Nothing but Paspalum Fasciculatum here
Your post brings to mind a cartoon I saw many years ago.
One student is running up to another student in a courtyard shouting, "They're hanging apathetic students in the main concourse!!"
The other student replies,"Who cares."
As an aside, I think it was Pericles who said, "Just because you don't have an interest in politics doesn't mean politics doesn't have an interest in you."
Venezuelans under Chavez are learning that the hard way. Now is not the time to be apathetic. OTPOR indeed.
Good one Mike, LOL,
"Just because you don't have an interest in politics doesn't mean politics doesn't have an interest in you."
And part of the problem comes back to labels, many people think that 'having an interest in politics' is to whine and moan about them around the water cooler. Is it so hard to understand that the key is to act?!!.
I am trying to get people involved by getting involved myself, but I feel like I'm herding snails, I really wish I had some cats to deal with...
I don't agree with Edgar on this one. In fact, it is my belief that political power is more diffused in America than it has ever been in my lifetime. Special interests on both sides of every issue exert enormous pressure on politicians to see the issues their way. The result is gridlock and stalemate -- and a government that will never make tough decisions unless forced to do so by circumstances. Social Security and Medicare are good examples. Anyone who can add and subtract knows the reality. Republicans want to make changes, Democrats want the status quo -- stalemate is achieved.
You couldn't build the Hoover Dam in today's America. Environmental groups would file lawsuits for years to keep it tied up in court. The result would be the entire American SouthWest would be closed to development. There would be no bustling Vegas or Phoenix.
One individual with a lawyer has enormous power. Witness the recent lawsuit that got "under God" banished from the pledge. That's the work of one person imposing his will on the majority.
I would make the opposite argument as Edgar. America is suffering, but it could be from too much democracy. When tiny minorities are able to circumvent the will of the majority on a routine basis, that's not healthy. America could very well be headed for a crisis, but it's not for the reasons Edgar states.
I don't think that we actually disagree, the differences are in labels and assumptions, as usual.
The problem Brook is one of education (in the true sense, not in the going to school sense), there cannot be true democracy if the people are not informed. In this case, you are right, combine the apathy of actually researching the facts, with the ease of manipulation, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Let me quote someone that I had a discussion with: "you cannot expect me to check all the facts!, that's why we have reporters!" the same person that would completely ignore a huge segment of the other side of the media (contradicting his so called facts) as 'biased.' But, he sure had an opinion (and a vote). That's apathy in action.
Add to the mix the 'screaming benchies' (or the throngs of misinformed people), some politicians that just want power for power sake no matter what it takes and what they have to promise, and also add a forced two-party system, and you have today's America.
Oh, and I forgot to add...
If it was not for the apathy of those that think the way we do, to take some action regarding precisely what we perceive as the 'screaming benchie' attitude, which in my opinion is the great majority of Americans. Then these groups would not have the power they have, and politicians would have a completely different perception of their power base.
Edgar,
Here's one of my favorite quotes from W. Churchill: "The greatest argument against democracy is a ten-minute conversation with the average voter."
Voter ignorance has always been a problem. There are some people that are so ignorant they really shouldn't be allowed to vote. This at a time when literacy and education are prolific. There is no excuse for anyone not knowing who the Secretary of State is, but if you take a poll, the results are shocking.
My point was basically that busy Americans outsource their political voice to special interests. If you hate Bush, you support Move On or the ACLU. If you're an evangelical you support the Alliance Defense Fund. If you "love the environment" you support the Sierra Club. The problem is these groups have an agenda typically more radical than it's membership. The Sierra Club doesn't like anything that's not powered by a gust of wind, and they use their resources to successfully block building refineries. I've coined the phrase "political tribalism" to define the landscape today.
This diffusion of power keeps any one interest group from domination (a good thing), but also has achieved gridlock (a bad thing). I think it's a net negative though and very worrisome.
I agree, and I fear that it has to break someway before it improves.
But blaming voters for being ignorant is half the story, we have to see the causes of that ignorance and do our best to correct it. If every educated voter took the time to understand the ignorant voters, and to try to eradicate their ignorance, that would be another story (sounds really easy, right? 
).
