Jump to content

Are people too soft today? Will there be consequences?


Guest

Recommended Posts

I think a large part of it is that we have had the same politicians for so long now, people are sick and tired of them. Not sure how it is in the rest of Europe, but at least here in Denmark it has slowly become a thing to talk about in political debates. Are the politicians actually willing to do anything rather than just try to keep the status quo so they can just keep staying in office for life. I honestly think most of our elections are just... sad. In the end no matter what any of the politicians say they wont get enough of a majority vote to do anything, and it will be the bureaucracy that will actually lead the country. 

 

I think this is why people get really attracted to these highly yelling charismatic characters... You do not need to have good arguments, if your sole purpose is to be different from something people essentially do not like. People know that politicians make promises that wont ever happen, but people are just tired of the ones they know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to take a cue from Aristotle and ask ourselves: what are politics for?

 

I would personally rather vote for a politician whom I can trust to want a similar thing for society as me, than I would want to vote for one who promises victories on issues that might be important to me now, but are heavily opposed by other parties. Four years is a long time. In my mind, most realizations like this (i.e. that politicians often don't get traction on their campaign promises) can be turned to our advantage, instead of just acting as an excuse for apathy. Turning to fear mongering political figures that argue that they are "different" than the rest simply because they're louder is not the way to change the system. I think it's important to remember that politics is in the end just a channel for public opinion, and as such the debate and actively putting important issues on the national (or regional) agenda becomes not only important, but imperative. If we are to aspire to an ideal system (not saying we can achieve it - but that should not keep us from aspiring to it) we have to understand that seeking apprehension of important political topics is as much our job as it is that of the politiciansWisdom is ultimately what helps push society in the right direction, and that needs to attained and promoted by society, not just the political establishment (which I would argue becomes much less sensible once we stop expecting it to be that). This is why I am a propagator of lifelong learning, not because knowledge is power, but because wisdom helps strengthen society at the foundation (i.e. the people in it). I find it important to say that I use the word wisdom as opposed to knowledge because to me, it's not just knowing that is important, but understanding also. One might say that in modern society we know far too much, and understand far too little. One might even say that's where the Socratic method would come in handy, but sadly that was not even mentioned to me in school until I took a philosophy course (at the high school level).

 

EDIT: Changed "is" to "are" in my question. According to the dictionary you can use both singular and plural verbs with "politics", but it looked better to me like this.

Edited by MonoAccipiter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah! People are definitely growing too soft theese days! All that 'talking' and 'debating' they are doing, hoping for each other to listen to their 'oppinion' and 'feelings' or even trying to do 'logical' arguments to solve their differences.

 

People should be smashing each others heads with spiked clubs more! Vote for Trump!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to take a cue from Aristotle and ask ourselves: what are politics for?

 

I would personally rather vote for a politician whom I can trust to want a similar thing for society as me, than I would want to vote for one who promises victories on issues that might be important to me now, but are heavily opposed by other parties. Four years is a long time. In my mind, most realizations like this (i.e. that politicians often don't get traction on their campaign promises) can be turned to our advantage, instead of just acting as an excuse for apathy. Turning to fear mongering political figures that argue that they are "different" than the rest simply because they're louder is not the way to change the system. I think it's important to remember that politics is in the end just a channel for public opinion, and as such the debate and actively putting important issues on the national (or regional) agenda becomes not only important, but imperative. If we are to aspire to an ideal system (not saying we can achieve it - but that should not keep us from aspiring to it) we have to understand that seeking apprehension of important political topics is as much our job as it is that of the politiciansWisdom is ultimately what helps push society in the right direction, and that needs to attained and promoted by society, not just the political establishment (which I would argue becomes much less sensible once we stop expecting it to be that). This is why I am a propagator of lifelong learning, not because knowledge is power, but because wisdom helps strengthen society at the foundation (i.e. the people in it). I find it important to say that I use the word wisdom as opposed to knowledge because to me, it's not just knowing that is important, but understanding also. One might say that in modern society we know far too much, and understand far too little. One might even say that's where the Socratic method would come in handy, but sadly that was not even mentioned to me in school until I took a philosophy course (at the high school level).

