Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Some of the problem is cultural and some of it is political.
I agree, historical and geo-political too.
Culturally, politics simply isn't on the agenda for a significant minority of the people, with Consumerism being much of a concern to some people.
Historically, things aren't that bad today when compared the past. I suppose that's the liberal in me as I see history as progress. Perhaps some people see today's society as being as good as it's going to get so why rock the boat.
Geo-politically, politicians have less power these days to influence things. Some multi-nationals generate more money than entire nations giving them a great deal of power and providing for a lop-sided angle to politics. Even the media can win or lose an election: when Tony Blair was looking for a spin-doctor as a means of winning his first election, say 1996ish, he was told by the best in the business to forget it unless he could get the media on the side of the Labour Party, otherwise it would be a complete waste of time. Newspapers with a wider readership tended to support the Conservative Party. So, Tony Blair went to see Rupert Murdoch and made promises to him in return for the support of his media empire.
That, in and of itself, is a serious weakness of democracy. If public opinion can be manipulated and election results influenced by a media empire, then it's not really democratic. Even though there are rules (such as equal time) in an attempt to promote fairness in elections, the fact is, whoever has the money and the backing of media will have a great advantage over those who don't. Of course, the ultimate fault still lies with the people for allowing the media to manipulate them.
quote:
With all of this mind, some people simply can't be bothered with politics.
Having said that, we're fortunate enough to retain some sort of questioning mind. We've had a case here not to long ago where politicians were milking expense claims: some claims were fraudulent others not in the spirit of serving the people. The media got hold of the evidence and printed it in newspapers and uproar ensued. Some of these politicians were imprisoned and others sacked or forced to resign.
So, there is some sort of care shown by people here, but it doesn't really focus on the wider picture of whether or not we actually operate in a democracy, and even some of those who do question it believe not being democratic is a small price to pay for getting things done in Parliament.
And, to bring this back to the topic at hand - rights and government violation of rights - it was a different world in the 1600s and the idea of inalienable rights made sense in their environment where only a few had access to power. Today is a completely different world and it will take a lot more than the idea of inalienable rights to engender a balance of power.
I agree. I think technological development also played a big part in what you're saying as well. Back in the 1600s, life was a lot simpler - mostly rural and pastoral. This was still pretty much the case by the time of the Declaration of Independence. Once the Industrial Revolution kicked in, then the cities grew exponentially larger and society became more complex. Both America and Britain were acquiring more land and increasing the size of their territory. Napoleon tried to upset the balance of power in his favor, but was stopped. The population was also increasing, and by 1848, the powers that be in Europe must have realized that they had far larger numbers of people to deal with. It wasn't like the rural peasant revolts of the past which were mostly small-scale and much easier to contain. We faced problems related to urbanization which no other civilization in Earth's past has ever had to face.
Nationalism and higher populations meant larger armies, and industrialization meant more modern weaponry becoming deadlier with each passing generation. As a result, there was more raw "power" to try to balance, and that's what made it all the more tricky. Look at all the global panic exhibited by the powers that be from multiple nations over the prospect that regimes like North Korea or Iran might have nuclear weapons. A nuclear warhead packs a lot of power in a small package. We're really in brand new territory and there are few traditions or ideals from the past that we can truly rely upon for guidance. Most of the older ideas just don't really apply anymore.
quote:
Possibly.
Although I do think that while Liberalism won the argument a long time ago, a lot of people in this country are innately conservative.
The French Tourist Office once said something like: the English are an inherently conservative people who move into the future taking hundreds of years worth of luggage with them.
That's funny. I wonder what they say about Americans.
quote:
I think people instinctively do not like radical change, which perhaps isn't the same as swerving dissension.
We've had our fair share of improving the system in the past, but never in a fashion that has threatened the established institutions: Civil War excepted.
I was born in the 1960s, and although there was a lot of dissension and discord in society, I also recall that there was a lot of hope for the future. The Civil Rights movement made enormous gains even in the face of manifest and hateful opposition. The anti-war and pacifist movement also made a deep impression on people, which changed society's views on war and geopolitics. Technological advances and our forays into space also inspired whole generations and made many believe that we had a very bright and beautiful future to look forward to - provided that we didn't blow each other to Kingdom Come.
Nixon's downfall and resignation may have been viewed as a disgrace to the country, but it might have also restored people's faith in the democratic process and the system of checks and balances. But that may have been just an illusion, since things really didn't get better - and the hope that people had for the future seemed to evaporate by the late 1970s. Nowadays, there's widespread public talk about America's impending downfall, more so than at any time I remember in my life. During the Reagan era, the catch slogans of the day were "It's morning in America" and "Don't worry, be happy." Even if it may have been a put on, I don't really notice that level of optimism anymore.
quote:
Ultimately though we wouldn't have been involved in Iraq had people not being apathetic to politics and had our system been more democratic. And that certainly isn't anything to do with a violation of rights: it is to do with the system created by people.
In regards to Iraq (or any other military action), what I recall is a lot of ignorant blowhards baiting opponents of military action by attacking their patriotism, accusing them of siding with the enemy, playing the 9/11 card (which was totally irrelevant when applied to Iraq, but that didn't stop people from using it to confuse the public). The problem that the "peaceniks" faced was that they still ostensibly supported the American system and even our internationalist policies. They're still multiply-connected and invested in the global economic system which is the primary cause of war in the first place. But they just don't like war, because war is unpleasant and people die. So, the "war hawks" saw them (and continue to see them) as nothing more than spoiled, naive children who enjoy every advantage of living in America, yet just can't bring themselves to accept the unpleasant realities that the hoarding of wealth and resources can bring. They see them as insulated and protected in their own comfort zone, so they see it as hypocritical that they criticize and oppose the militaristic policies of the United States.
It was different back in the 60s when the "peaceniks" not only opposed war but the whole damn system as well. That's when they had a much larger following and commanded much more respect and admiration for their convictions and principles. But nowadays, the corporate fashionable Starbuck's "liberals" are pretty much out to lunch - scratching their heads and wondering why there's so much war, hate, and unpleasantness in this world. They're so desperate to get back to the point where they will not have to worry and "be happy," yet they just don't have a clue as to what to do or who to vote for or what's going to happen next.
Then there are those who may not ordinarily be apathetic but have reached a point where they're resigned to the fact that "nothing will ever change so why bother?" They move out to the sticks to become survivalists. Some plan on kicking back and eating popcorn while the whole world burns down around them. As for me, I'll probably be sent off to the camp for radicals. I just hope it's a coed camp, otherwise it would be a real drag.
|
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 
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