Kurt Vonneguts Harrison Bergeron and the Propaganda of the Welfare State - Book Report/Review Example

Compare and Contrast: Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron and the propaganda of the welfare Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron is a critique of overstated equality. As members of civil society we all agree upon the value of equal rights and equal opportunities. But when equality is taken too seriously, it can have counterproductive effects. All of us have experienced inequality of power, fortune and endowments in our personal and social lives. We accept it to be part of the game of life and adapt ourselves to the fact. In contrast, the political realm endeavors to offer equality of individual rights, liberties and entitlements. The eligibility to vote to elect our public representatives is one such right. The right of electoral franchise is equal to the extent that one person is allowed one vote and that each vote is weighted equally. It is telling that this fundamental observation of equality still does not make the United States an ideal model of democracy. Hence, there is disconnection between lofty principles and ground realities in both the short-story as well as real history. While outright mind and body control techniques are employed to achieve ‘equality’ in Vonnegut’s future world, the sophisticated means of political propaganda is the sustaining force for government welfare. Although the picture depicted in Harrison Bergeron (HB) is one of fantasy, one could see elements of it contemporary politics and policymaking. Take say, the issue of government welfare. In the United States millions of disadvantaged people avail of social security, either in the form of Medicare, Medicaid or unemployment benefits. This system was devised and implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s. That the New Deal measures have endured for nearly a century speaks well of its merits. Firstly, the moral merit in providing social support for the disadvantaged is uncontestable. Secondly, the method through which this is achieved is also deemed quite sound. Each month, a small fraction of the monthly salary of employees is subtracted toward the Social Security fund. This works much in the same way as premiums are collected for private insurance plans, albeit in a larger scale. More importantly, unlike private insurance premiums, the deducted amount is very nominal and hardly noticed by the employees. (Morgan, 2013) But over the years, Social Security and other welfare programs have lost sight of their vision. Repeated amendments and tinkering to these legislations have made equality a goal in itself indifferent to actual outcomes. While most Americans nominally assent to the idea of government subsidy, they do not seem to think through the range of beneficiaries and whether all categories are deserving of aid. People may split hairs about the exact operation of these subsidies, and some even show concern about the cost burden on the Treasury. But practically “no one questions their premise--that it is right for government to make grants of taxpayer funds to individuals, groups, or businesses. If we dont have programs to subsidize cellists or the makers of argyle socks, its not because the public thinks they would be wrong, destructive, or immoral. We just havent gotten around to them yet.” (Payne, 2005) One should credit the state propaganda machinery for not bringing to debate such fundamental questions on the nature and scope of subsidies. In contemporary America the setting of the agenda for public discourse serves as a filter for propaganda. In short, it is propaganda through omission, as opposed to propaganda through misinformation. In contrast, a more direct form of control over people is shown in HB through the promotion of an hyper-idealistic view of equality. In the guise of upholding a cherished virtue, the government intrudes and manipulates the lives of citizens. This is reminiscent of the revelations of government spying and information theft exposed by Wikileaks. In this case spying is justified in the name of security and the threat of terrorism. In the world of HB, the same digressions are justified in the name of equality. But what is common to both cases is the fact that the power equation between citizens and the government are skewered toward the latter. Likewise, in both cases, the offered pretexts for the digressions are largely false. The multi-billion dollar Public Relations industry, whose clientele includes political parties and its leaders, do the necessary counter-spin to keep the public in ignorance of facts. In the world of HB, the tactics and strategies adopted by the government are very intrusive. Compared to modern propaganda devices of advertisements and misinformation, the world inhabited by Harrison is far more oppressive. Exceeding even the nightmares of an Orwellian dystopia, the atmosphere of HB does not even permit freedom of thought. In Orwell’s classic work on this theme, 1984, its protagonist Winston Smith at least manages to think through his ordeals by working around the system of control. But for the prodigiously talented young man Harrison Bergeron, even this option is denied by the way of overt control over his body and mind. In the milieu of American socio-culture today, propaganda achieves what talent neutralizing devices achieve in HB. In contemporary American politics and policymaking debates, the subject of government welfare is a recurrent talking point. Many commentators, especially sympathizers of conservative politics criticize America as being a ‘nanny state’. What they imply is that instead of stimulating the business environment and encouraging entrepreneurship among citizens, the polity has adopted a care-taker attitude. This is perceived to be a negative and pessimistic approach to governance. The argument goes that with a vibrant private sector and healthy economic growth, all the public sector undertakings like retirement benefits, disability allowance, etc could be handed over to the private sector. That way the size of the government would be reduced and consequently the burden on the tax-payer too. Despite such sound rationale in opposition to it, welfare continues to thrive due to manipulative propaganda techniques. Liberals have always been good