You must know by now that public and people are not synonyms, and not solely in the connotations I am providing for us ini this paper; I cannot count how many times I have had to defend this statement no matter how often I use it in discussions of politics with friends and colleagues–imagining that people listen in our sound-bite culture, is probably naive. In a culture devoted to maintaining Twitter accounts, believing that people actually listen beyond ten seconds is absurd. Most of what we heart amounts to an archipelago, at best, of sound bite after sound bite after sound bite, one to another like feet to the rocks across a stream.
The masses who are everywhere alike as masses are also those who gravitate toward one form of pluralism or another, whether Bolshevik then, communist after, fascist or Nazis before or since; one totalitarianism successive with another after another in a long parade of political sleepwalking. Pluralism can and has also become Americanism redefined inside multiculturalism and the political correctness of the new diversity, supposedly a rebuttal if not an answer for what we imagine is the old universalism. Politics, therefore, for the individual, and throughout the twentieth century, has marched as one kind of sonambulism after another, and this remains true whether it has been American, Russian, or French; Chinese, German, or Chilean, every kind et cetera . . .
Toi! mon hypocrite lecteur, le semblable.
They are always the same everywhere as masses are masses regardless of language, culture, history, political or religious belief; each mass is essentially ready to serve the state or squander the self-hood of its numbers, as well in turn their collected identity as a people, the people for whom each is macrocosmically We. I am we, as you are we the people, as is she and he and each and every simple, separate person politically.
This notion of a political plurality for each of us has been abdicated for a lumpen, numerical existence, one most honored and respected by bureaucrats, collectively in themselves bureaucracy managing the affairs of state against the people, even though these bureaucrats may benefit from an understanding of their role as one of the people rather than one of the devout in the religion of state, all parishioners, the public or the bureaucratic choir. Bureaucracy is not something apart from bureaucrats and their day in and day out actions in service of the State.