Special Interest Groups

      The Potential For Erroneous Influence Through Social Engineering By Special Interest Groups

They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority."

-G. Massey, Egyptologist

A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

-Dresden James 

Realistically, in any democracy those in power are there because they want to be. In a spirit of altruism? Perhaps a healthy degree of cynicism is in order here. It may be true that in the final analysis there will be an election day. Alexander Hamilton the great American statesman said it best in reply to the comment that all are answerable to the “people, “Your “people” sir is a great beast!” An acceptable principle if kept in context. However, in another context, this is a principle which has also served ambitious politicians well. And there have always been friends so-called, and who, sporting their own agendas, have formed friendships with them. The results usually involved sporadic, direct or indirect inconveniences and abuses where the average person was concerned. But in "The Information Age" an old power in new clothes has come to the fore, at times insidious but in The Information Age, very effective.

In relatively recent times a very powerful agent of influence has grown to fruition, nourished, for example, by such influences as Moral Relativism and the Information Age. And this is that of the Special Interest Group or SIG. Now I am referring here to a special class of these, not all. Also this is not to say that issues which drove such initiatives were non-existent in the past. They were. But not nearly as effectively as those which operate today. The lobbying of legislators can involve the interests of individuals, business interests and social causes among others. However, where influencing politicians to enact legislation, rules and regulations which may affect the lives and lifestyle of all and as well demonstrate a clash between morality and quality of life, then addressing such an issue in a balanced fashion becomes a question of just not merely, “Should we enact rules and regulations?' but “How should we?” This, more often than not gets lost in the shuffle.

Now it is no secret that moral conviction can lead to extremist tendencies. Those in special interest groups, in conclave, tend to bounce off each other, if not because of conviction then in the interests of internal politics.  It all fuels enthusiasm. Further, it is essential for such SIGs to embed their cause within a pragmatic raison d”etre or “vehicle” if you like. In this way their actions take on a utilitarian aspect which can never be questioned concerning possible ulterior motives being fueled by emotionalism over reason, or the promotion of excessive and unwarranted intrusion into the lives of all. To employ a mixed metaphor, “Muddy the waters and it's hard to see where to draw the line. And to add to it all, they are in an arena with Special Interest Groups (e.g. access modifications for the disabled) whose own cause, in reality, is easily beyond the scrutiny and reproach of the skeptic. There is even a website devoted to the planning of strategies to promote and gain support and influence for creating and sustaining a SIG for any cause (See below).

Now, all that said, it is extremely difficult to expose the ulterior motives of such groups. First off, there is no way they will ever allow engagement in discussion where their underlying objective is concerned. They learned that lesson long ago. Critics cannot accuse them of ulterior motives as most often the vehicle they have chosen to promote their cause is a valid one. They are also now careful to sidestep the pitfall of short term gain (They subscribe to the “Frog in the Hot Water” syndrome). They will accept success in the long term if it is assured in this fashion. And finally couch the entire discussion in either complexity or rhetoric or questionable statistics. What this translates into for many in society is a superficial or cursory examination rather than an in-depth objective assessment. “After all who has the time? And 'the game' is on tonight!” The snake oil salesman is alive and well!

Now, all that said, how does this translate into affecting the quality of life of the common man? Well it is not about what but about how. It is not about the cause you are using as a vehicle but your long term goal couched within. Hit the first, hard, and in the fallout your goal will also be accomplished as a spinoff. Which is the more subtle, throwing the frog into the pot of boiling water, or slowly raising the temperature in the pot to a boil? Both result in a dead frog.  Have the legislators and the legal system enact increasingly severe penalties, bend the legislation where possible and play to the issue you are espousing, to the detriment of all whose behaviour and compliance are required to see your underlying goal become a reality in society and you have won. A web of small rules? Not if they subvert basic human and constitutional rights. There are ways! Believe it! The key is to marginalize the naysayers and positively reinforce those who bend. Insidious? No Kidding! (Note: See the Dresden James quote above.)

Now how does that apply? Well in Canada section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows the Supreme Court (often in collusion with legislators) to modify any right of Canadians using a rationalized construct called the Oakes Test. Also, rules and regulations made governing what provincial legislators deem to be Administrative Privileges are apparently not subject to the Charter of Rights or Human Rights.  There is, in place, a system of Tribunals to protest what are felt to be wrongful sanctions but they are not part of the legal process and some rules and regulations and the practitioners of same are totally exempt from liability. All of this can easily be substantiated and as a point of note, it would seem that an element of political influence rather than that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the potential to affect the interpretation of Canadian law in Tribunal or even where judicial interpretations of the law are involved.

Now what has been described here is one significant element in control of what we feel should be the precepts dictating our freedoms and our quality of life beyond the constitutional level. So, do citizens have complete say over the direction of quality of life? 

The following is a quote regarding how a special interest group can deviate:

"Neo-prohibitionism

The term is usually used critically to describe groups or individuals, rather than by the groups or individuals themselves. For example, Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), eventually left the organization in anger and has since gone on to criticize it as neo-prohibitionist, stating that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[1] Lightner was criticizing MADD's leaders who had called for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. The epithet has also been applied to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation by its critics due to their stance on several alcohol-related issues[2][3] "

Please visit the following link for the Strategies (referred to above) employed by SIG's:  http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/interest-groups/section2.rhtml