 

EDIT: Changed "is" to "are" in my question. According to the dictionary you can use both singular and plural verbs with "politics", but it looked better to me like this.

We can dream about lofty hypotheticals or deal with the realities of the current situation and adjust accordingly. A true democracy would be WORSE than the current system we have in place. The fact is, the average citizen cannot be trusted to be able to have either the knowledge or the wisdom to handle the topics that are discussed in the chambers of government. And even assuming that we had the perfect education system, the average citizen still would not be qualified to speak on such issues. That's because those average citizens have jobs to go and families to take care of; they do not have the time to research the differences between Shi'a and Sunni or know the effects of an agriculture bill that is being brought to a vote next week. 

 

In fact, the very thing you recommend (that being the engagement of society) is at least a part to blame for the current gridlock. I'm not entirely sure why or even when the change took place. However, I know that ever since 2010 and the Tea Party insurrection, both parties have been forced to cater to the extremes of their bases. That's because these career politicians are afraid that should they worked with the other party to pass something, which would involve at least some compromise, then they won't even make it to the next general election as they will probably be replaced in the primaries by someone more closely aligned with the views of the party base. In fact, the only time we ever see real progress on an issue is when a politician isn't running for re-election. We saw this during the Affordable Care Act debates as the only reason that law was passed was because Ben Nelson cast the deciding vote in favor of the law, knowing that he wouldn't ever have to face the consequences (I'm sure the 100$ million in Medicaid funding didn't hurt). 

 

Which brings me to the other issue and that is these career politicians that exist today. As much we throw shade at politicians, they do serve a vital role as being the ones encharged with making those hard and informed decisions on our behalf. In the US, this worked very well at the dawn of my nation as the politicians, while at times being fiercely divided on an issue, still recognized they were all Americans and understood what that meant. But more than that, these politicians would spend a lot of the time at home doing the work necessary to support their families because for them, being a politician was a duty and not a job in and of itself. However, the fundamental difference between the politician I referred to and a career politician, is that they are seeking to serve their own needs and NOT that of the nation. To put it another way, their purpose isn't to make the country better or even get something passed in congress; it's to keep their jobs.

 

So how do you fix it? Well in part you have to get rid of the cancer that is career politicians. And the best way to do that is through term limits. If history has proven anything, the only time any of these politicians grow a backbone or get things done is when they have nothing to lose. As to the radicalization of the parties, that is a much tougher nut to crack. Something you touched on that is true here is that the politicians are ultimately a reflection of society. And as a society, we've become so intolerant towards opposing ideas that no longer are you just wrong in your views, but you are evil or and idiot. Those sorts of labels only serve to drive us deeper into our own camps. This is only inflamed by a media that is heavily biased to the point that they actively manipulate the information they put out to further their own agendas. CNN was caught doing this a few weeks ago when it edited the tapes of an African American woman who appeared in the original report to be calling for an end to violence. Instead, the woman in question was arguing to take the violence to the white suburbs and "burn their houses down". 

I'll give you a great example of how toxic everything has become and you need to look no further than the issue of racism. Society will only tolerate one viewpoint on this issue and that is that cops, along with whites, are all racist and that they are the reason that blacks aren't successful in the country. If you attempt to bring up issues such as crime rates in those neighborhoods, or the disproportionate number of deaths of blacks by blacks, you are labeled a racist and shouted down. And when you can no longer speak about the facts without fear or repercussions, then no progress can ever be made on anything. If you aren't following along with the hive mind, then they don't want to hear from you.

 

This was made crystal clear to me when I saw a CNN town hall meeting on the topic of Race in America. It was billed as this great forum where there was going to be an "open" conversation on the subject of racism. In principle, it's a good idea as more than anything we need an open forum to talk about this heated issue. But what did I find when I tuned in? Not only was only one side of the issue being portrayed (that being the whites are all racist ones), but that when I watched it was only blacks being interviewed. Isn't the whole point of an open forum to offer a place where all the issues are raised and discussed? Not according to CNN, as they've ever only cared about one side of the issue. It's also why they never covered the horrible racist stuff that many blacks were saying during the Milwaukee riots. 