Part of the problem also lies with the design of the two-party system in the US. It has kept the system stable so far, but given the social environment changes it really needs to evolve, or it's headed towards extinction.
The way a person votes is an entire field of psychology unto itself. Figuring it out is as futile as Hollywood trying to figure out what makes a hit film.
People bring their personal perspective to every experience, so exposing them to an alternative point of view usually does little to change their mind. Try convincing a black voter he should vote GOP. You can throw out real-world stats that Bush has spent more on poverty than Clinton did, and he's helped more black families own their own home. It doesn't do any good. They're still going to pull the donkey lever.
Political views, like religous ones, lie deep in the psyche, and you can even see patterns set in young children. My 6 year old neice had some shocking opinions in the last election, and none of us can figure out where they came from.
So, ignorance is one problem, but most people behave according to patterns set early in life and they won't deviate from them. No amount of education will break the pattern.
Brook,
when I said "see the causes of that ignorance and do our best to correct it" I did not only mean better education, but also finding the root cause of the problem, and fix it. Some of the ones I see are related to commercial interests and the media. While News are driven by a business model that uses entertainment as its yardstick, information goes through the window.
We have to assume that people try to be rational in their decisions, but it requires to know what are the "inputs" to that rational thinking system that are producing the wrong output, that's what I mean by information.
Recently I have been pleasantly surprised by two friends that used to support Creationist views regarding evolution, after years of "prodding" on my part, some of the communication barrier started to fall, and through their own curiosity, they started agreeing with my world view.
So yes, the patterns are set early in life, but in many cases these are not as "set" as it might appear, if we take the time to understand what caused that pattern in the first place, and what is creating the communication barrier.
I am not saying that it's easy, as in a way this is akin to psychoanalysis, and we know how long that takes. But if enough people are doing it, instead of just giving up by saying "it cannot be done" we might start seeing some changes.
Basically it comes down to open-mindedness. A bright, educated person can still have a closed mind, and there's no persuasion possible.
There's also the other issue of one man's truth being another man's ignorance. Whenever I debate Chavistas, they proclaim their support for Chavez, because he tells a truth no one else is expressing about America. I am ignorant of these truths in their eyes. There's no way I could support my government, if it weren't for my ignorance. Any facts, websites, or aticles I present to contradict this truth is all propaganda. Their favorite sites, of course, are 100% bonafide truth.
So, when it comes to politics, humans form a subjective inner truth that doesn't respond kindly to challenge and labels any deviation from that truth as ignorance.
Having said that, Bush 9/11 and the war we're fighting has created a personal political earthquake in the minds of some of my friends. I've got die-hard GOP friends that switched sides and now have nothing but vitriol for any Republican candidate. Conversely, a very good Jewish friend of mine in NY (a staunch liberal) bristles with anger when you talk about Democrats. She can't stand them anymore. She's a card-carrying Republican now.
So, yes, people do change their views but it takes an open mind and some seminal event usually to make the shift.
Basically it comes down to open-mindedness. A bright, educated person can still have a closed mind, and there's no persuasion possible.
Bingo!!!!!, that's the way to say it. I normally call it having common sense which is the least common of the senses...
So, yes, people do change their views but it takes an open mind and some seminal event usually to make the shift.
From my experience a seminal event is the easy way but if you take the time to play "the conversational game of chess," slowly pushing the right buttons, keeping the communication open, conceding the points of disagreement, looking at where miscommunications happen and pointing them out, a change can be exerted. It takes time, it's a slow personalized process, but America is worth it.
Furthermore if you teach them to do things that way, then more people can be 'converted,' so that the message spreads. In a few years you can have a majority of open minded people. It worked great for Christianity, didn't it?
This approach works in personal relations, but it doesn't work on a broader impersonal scale. I go back to the Chavista example. I've yet to meet a Chavez supporter that could go toe-to-toe in a debate. Inevitably, they will resort to name-calling or pull the "propaganda" parachute, giving themselves a reason to dismiss my points. So, the Internet isn't a good forum for debate in my experience. It's everyone talking at once and nobody listening, or it's people simply searching for confirmation of what they already believe.
I agree, the internet to me is more of a 'multiplier' through which you can communicate your idea with like-minded people. And it's useful as a debating forum in between open-minded people. But to do the kind of 'evangelism' (in the good sense) that I refer to, the only way is face to face (or at least mouth to ear).
