And then what? (aka, "the deluge comes after")

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by fleinn, May 15, 2007.

  1. fleinn

    fleinn 101010


    Posted at 22:13 by The Hon. Dr. St. Rev. Bradley S. Rocket, Esq, PhD, MD"
    It's been said before, I guess, but it's a point worth making again. It seems Congress, the media to a large extent - "the elite", I suppose - have managed to make themselves shielded so much from the public in general, that most do not vote on particular issues or their beliefs - but instead on specifically accepted constructions, where no meaningful debate may exist.

    There are two things to blame for that. For one thing, people go along with it to some extent, or else become purely reactionary. Second, the political elite seeks out this type of voters, those who will become engaged in "the game", but who do not ask questions or have any clear views on their own.

    The result is, of course, general apathy. Very low voter- turnout generally, and strategies are developed that does absolutely nothing to actually further some form of debate. But instead punish it, by making those who do ask questions into threats to the nation. Or bearers of depressive news that concerns the people's way of life, which is even worse. At any rate, they will be a threat at least to that very convenient system that keeps getting the people now in power elected. And in the process, reinforcing that protective shell through which all government business will happen behind.

    So, what can you do? In some respects the last election was a resounding success, for instance, in that it moved enough people to support not only different candidates, but also - to a limited degree - specific issues ahead of the election. Making the politicians dependent on carrying through with their promises in order to keep their jobs. Instead of relying exclusively on regurgitated talking points offered up by well- meaning lobbyists. And yet, the most depressing feature of the current american political discourse is that people on "both sides" have the view that they elect mini- despots for a couple of years at a time, and then hold them accountable for their "conduct" at the next election. Dependent on whether the colour of their tie, and the whiteness of their teeth is still radiant.

    But that doesn't develop any debate, now does it. Nor does it wrest control from the "elite" when it comes to their ability to shape the message. And therefore also the national debate.

    And I wonder - and have wondered for some time - if there really are enough people who wish a change from this in the US. And if those who do wish that change, have any ideas about what can be done. About that protective shell that seems to exist between the politicians and the beltway media on one hand, and the general population on the other.

    (Other thoughts on the issue:
    Is there life after Bush? |

    Also, don't miss Bill Moyer's journal on PBS.)

Share This Page