 

I've been writing this for some time so I'll attempt to wrap this up. If there is to be meaningful progress on the issues that face our society, then we must be willing to be... wrong. As long as we remain so entrenched in our viewpoints, there will never be any progress. At least not until there is the threat that forces politicians out of their lethargic or intransigent state. The only hope is if a George Washington-type leader, someone who everyone respects but is also seperate from the political fray, comes to power. Needless to say, no one that I've seen running for office anywhere strikes me as that sort of person. 

Edited by Aeradom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can dream about lofty hypotheticals or deal with the realities of the current situation and adjust accordingly. A true democracy would be WORSE than the current system we have in place. The fact is, the average citizen cannot be trusted to be able to have either the knowledge or the wisdom to handle the topics that are discussed in the chambers of government. And even assuming that we had the perfect education system, the average citizen still would not be qualified to speak on such issues. That's because those average citizens have jobs to go and families to take care of; they do not have the time to research the differences between Shi'a and Sunni or know the effects of an agriculture bill that is being brought to a vote next week. 

Yes, because advocating that one should vote in favor of a politician that acts a certain way instead of voting on their campaign promises is surely not adapting to reality... Talk about a straw man.

 

EDIT: I should clarify that I don't argue to ignore campaign promises and act on things like face value, but rather to take political â€‹endeavors as evidence of their political acumen and standing, insted of lending a vote only to forward a motion that might easily be defeated.

 

What is a "true democracy"? Are you talking about direct representation? Yes, that would probably be worse because there would be no way to get anything done. I fail to see what that has to do with anything I described though. To assume that a democracy works better with an informed populace is the foundation of most educational systems in Europe. The average citizen is the person supposed to cast the vote for a representative, hence the average citizen should attempt to attain an understanding of important questions. If you remove the citizen as the elector, then you run the risk of politicians acting in favor of their particular stratum of society. Because they are the leverage that ensures a politician will be held accountable to their decisions, they need to be informed. Otherwise they won't be able to assess whether or not that decision was right. These things people don't have the time to research are usually the responsibility of politicians, or occasionally the news, to inform the public about. 

 

 

In fact, the very thing you recommend (that being the engagement of society) is at least a part to blame for the current gridlock. I'm not entirely sure why or even when the change took place. However, I know that ever since 2010 and the Tea Party insurrection, both parties have been forced to cater to the extremes of their bases. That's because these career politicians are afraid that should they worked with the other party to pass something, which would involve at least some compromise, then they won't even make it to the next general election as they will probably be replaced in the primaries by someone more closely aligned with the views of the party base.

 

There is no gridlock in the rest of the world's political systems. There's been progress and regression in both directions, but not stagnation. You're pointing to correlation, not causation. The fact that the US is largely bipartisan probably doesn't help much either. Politicians being forced to do what their voters want them to is not necessarily a bad thing. "Progress" shouldn't be forced on the populace, than can go disastrously wrong because what constitutes progress is largely disputed. If we managed to educate the voters more on how things work however, they might stay approach political issues more consistently. Then you could work on some of the issues with your system, which again, are not at all inherent to democracy as a whole.

 

 

Which brings me to the other issue and that is these career politicians that exist today. As much we throw shade at politicians, they do serve a vital role as being the ones encharged with making those hard and informed decisions on our behalf. In the US, this worked very well at the dawn of my nation as the politicians, while at times being fiercely divided on an issue, still recognized they were all Americans and understood what that meant. But more than that, these politicians would spend a lot of the time at home doing the work necessary to support their families because for them, being a politician was a duty and not a job in and of itself. However, the fundamental difference between the politician I referred to and a career politician, is that they are seeking to serve their own needs and NOT that of the nation. To put it another way, their purpose isn't to make the country better or even get something passed in congress; it's to keep their jobs.

