InvisibleBlack
Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
|
Haven't been on the forums much in several months until recently but I thought I'd start participating again. Came across this editorial by Justin Raimondo the other day and it spurred some thought:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/10/23/the-return-of-barbarism/
I'm not so much interested in discussing his anti-Libya screed as I am this concept (emphasis mine):
"In a republic, citizens take part in the political process out of a sense of duty, and self-protection. They make it a point of honor to understand the issues, and knowledge, for them, is power. In an empire, however, things are quite different: since the citizens can only influence the course of events to a limited degree, if that, little emphasis is put on acquiring knowledge, and more on acquiring power and influence with the powers that be. If one is aligned with a rising faction, as opposed to siding with the losers, then that’s all one needs to know, and no further investigation is required. Politics, then, is reduced to a battle between rival factions over who gets what share of the loot.
This accounts for the increasing emphasis on the “horse race” aspect of politics in the media, and the lack of any real debate over principles and policies. It accounts, indeed, for the dumbing down of American politics, and the cheapening of the discourse in recent years."
While I don't think anyone can argue that part of the role of being a "good citizen" is to understand the issues of the day and, in general, to be knowledgeable - do you think that as people feel a loss of influence in the events surrounding them and their society that it results in a rise of factionalism - a need to feel part of the "winning side"? That influence with the current faction in power becomes that modus operandi not only of the "big players" but of the average citizen? Is the goal of the electorate becoming simpyl to get the biggest "share of the loot" and the debate is more over who will have the most loot rather than principles, ethics or policy?
And if this is the case, then isn't the growth of any state based on some form of involved electorate a recipe for disaster? The larger your state is, the less influence any individual can have and as things aggregate into larger and larger entities with increasingly complex and often global interactions, the impact of any individual "average" citizen or voter will continue to shrink - is this a fundamental flaw in the democratic process?
Or is Mr. Raimondo simply mistaking voter anger and apathy for some sort of quasi-tribal factionalism and this is simply some phase that current cultures are going through?
_____________________________
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
|
Factionalism vs. Citizenship - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread