|
Zonie63 -> RE: The Year in Hate and Extremism (3/14/2013 9:38:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
But as a nation, we'll have to ask ourselves: Do we trust democracy or don't we? The founding fathers obviously didn't trust democracy very much, as their original idea was to only let white males with property vote.
Two things: The franchise exclusive to white, propertied males was nothing new in history.
I notice that you've said that quite a bit about several different items: It's nothing new. Not that I'm disputing that, but I'm not sure if that's really an argument. I could just as easily say that insurrection and armed rebellion are nothing new either. If you give tacit acceptance to one form of evil, then you have to accept the consequences of other evils as well.
quote:
Secondly, when our Constitution was being constructed France was undergoing a bloody coup in the name of social democracy leading to the birth of conservative phiosophy in Britain and the States newly united. See Edmund Burke.
ETA: the 13 states were mostly an agricultural society so it should not be surprising that owning Property was a high value and a mark of a citizen's interest in government.
Are you suggesting that allowing only white men with property to vote was a good thing?
quote:
quote:
As for market confidence, the U.S. has already had its credit rating downgraded. It looks like market confidence is suffering.
That was yesterday's news. And misguided at that.
Perhaps it's yesterday's news, but it's still relatively recent, and we're not out of the woods yet.
quote:
The Dollar and the American markets have been safe harbor for foreign investments, and getting stronger. For example:
If that is the case, it's good news for the U.S. dollar. The U.S. economy now stands out as the clear growth leader in the developed world. Just look at the data out of Britain (the pound sterling is certainly paying for it), the euro zone, and Japan (even China is seeing fresh new growth concerns).
Aside from an improving labor market (compare with the euro zone, where unemployment in many areas is still spiraling out of control) and a recovery in manufacturing, there is another bright spot in the U.S. economy that other countries can't claim – a nascent boom in domestic energy production.
SocGen currency strategist Sebastien Galy told Business Insider that this development on the energy front is " a fundamental shift...in the balance sheet of the U.S. which determines its credit-worthiness in the eyes of long term investors." SOURCE
For the moment, I'll take this as a hopeful sign and see what happens. But I'll still need to see some real world proof of our recovery. When I stop seeing articles like this, and cities like Detroit are vibrant, bustling, productive, and prosperous like they were 50-60 years ago, then you'll have a true believer. Until then, articles like the one you're posting here just sound like abstract illusions put forth by bean counters. A lot more will have to happen before America is back on top like we used to be.
quote:
The despair you described is not an uncommon feature of a weakened economy and weakened currency. The time for despair is probably passing.
I suppose we'll wait and see.
quote:
With a strengthened economy and a white man or woman back in the White House the cause of the militia groups will be mooted and they will diminish in appeal, imo.
It's impossible to predict such things, and my experience is that most predictions I've seen in my life tend to be wildly inaccurate. Just as you said that we can't plan our economy, we're just as hampered when it comes to predicting our political future and the vagaries of public opinion. The best we can do is use opinion polls to predict election results, but only for the short-term. I don't even think we can predict the mid-term elections at this point, let alone the next presidential election.
Predicting where the economy will go is another matter entirely. Whether it will be strengthened or not remains to be seen. Relatively speaking, I think our economy was at its strongest during the 1940s through 1960s, but since then, we've been seeing a slow decline. Our industry was strong, many cities were booming, and things were definitely improving compared to where our country was previously. Apart from a booming economy, things were also progressing in terms of social issues and civil rights. The space program was also in its halcyon days in the 60s, giving many Americans hope and inspiration for a bright future. Even despite Vietnam and the threat of nuclear war, the future still looked promising.
But now, it's just not the same anymore. Back then, our country had the wherewithal to build the Interstate Highway System and many other major public works projects, but now, we don't have enough money to maintain that infrastructure or even enough to fix the potholes. These are real world issues that people can see around them, even despite the rosy picture of unicorns and lollipops it might look like from the ivory towers of Wall Street.
quote:
quote:
I think you're splitting hairs here. When we speak of the government, we're obviously talking about the political leaders of government - and the parties they belong to. We're not talking about low-level clerks or some inanimate monolith. Government actions are the result of decisions made by human beings, and if those human beings are stupid and/or short-sighted, then governmental behavior will reflect that.
We continue to disagree here. In my view Governing is not planned. The outcomes result from electoral power as well as clashing interests and conflicts that lead to bargaining and exchange of value. Everyone is not likely to be 100% satisfied.
Well, the government has to make some plans. Every time Congress meets in session, they're producing new legislation and spending packages, so they're obviously planning. Every governmental policy and party platform is the result of people getting together and making a plan. I can't agree with your view that governing is not planned. Even the Constitution itself can be considered a plan. It may be a negotiated plan, the result of clashing interests and conflicts, as you say.
But the bottom line here is that the government is made up of human beings with the power and authority to make decisions which can affect the lives of millions - not just here in America but all over the world, since these same people also plan our foreign and military policies. I never said that the government was a monolith, but it's not some inanimate machine which functions automatically either. Too many people in our culture refer to "the system" as if it's some kind of supernatural force beyond human understanding. I'd like to see us get away from that line of thinking, since it's somewhat defeatist and contributes to the despair we're discussing.
