it is.

“It is so much easier sometimes to sit down and be resigned than to rise up and be indignant.” –Nellie McClung

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Canadian Counterpunch, Crapagandarati, Economics for Dummies, Environmentally Ill, Fascism Without Swastikas, If You REALLY Care, Isn't It Ironic?, Isn't That Illegal?, Law-Law Land, Newspeak is Nospeak, Uppity Wimmin. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Who is this “silent majority”, and why do they want to shut us up?

  1. Ben Gruagach says:

    I challenge the definition of neoliberalism that was presented in Niki Thorne’s piece. Cutting social programs in order to funnel tax money into corporations is not liberalism but conservatism. It’s the hallmark of neoconservatives.
    Perhaps people are calling it neoliberalism today but I strongly suspect this twisting of terminology (switching places with opposites) was likely a conscious co-option of the neocons. Just like they have been trying to do with feminism.

Comments are closed.