Greetings good citizen, this morning I read a curious question that most of us don't consider. I suspect the 'kneejerk reaction' to the question "do we have 'too much or too little?' [Democracy]?" would be, 'just right'.
We don't have the gridlock the original opponents insisted we'd suffer and we also don't suffer from the 'paralysis' of having to vote on EVERYTHING before a decision can be reached/acted upon.
The original target had been set at 'slow and deliberate' and I suspect in our world of instant gratification we're still, er, 'on target'.
We don't have time to man and set up the polling places once the button has been pushed by a nuclear armed foe so we give that decision over to a 'leader'...which is why it is imperitive that we 'choose carefully' when handing over the power to wipe life from the face of the planet to a single individual.
We've seen the posing. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs insists he'd refuse to launch just on the President's say-so...but add 'extenuating circumstances' into that and now he's waffling.
It's easy to get sidetracked when 'weighing' how much Democracy is enough and how much is too much, like the little scenario we use in our example.
Some things can't wait so we have to trust we have selected 'the best person for the job'.
Now we have to ask ourselves if 'a popularity contest' is the best way to determine this?
But once again, I digress!
I think most people would agree, using 'Democracy' to select leaders in today's nuclear age is not only foolhardy, it's suicidal!
Rip away that feature and our (pretty much useless) form of Democracy disappears.
Is that why we spend half of every presidency running for office? [Yes good citizen, it takes almost two years to get elected president...and you have to wonder about that as well.] It's the 'illusion of participation' that's being propped up by the drawn out campaign process.
That said, it also fills the coffers of the corporate owned media and drives the 'news cycle' [pretty much] constantly.
But we still haven't addressed the question, are we suffering from a 'Democracy defecit or a surplus of Democracy?'
The article I read opines we are suffering the effects of a 'Democracy defecit' but I hit upon the reason why when I pointed out that the ONLY thing you get to vote 'for' is who will make decisions in your name without ever consulting YOU.
This is something most of us realize but have been raised to believe there's nothing we can do about it because 'expediency demands we trust our leaders'.
Democracizing the 'process' [using old-school thinking of paper ballots and operating polling places around working hours] is still considered impractical [despite instant national polling conducted by numerous 'reality' television shows.]
The fly in this particular ointment is 'hacking'. Voting from home would change the process considerably and we could create safeguards but the danger exists that the ballot would no longer be 'secret', that others would be able to find out how you voted. [Not that anyone these days has any illusions regarding their privacy.]
Nope, those who choose who will lead aren't about to relinquish their stranglehold over the ballotbox [that nobody but they can see.]
So now we have [partially] answered the question and find ourselves in agreement, we definitely suffer from a 'Democracy Defecit' (although there are those who would opine we suffer from a surplus, that we have 'too much freedom' but this usually segues into a rousing sermon on the wickedness of man and his propensity for evil...like that has anything to do with Democracy and the business of running civilization.)
Ironically, that's precisely the stand those who choose for us hold. That humanity is wicked, evil and easily fooled...wait, they may be on to something!
But I jest, good citizen. Not about the 'easily fooled' part but you know judgement has been prejudiced when you start off with a 'blanket accusation' of wickedness and evil.
Can we be honest and cut to the chase, the 'everybody knows' part? We, collectively, decide NOTHING. They agonizingly long and drawn out electorial process exists to provide the 'illusion of participation' just as the heavily massaged unemployment figures provide 'the illusion of successful management.'
Democracy as it was 'originally intended' has NEVER existed. Sure 'families' practice 'democracy' when sending out for Pizza or deciding which movie to see but Democratic government, never happened.
Ever wonder why you can find humanity clinging to life in even the most miserable and desolate parts of this planet? It's not hard to figure out.
The answer is 'freedom'. Living life on your own terms means escaping the machinations of the 'self-interested'. How sad is it that there's no longer anyplace [hospitable] to escape to?
Just a little punctuation mark on the truth that we suffer from an enormous Democracy deficit.
Which is to ask the other question, is what we have 'as good as it gets'?
Closer to the mark would be the reality that 'as good as our current brand' was ever going to get was after WWII and prior to Morning in America.
Emphasis on the WAS, it's all been downhill from there.
Ironic how computers hold the key to expanding participation [a.k.a democracy] but instead they are being used to curtail it instead...because WE don't get to DECIDE.
But I might as well be shouting at the bottom of a well. Over fifty posts and not a single comment? I'm good but I'm not that good.
Either way it is cathargic to get these thoughts out in the open. I can provide myself with the illusion I'm trying to change things but if I'm the only one here then we (as a civilization) have bigger problems.