To put it more succinctly, governments are comprised of human beings, and some human beings just happen to be assholes. So, there are too many assholes in government, and they need to removed...somehow. I'm not yet prepared to say "by any means possible," but a lot of that will ultimately depend on the government's ability to police itself. I believe that would work wonders towards diminishing the appeal of the aforementioned militia groups.
And I can't imagine why any reasonable person in this society would argue against cleaning up our government. I can understand someone being fearful and indignant about militia groups and the potential threat they may pose to the government, but what bothers me is a parallel trend in public discourse where some people find cause to vehemently oppose and resist even peaceful scrutiny and skepticism about government.
It just seems like there's too much blind allegiance to the government for my taste. It's not that I'm an anarchist, but even the founding fathers knew that humans could never be trusted with too much power, which is why they favored a system of checks and balances in the first place. But the biggest check and balance of all should be the people themselves. But instead of being wary and skeptical, far too many people are spineless, passive, and too trusting of government - and this part of the reason why many people think that it's the government's job to fix everything.
quote:
quote:
But we're also talking about their reasons and motives, and you were comparing them to the hippies of Haight-Ashbury and saying they were immature anarchists who can't handle the complexities of society. I still say that your characterization is incorrect. It seemed that you were more interested in ridiculing these people rather than give an accurate and objective assessment of their background and motives for believing as they do.
I stand by my characterization. Anarchist groups construct simple utopian dreams and basically drop away from the greater, more complex society.
I think you may be oversimplifying here. I'm not saying that I agreed with them or that I think their ideas were practical, but I think some of their criticisms and perceptions may have had some legitimacy. You have to consider that what we've seen and experienced in the world over the past 100-200 or so years are things that the world has never seen or experienced before. For much of human history, most people were used to living simpler, less complicated lives - but it was a harsher, more grueling (and shorter) life than what we have now. So, as a species, our modern, urban, sophisticated, complex lifestyle is something relatively new, and perhaps some people just aren't up to it. Perfectly understandable.
Another thing that should be mentioned is that, for a lot of us here in America, we've had it pretty good (and I think you would agree with that assessment).
From this perception, there seems to be two conflicting reactions and schools of thought.
Perhaps from the right, they might believe that we have it good here in America, so they're desperate to keep it and keep everyone else out.
Those on the left might believe that we have it good here in America, yet look around the world and see so many people in so many nations facing miseries that few Americans can truly understand, gripped by war, famine, disease. While they may or may not have felt guilty about it, they seemed to recognize that there was something wrong with this picture.
You say that they're "insular" and that they drop out, but they could just as easily argue that most of America is "insular" and has already dropped out. That is, if you look at it from a global perspective. Think of how many Americans really don't know much about geography, history, or much of anything about the outside world. Half of those eligible don't even bother to vote. Apathy is pretty widespread; a lot of people just don't care anymore. They just want to keep what's theirs and screw everybody else. Who is really dropping out here? The ones who are actively trying to promote change or those who just stick their heads in the sand?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not sympathizing or siding with these groups, whether right or left. I still think that they're wrong, but the only reason why they might pose a potential threat in the future is because too many "good citizens" in this country aren't doing much of anything. Probably because they don't feel they have to. As you said, most Americans are happy with their lot, so they don't see much of a need to do anything other than sit back and enjoy themselves. Even those who actually have to work for a living, a lot of them just go in, mark time, then go home. Anything else, and "it's not my job." Americans are often criticized for being overpaid and lazy (and this phenomenon seems especially magnified when it comes to government workers), while workers in other countries will bust their butts working 12-hour days for a tiny fraction of what American workers typically earn.
I'm not saying that it's all that bad; there are some positive signs, too, as you mentioned. But we also have to look at the larger picture of what we're dealing with. Some of it might be necessary, especially in the construct of our global economy. As markets are opened up, that includes the labor market, and this would lead to a natural trend towards equilibrium in labor costs across national boundaries. It may happen slowly, but it will happen eventually. We in the west have had it so good while many other countries have been the "have nots." That situation will change as well. This is also nothing new; countries and empires go up and down.
quote:
quote:
The angst and fury some people feel is probably real, but I think some people just pick an ideology (any ideology) to use as a vehicle for expressing that angst and fury, without necessarily understanding it or truly believing it. I can discern this whenever I read blogs or message boards where some of these agitators get easily rattled and can't seem to fully grasp the ideology they're ostensibly advocating, nor do they seem to understand the counter-arguments. I also observe that many of these competing patriot groups tend to hate each other even more than they hate the government.
I can agree with most of what you say here although I have no competence to judge the last line. As for the first line . . . yes, people are very emotional. However, their emotions are not always rooted in reality.
Some people create their own realities. It's difficult to figure out humans and what makes us tick on an individual level, let alone millions of individual personalities impacting on society as a whole. Could this mean that we're an emotional society, that we may not be thinking logically, and this could be reflected in our government and its actions?
quote:
Enjoy the day [:)]
Thanks, you too. [:)]
|
|
|
|
