Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and Stifling of Democracy (Hardcover)

~ Lewis Lapham (Author) "As a director of the U.S. government's ministry of propaganda during World War II, Archibald MacLeish knew that dissent seldom walks onstage to the sound..." (more)
Key Phrases: New York, United States, White House (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Lapham, editor of Harper's, plays the role of a modern-day Tom Paine, propelling stinging criticisms and scathing indictments at the Bush administration and its supporters for what he claims are their bald-faced deceptions about the justifications for the war in Iraq and for establishing policies—especially the USA Patriot Act—he sees as aimed at silencing dissent about its policies and the war in Iraq. Lapham argues that the muting of dissenting voices has contributed to the erosion of democracy, because policy disagreements form the heart of a democratic republic. Most disturbing, says Lapham, is the complicity of the media in its support of the steady erosion of individual civil liberties in the name of national security. Lapham also levels forceful criticism at our educational system: "An inept and insolent bureaucracy armed with badly written textbooks instills in the class the attitudes of passivity, compliance, and boredom." This, charges Lapham (30 Satires; Theater of War; etc.), results in schools producing citizens who blindly accept the pronouncements of their leaders. The United States, he points out in a strong historical sketch, has a deep history of quashing dissent when politicians have raised alarms over perceived threats to the well-being of the country, most notably with the Sedition Act of 1798, the Espionage Act of 1917 and, he asserts, the Patriot Act. Lapham's compelling book reminds us that "democracy is an uproar, and if we mean to engage the argument about the course of the American future let us hope that it proves to be loud, disorderly, bitter and fierce."
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

In four chapter-essays, Lapham returns to the large theme he has addressed throughout his long, distinguished tenure as editor of Harper's: the slow but frightening consolidation of power by an oligarchy comprising the administration in power, big business, and the mainstream media. Neither particularly rightist nor leftist--the author's essays on Bill Clinton's administration are no less withering than his essays on George W. Bush's--Lapham does express particular alarm at what he perceives as the Bush administration's sense of self-righteousness: "They bring to Washington the certain knowledge that they can do no wrong." Who is ultimately responsible for this shift? "The successful operation of a democracy relies on acts of self-government by no means easy to perform," Lapham offers, "and for the last twenty years [the American public] has been unwilling to do the work." As with Lapham's many other writings, this book presents challenges worth facing. Alan Moores
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 192 pages
• Publisher: Penguin Press HC, The (June 17, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1594200173
• ISBN-13: 978-1594200175
• Product Dimensions: 7.5 x 5.3 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #802,296 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #51 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Communication > Mass Communication

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars "Suck-up coverage is in", October 4, 2004

By	Dennis Littrell (SoCal) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)    (COMMUNITY FORUM 04)

Lapham is addressing what I think is a serious threat to American democracy, namely the suppression of dissent and the curtailment of civil rights. It comes in two forms: one is pressure from government and corporate interests on media and citizens to behave in a way that furthers corporate interests; and the other is from the news media and ourselves, acted out in the form of prior censorship. Thus the quote from Dan Rather: "We begin to think less in terms of responsibility and integrity, which get you in trouble...and more in terms of power and money...Increasingly anybody who subscribes to the idea that the job is not to curry favor with people you cover...finds himself as a kind of lone wolf...Suck-up coverage is in." (p. 99)

Media mavens know what their corporate bosses want to hear, and they are loath to go against them. After all, their jobs are at stake. So even though reporters and newscasters may be middle of the road or even left-leaning types, their public utterances tend to be in line with what their corporate bosses want to hear. And as citizens we also know what our government and our bosses consider right behavior, and sometimes some of us are afraid to go against their wishes because, as Lapham points out, we might be found out. With surveillance cameras on street corners and camera crews filming protest demonstrations, there is a very real chance that protestors will be caught on film. How would such a photo look alongside a resumé? is what some people ask themselves; and, in consequence, they stifle themselves. In chat rooms and discussion boards we often see people using nicknames so that their utterances and their real world personalities cannot be readily connected.