at promoting the benign effects of welfare while eschewing obvious fallacies and inconvenient facts pertaining to the issue. In the last decade, many scholarly publications published studies of the difference between the concept and its practical implementation. Contrary to widespread belief that welfare is an essential support system for the underprivileged and the unfortunate, there is no conclusive evidence that such is indeed the case. For a fact the benefits of one or other government welfare program reaches nearly 96% of the population. This disabuses us of the view that welfare is pro-poor. Subsidized medical care or retirement benefits for the super-rich serves no moral or practical purpose. Yet, this inconvenient truth is often ignored by liberals in their support of welfare programs. Discourse of the pros and cons of American welfare programs are always accompanied by their compatibility with provisions of the constitution. Ironically, even in the fictitious world of Harrison Bergeron, it is due to constitutional amendments that the state of perfect equality is ordained. This is a deliberate ploy on part of Kurt Vonnegut, to remind Americans that interpreting the Constitution very liberally will lead to disaster. As political commentator Thomas Sowell sharply observed in his syndicated column, “Vulnerable Americans are being reduced to serfs on a federal plantation. Turn down a free public education? We will give you free health care. Lose your food stamp card or sell it to get cash for what you really want and the government will replace it instantly. Heck, parents are not even expected to feed their own children any more. Children can get free breakfasts, lunches and dinners at school. And the federal government, to encourage dependence upon itself, now extends that benefit to all children in some schools. But encouraging dependence on government weakens the individual. The result is a sea of personal tragedy.” (Maurice, 2012) Indeed, despite these glaring drawbacks inherent to welfare, the institution has continued to flourish, thanks in large to propaganda and spin. Just as the futuristic world of Harrison Bergeron committed oppression in the name of a high principle, welfare in America is attached to its share of pleasing terminology. For example, the semantics developed and employed by politicians made the case of robbing Peter to pay Paul appear socially responsible! Indeed, absurd as this proposition is in actuality, it has proven French philosopher Gustave Le Bon’s observation right. He famously noted that “in politics things are less important than their names. To disguise even the most absurd ideas with well-chosen words often is enough to gain their acceptance." (Payne, 2005) What we see in America today is plenty of welfare schemes, attractively covered up in less controversial labels. To cite an example, let us consider Social Security. Its marketing strategy was carefully constructed to hide the American public from understanding that “Social Security is simply a pay-as-you-go welfare system. Every effort was made to use terminology that would inspire confidence rather than arouse suspicion." (Payne, 2005) Often, despite their acute financial adversity, people find it disgraceful to avail of welfare. So what the administrators have done is to introduce these benefits as their “constitutional rights” or “legal entitlements”. Critics of welfare point out that such easing of barriers has made the public lethargic in solving their hardships through their own industry. It just goes to show the adverse social impact of propaganda bordering on misinformation. In Harrison Bergeron we see the drastic outcomes which skilful propaganda can achieve. There, Hazel and George Bergeron are too numb or too distracted to even contemplate their tragedies. The dangerous tendencies of American welfare might one day get the society to that dire state of affairs. “Capitalism is sometimes criticized because the techniques of promotion and advertising that go along with it may distort culture. Liberal critics in particular complain that self-serving companies push their products incessantly, creating spurious demands and unhealthy values. Seldom is it acknowledged that government agencies do the same thing. And government can be more enticing because it is generally giving things away rather than selling them. If General Motors dupes you into craving chrome tailfins, you still have to be willing to shell out money to get them. But to get a government subsidy all you generally have to do is be willing to take other peoples money.” (Payne, 2005) Finally, one need not look far and wide for the obvious failures of American welfare schemes. Statistics pertaining to access to quality healthcare or education shows up the lack of substance behind government propaganda. For example, nearly 50 million Americans have health insurance. This is a national shame, for despite being an economical super power, the nation lags behind Western European nations in terms of standard of living parameters. Further inefficiencies in the distribution of welfare are revealed when we consider that America spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country. So what we have is high costs, lofty words and poor outcomes. This is a classic illustration of conspiracy through propaganda. To conclude, if force and repression are the tools of mind control employed in the eerie world of Harrison Bergeron, the American media achieves the same through a bloodless coup, namely, political propaganda. Works Cited Frase, Peter, and Bhaskar Sunkara. "The Welfare State of America." In se Times Nov. 2012: 20+.  Maurice, Johanna. "What Is Happening to America? ; Welfare States = Personal Tragedy, National Failure." The Charleston Gazette (Charleston, WV) 22 Sept. 2012.  Morgan, Kimberly J. "Americas Misguided Approach to Social Welfare: How the Country Could Get More for Less." Foreign Affairs January/February 2013: 153+. Payne, James. "How America Drifted from Welfare to "Entitlement"" American Enterprise Mar. 2005: 26+.  "The Welfare State of America; the U.S. Government Is as Intrusive as Any Socialist State." The Washington Times (Washington, DC) 16 Apr. 2010.  Vonnegut, Kurt. Harrison Bergeron, Published first in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, 1961. Read More