But don't forget that we are all connected through personal relations, I hate to think about it, but I am personally connected through 2 degrees of separation from Bush, and also 2 degrees away from Chavez!!!!, and I am just a common guy.
So don't underestimate the power of personal relations (it's what 'networking' is all about). It takes very little to encompass the whole world.
I'm not optimistic like you near-term, Edgar. I've seen both of our parties fail miserably to lead this nation with vision, and we're just starting to pay the price. Even with $ 3 a gallon gas, Democrats are still opposing the construction of 2 new refinieries. We've got a huge looming fiscal crisis and bankrupt entitlements. Republicans don't have the courage to reform, and Democrats just want to add more entitlements like universal health care. There's nobody for me to really support enthusiastically.
In the fast-paced modern world, it's the small countries that have the advantage. They can react to the changes far more quickly than the lumbering behemoth that we have. Ironically, a country like Venezuela should be booming as a result -- sort of a Latin American Singapore. This, of course, if you didn't have Chavez running around offering to pay for cataract surgery for anyone who wants it.
Every Western nation is facing the spector of a huge social welfare tab due to demographics, and the European countries will feel the brunt of it first, since they spend so much more.
Germany is already deep into crisis mode. Europe is sort of frozen in place at the moment.
There are solutions, but all of them require sacrifice, and nobody's going to stick their neck out. The world is suffering from an epidemic of poor political leadership, and I don't feel like my voice makes any difference. The only choice is to plan a self-sufficient future for yourself as much as is possible.
Brook, clearly the strategy I propose is more long term that short term. And yes, I am worried, I can see what could happen if correction measures are not taken as soon as possible.
But maybe this is one of those stages, the U.S. might need an even stronger jolt to bring it back to life. I thought that Katrina might be it, but it seems to have turned into more politics as usual.
But on this:
I've seen both of our parties fail miserably to lead this nation with vision, and we're just starting to pay the price.
This thinking is part of the problem, it is assuming that some entity that is external to us, be it a party, a president, or any other force, is the only one that is able to fix it. Realizing that it is through us, following the slow path to build a strong democratic foundation, that change can be exerted. I try to do this in my everyday life, slowly shaping the minds of those that surround me, and making them realize the power they have in themselves.
The problem is in always trying to find the shortcuts. The good solutions are rarely a quick hacks, it's time to stop going for 'good enough' and start asking for 'really good.' For me the first priority is the educational system, each one of us can get involved by being active in modifying our local school and regent boards, slowly starting a movement for a better education, and a movement through which the children would be able to educate their own parents. That way the effect would be multiplied thousand-fold.
And yes, in the short term, we all have to take care of our own, that should be part of any planning.
Edgar, I thought you were Venezuelan. I'm confused.
Not as confused as Chavez, thankfully. Today he announced that global capitalism is responsible for the earthquake in Pakistan. This guy's idiocy has to be stopped. What infuriates me is that nobody challenges these kinds of ridiculous nonsense. This is what happens when you have no real political opposition.
Yes I am, but I have been in the states for 9 years, I don't want to move again.
Well Chavez was very skillful at making the whole opposition disintegrate. And at this point Venezuelans are accustomed to his rants. If we pay attention to all of what he says we would all have gone insane by now.
Edward said "Furthermore if you teach them to do things that way, then more people can be 'converted,' so that the message spreads. In a few years you can have a majority of open minded people. It worked great for Christianity, didn't it?"
Edgar, this comment seems both kooky and spooky. Any cursory look at the violent, totalitarian, colonialist spread of 'the word' doesn't connote the term 'open minded'.
Brook, I am certain that open debate and adhering to rules of logical reasoning would go far toward helping dismantel the oppressive/exploitative structures (that cannot reasonably justify themselves) that undergird state capitalism and the present US imperialism.
Most of the world's people have figured this out--but somehow imperialist nations and their allies (England) haven't.
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is immoral and illegal. You can't be for human freedom and support state terrorism and occupation. Pretty simple.
More, I wouldn't call The Sierra Club radical by any means. What universe are they 'radical' in?--Fox and Rush Limbaugh?
Commenting by HaloScan
