Lindblom - The Market System - Afghan Journalists' Committee

222 What To Make of Itmore confused than persuaded, the assault through politicalmessages, though it too is both distracting and obfuscating,is also persuasive. Perhaps consequentially it createsa political circularity in which, even in the democracies,masses are persuaded to ask from elites only what eliteswish to give them.This is hardly a novel thesis. Down through history,many of the great minds have been troubled by distortionsin thought that bear on social organization and elite manipulationof mass. Plato spoke of shadows in caves rather thanreality, Francis Bacon of “idols,” Kant of “tutelage,” Lockeof “insinuations,” Rousseau of “capturing volitions,” andMarx of “false consciousness.” In our time Schumpeterspeaks of “manufactured will,” Habermas of “distortedcommunication,” and Schattschneider of the “heavenlychorus” that sings “with a strong upperclass accent.”Elites defend their political communications as a contributionto a competition of ideas such as has been prized inliberal and democratic thought. But the competition ofideas works, if at all, only when several conditions are met.First, the messages must challenge each other. And, in thecontestation, loud voices must not silence others. Third,each of the contesting messages must contain some empiricalcontent. Finally, the contestants must not depart toofar from a respect for truth. All of these conditions are invarying degrees violated in elite political messages.Between and within each of the two elites, mutual challengeis frequent, but not on the fundamentals of the socialorder. The two elites speak almost unanimously, though ofcourse not explicitly in every message sent, on the “obvious”virtues of hierarchy and inequality, the competence ofelites, the necessity of social solidarity, and the dangers ofpolitical agitation. Nor on the functions, privileges, and of-