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
We don't have the gridlock the original opponents insisted we'd suffer and we also don't suffer from the 'paralysis' of having to vote on EVERYTHING before a decision can be reached/acted upon.
The original target had been set at 'slow and deliberate' and I suspect in our world of instant gratification we're still, er, 'on target'.
We don't have time to man and set up the polling places once the button has been pushed by a nuclear armed foe so we give that decision over to a 'leader'...which is why it is imperitive that we 'choose carefully' when handing over the power to wipe life from the face of the planet to a single individual.
We've seen the posing. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs insists he'd refuse to launch just on the President's say-so...but add 'extenuating circumstances' into that and now he's waffling.
It's easy to get sidetracked when 'weighing' how much Democracy is enough and how much is too much, like the little scenario we use in our example.
Some things can't wait so we have to trust we have selected 'the best person for the job'.
Now we have to ask ourselves if 'a popularity contest' is the best way to determine this?
But once again, I digress!
I think most people would agree, using 'Democracy' to select leaders in today's nuclear age is not only foolhardy, it's suicidal!
Rip away that feature and our (pretty much useless) form of Democracy disappears.
Is that why we spend half of every presidency running for office? [Yes good citizen, it takes almost two years to get elected president...and you have to wonder about that as well.] It's the 'illusion of participation' that's being propped up by the drawn out campaign process.
That said, it also fills the coffers of the corporate owned media and drives the 'news cycle' [pretty much] constantly.
But we still haven't addressed the question, are we suffering from a 'Democracy defecit or a surplus of Democracy?'
The article I read opines we are suffering the effects of a 'Democracy defecit' but I hit upon the reason why when I pointed out that the ONLY thing you get to vote 'for' is who will make decisions in your name without ever consulting YOU.
This is something most of us realize but have been raised to believe there's nothing we can do about it because 'expediency demands we trust our leaders'.
Democracizing the 'process' [using old-school thinking of paper ballots and operating polling places around working hours] is still considered impractical [despite instant national polling conducted by numerous 'reality' television shows.]
The fly in this particular ointment is 'hacking'. Voting from home would change the process considerably and we could create safeguards but the danger exists that the ballot would no longer be 'secret', that others would be able to find out how you voted. [Not that anyone these days has any illusions regarding their privacy.]
Nope, those who choose who will lead aren't about to relinquish their stranglehold over the ballotbox [that nobody but they can see.]
So now we have [partially] answered the question and find ourselves in agreement, we definitely suffer from a 'Democracy Defecit' (although there are those who would opine we suffer from a surplus, that we have 'too much freedom' but this usually segues into a rousing sermon on the wickedness of man and his propensity for evil...like that has anything to do with Democracy and the business of running civilization.)
Ironically, that's precisely the stand those who choose for us hold. That humanity is wicked, evil and easily fooled...wait, they may be on to something!
But I jest, good citizen. Not about the 'easily fooled' part but you know judgement has been prejudiced when you start off with a 'blanket accusation' of wickedness and evil.
Can we be honest and cut to the chase, the 'everybody knows' part? We, collectively, decide NOTHING. They agonizingly long and drawn out electorial process exists to provide the 'illusion of participation' just as the heavily massaged unemployment figures provide 'the illusion of successful management.'
Democracy as it was 'originally intended' has NEVER existed. Sure 'families' practice 'democracy' when sending out for Pizza or deciding which movie to see but Democratic government, never happened.
Ever wonder why you can find humanity clinging to life in even the most miserable and desolate parts of this planet? It's not hard to figure out.
The answer is 'freedom'. Living life on your own terms means escaping the machinations of the 'self-interested'. How sad is it that there's no longer anyplace [hospitable] to escape to?
Just a little punctuation mark on the truth that we suffer from an enormous Democracy deficit.
Which is to ask the other question, is what we have 'as good as it gets'?
Closer to the mark would be the reality that 'as good as our current brand' was ever going to get was after WWII and prior to Morning in America.
Emphasis on the WAS, it's all been downhill from there.
Ironic how computers hold the key to expanding participation [a.k.a democracy] but instead they are being used to curtail it instead...because WE don't get to DECIDE.
But I might as well be shouting at the bottom of a well. Over fifty posts and not a single comment? I'm good but I'm not that good.
Either way it is cathargic to get these thoughts out in the open. I can provide myself with the illusion I'm trying to change things but if I'm the only one here then we (as a civilization) have bigger problems.
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you can't stay on topic then don't say anything...