In this long essay (parts of which appeared in Harper's Magazine) Lapham spends a considerable amount of time going back into American history and recalling the suppression of dissent by previous administrations. In particular he shows how civil rights and civil liberties were taken away by our government during times of war or civil unrest. He compares and contrasts the historical record with that of the Bush administration. He makes the point that in declaring a "war" on terrorism, the Bush administration greatly augmented its ability to get around the Bill of Rights. As Lapham phrases it, "by declaring 'war on terrorism' the Bush administration had declared war on an unknown enemy and an abstract noun...[which would be similar to] sending the 101st Airborne Division to conquer lust..." (p. 17)

He adds, "We have a government in Washington that doesn't defend the liberty of the American people, steals from the poor to feed the rich, finds its wealth and happiness in the waging of ceaseless war." (p. 165) In general Lapham believes that "In every instance, and no matter what the issue immediately at hand, the purpose is the same--more laws limiting the freedom of individuals, few laws restraining the freedoms of property." (p. 141)

Working hand-in-hand with the interests of property is our mass media, which is controlled by corporate interests either directly or through their ability to withhold advertising dollars. Lapham, who is the longtime editor of Harper's Magazine and an experienced reporter himself, makes a special point of exposing the failures of newscasters and reporters. He recalls his days with the White House press corps: "I could never escape the impression of a flock of ducks--plump and well-kept ducks, ducks worthy of an emperor's garden--waddling back and forth to the pond on which the emperor's gamekeepers cast the bread crumbs of the news." (p. 98)

On the next page he quotes John Swinton, former chief of staff for the New York Times: "There is no such thing...in America, as an independent press...We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes...Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men."

Lapham sums it up this way: "The media compose the pictures of a preferred reality, and their genius is that of the nervous careerist who serves, simultaneously, two masters--the demos, whom they astound with marvels and fairy tales, and the corporate nobility, whose interests they assiduously promote and defend." (p. 93)

Assuming that Lapham is right, what is to be done? How can we free the press from the corporate influence to the extent that reporters, editors, and newscasters can feel free to report the news as they see it, rather than as their bosses want them to see it? Clearly the antidote to a government that would suppress liberties and stifle dissent is to elect people who will honor and respect the Bill of Rights. But the media is another story since it is inexorably bound up with commercial interests. Lapham does not have an answer to this conundrum. And neither do I. It is a curiosity that the Fourth Estate, powerful even during the time of the formation of the American colonies, is a de facto political force that is not part of the electorate and yet can influence elections. And while it is not part of the government, it can influence government policy.

One feels that as long as corporate interests control the media, the media will continue to be an anti-democratic force in our society. This danger increases dramatically as larger and larger chunks of media fall into fewer and fewer hands.

21 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Elegant Essay, Among Best of 475+ Books on Future of America, July 14, 2004

By	Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)

This is an elegant essay, possibly the best single individual work I have read within the 475+ non-fiction books on national security and global issues including the future of America. It absolutely must be read in conjunction with Peter G. Peterson's "Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can do About It" as well as Tom Atlee's "The Tao of Democracy" and Bill Moyers' "Doing Democracy."

Steeped in history and the relationship of dissent to democracy, the author provides a down-to-earth yet erudite condemnation of the ease with which America was led to war on Iraq by a small group of individual who were able to silence Congress, the media, and all other public interest organizations. From the first chapter to the last, the author follows the Will and Ariel Durant method of balancing easy to read general comments with equally easy to read detailed footnotes. Early on he singles out Nancy Pelosi and Robert Byrd as being among the few that stood up to the falsehoods and were grounded in reality, speaking out with integrity and courage.

Two comparisons are drawn by the author between the Bush Administration's abuse of the law and their control, and the past: the American past, when the Sedition Act was used to jail dissenters and subvert new immigrant voters; and the German past, when Hitler and Goering pulled off a gradual castration of free voice and vote with incremental steps, all done gradually, incrementally, inconspicuously, until suddenly a state of totalitarian rule existed. As the White House officially considered postponing the Presidential election of 2004, perhaps canceling it all together, one's bones can only feel the chill of these two examples, both discussed calmly and carefully by the author.

There is a solid strain of economic thinking woven throughout the book, and one can only conclude that the concentration of wealth and the crimes against the working poor now being perpetuated, can only lead to a Great Depression as the labor economy collapses and the technology economy is attacked by the combined ills of overdue break-down, deliberate sabotage, and a withdrawal of foreign credit. The author makes the point on page 85 that America has elevated capital above humans--capital votes in America, humans do not, in the one place where it really matters: the crafting of legislation that transfers wealth from the individual working poor to the privilege elite that own the military-industrial-prison complex.