 

Do you mean the glorious dawn of American history where a huge portion of the populace wasn't even allowed to vote? Where you chased Indians off their land to ensure economic providence for whites? When things like child labor were still in practice? What exactly did it mean to them that they "were all Americans"? You realize it took you over 70 years to abolish slavery, right...?

 

One one side you're arguing that voters are not qualified to make decisions on important subjects, on the other hand you argue that politics should not be a job. So neither the voter, nor the politician should have time for politics then?

 

"... it's to keep their jobs". Yes, their jobs which are to make the country better or get something passed that their voters want. That's how the voters leverage their duty. This doesn't necessitate stagnation, but having a bipartisan system where one party runs on promises of stopping the other party does. 

 

Several things can get rid of career politicians. Term limits; multiple party representation making it harder to sway from the party stance because they are more unilaterally aligned towards certain ideologies; informed voters that hold politicians accountable to their accomplishments et cetera.

 

Manipulative media, as you mentioned, is very emblematic. And it becomes all the more so because most of the media is owned by a particular stratum of society. The easiest way to combat bad arguments has always been more understanding though. Want to know something that really helps you see things from other perspectives? Novels. Some films too. Art. Poetry.

 

 

 Society will only tolerate one viewpoint on this issue and that is that cops, along with whites, are all racist and that they are the reason that blacks aren't successful in the country. If you attempt to bring up issues such as crime rates in those neighborhoods, or the disproportionate number of deaths of blacks by blacks, you are labeled a racist and shouted down.

What society? You're painting the whole thing black and white. I bet there are tons that hold an opposing, equally as extremist view. 

 

Besides, most of the arguments I've seen regarding this issue doesn't state that racist cops are the reason blacks aren't "successful" in your country, but rather that racist cops are a problem. Which they are. If you attempt to bring up issues such as the crime rates in those neighborhoods you are deflecting from the real issue. Which is that several acts of a detrimental nature have been perpetrated on people because they belonged to a particular race. 

 

Then again you present these things as facts, as if they don't have an interpretation bundled along with them. I don't find it at all surprising that the portion of the population exposed to more poverty also has a proportionally higher crime rate. Especially seeing as your public education system doesn't support most people through college. 

 

Not sure how someone like George Washington would be possible today... It probably helped him that the slaves he privately wanted to set free, but publicly kept buying, had no votes to cast. Oh, wait. Does that mean he changed his political opinion because it allowed him to keep his job? Crap. 

Edited by MonoAccipiter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aeradom

I agree that most people don't understand the mechanics of the nation's or the world's economy and governments well enough to make informed political decisions (leaving out racism and xenophobia). I actually think that most people understand so little that they probably should abstain from even casting a vote! Most people vote on banal/superficial things like personality or appearance of the candidate ... and the government as well as the lobbyists KNOW this and manipulate the system likewise. Make no mistake: corporations rule the world, and individuals are mostly behaving like very predictable cattle --corralled, fed, and sidelined accordingly. The two-party system is a manifestation of two basic corporate agendas: nationalism versus globalism (a bit of an oversimplification, but applicable). Both of these general agendas have a common goal though, and that is 'power', which is in turn a major driving force of human nature. Let's face it: the ambitious rule the world, and ambition has at its core a fundamental weakness as a manifestation of animal nature driven by self preservation. Animals don't play 'fairly', and "intelligent animals" have even more potential power along a sliding scale of intelligence.

 

I also agree with you about term limits --specifically and conspicuously lacking in the judicial branch and the Senate of the US government. Why don't we have them?? ... corporations and their lobbyists (and existing career politicians), that's why.

 

I somewhat disagree about the CNN issues you have though. Sure, they have been slightly biased due to bias of a few of their people, but for the most part, they are the least biased of the corporate news sources ... nothing to the extent of Fox, IMHO. All corporate news has some general and pervasive problems though, because they are driven by profit in a capitalistic system.

 

The racial majority will always have the most political power and the least social power in a capitalistic democracy (and other types of governments aside from a theocracy, I am guessing). One day, brown people will lose their social power, and being white will be more socially fashionable.

 

... OK, back to bumbling complacency ... baaaaaahhh, moooo ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Use.