Gifted ideas and turns of phrase abound. The author is consistent with others I have read in lamenting the continuing decline of our educational system, designed to create conformist factory workers, and goes beyond the norm in suggesting that perhaps 70% of our national potential intellectual capacity is being "killed" by the mediocrity of our existing educational institutions. I agree with that. Our children survive school, much as we survive hospitals and corporations--our institutions are no longer about humanity and emergence, but rather about docility and conformity.

The author is eloquent on the rise of politics as ignorance aggravated by a sublime arrogance that confuses a commitment to a narrow elite with "God's will," and regards laws as means of "crowd control."

Sadly, the majority of America does not read books. If they did, this book would be motivating people to take to the streets and demand that the core issue in the election of 2004 be that of restoring the integrity of politics, from counting every vote to refusing every bribe. Absent an awakening of the upper middle class that does read and think for itself, the author has written the epitaph of democracy in America.

23 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Do We Deserve Democracy? Probably Not., August 2, 2004

By	Michael S. Scheibinger (Madison, WI United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

In another characteristically bleak journey down into the depths of his adjective-laden dark side, Lewis Lapham develops his thesis that the politically slothful and intellectually comatose citizens of the United States of America are about to forfeit their dwindling democracy due to general ignorance and a pervasive lack of participation. The usual culprits are here for the blaming: the failings of public education, the media, political extremists on both sides of the equation, apathy, the general ignorance of historical precedent as harbinger, etc. Lapham lays it down in his own inimitable and slightly awkward style, and as usual, his stance is firmly grounded in fact and perfectly logical and believable.

The George W. Bush administration is horrifying and monstrous, but not so horrifying that it doesn't have any historical parallels in U.S. politics. While McCarthyism is an obvious and convenient comparison, closer parallels can be drawn with Woodrow Wilson's administration (corporate hegemony, war as diversionary tactic, the stifling of dissent, all on a grand scale), and this is all entertainingly called out by Lapham, which makes for interesting reading.

Lapham blames public education for illiteracy in America, which he extrapolates out to those individuals reading and comprehending at a level slightly higher than 'functional' ("street signs and restaurant menus"), and estimates to be about 1/3 of the population. While our educational system does suck, I would like to see more causal emphasis placed on families - a topic that Lapham doesn't touch in this book. America's educational sorting machine is completely useless and superfluous, and is no longer even salvageable enough to be the focus of any real attention or concern, or even ridicule, so why bother? (there I did it, just when I was totally convinced that nobody on earth is capable of 'one-downing' the grizzled Lapham).

Predictably, much of Lapham's bile gets slathered over the American 'news' media, which of course deserves nothing but scorn. What else is new? The people who will take the time to read this book are newshounds and cynics to a man, already happily singing and playing in Lapham's dour band. If this book were released on CD so that illiterate America could partake of its bitter pleasures, would they? I doubt it.

People like Lapham - erudite, superintelligent, respected in their fields - I wonder if they feel empty and weightless (albeit with all their bills paid) as their copy goes to press. These writers are not going to change any hearts and minds. Lapham will have no fresh faces to cry out, "I told you so!" to after what remains of America's democratic system has been drained, dismantled, and replaced by an abomination of the court, only to control and manipulate illiterate Americans by then reduced to nothing but a horde of savages conscripted to do its preemptive will.

Lapham understands that Americans are too lazy and cowed to be effective at doing democracy any more. In order to get back in the laboratory and continue the grand experiment, we may have to break down the doors that are currently barred and bolted by George W. Bush's secretive and diabolical clan. Lapham calls for a revolution, but be careful, it might get violent! Well, maybe this will come to pass, but literature will not light the fuse. If the American majority allows itself to be coaxed up onto the world-domination bandwagon, then it better be ready to waste a serious amount of lives; it can't happen without a full-on draft. Whether or not America will be willing to allow it remains to be seen.

Except for a few places where Lapham goes completely over-the-top, I agree with him completely - but then, which of his readers wouldn't? Look at the other reviews here, all sung by the choir. Lapham's work is great stuff and makes for very good company. Enjoy it while our democracy goes crawling off into a corner to die for lack of care and feeding. American citizens' finally bidding democracy adieu really should come as no great shock or surprise - as Lapham reminds us, its happened to almost every other country that has ever tried it.

Lewis: trim those adjectives! Everyone else: subscribe to Harper's and get your monthly anti-optimism booster, courtesy Lewis Lapham and his cadre.