When Democracy Failed - The Warnings Of History
- Thread starter trader556
- Start date
the way you are talking about the american system of government it sounds like you are learning it in high school.
What makes you think I hate democracy? I'm for direct democracy in most cases. Especially with today's technology, there isn't a reason why the citizenry can't decide many issues on their own.
And "the masses are asses" is a quote that summarizes the fact that letting the passions of the people guide policy is stupid. We need time to reflect so that we act in ways that benefit our interests.
If you're an example of a person that knows world history, then you are also the perfect example of the difference between knowing and understanding
However, I still find your posts very entertaining."Under the influence of politicians, masses of people tend to ascribe the responsibility for wars to those who wield power at any given time. In World War I it was the munitions industrialists; in World War II it was the psychopathic generals who were said to be guilty. This is passing the buck. The responsibility for wars falls solely upon the shoulders of these same masses of people, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands. In part by their apathy, in part by their passivity, and in part actively, these same masses of people make possible the catastrophes under which they themselves suffer more than anyone else. To stress this guilt on the part of the masses of people, to hold them solely responsible, means to take them seriously. On the other hand, to commiserate masses of people as victims, means to treat them as small, helpless children. The former is the attitude held by genuine freedom fighters; the latter that attitude held by power-thirsty politicians." âWilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism
In that case, do you want msfe or madison to translate it into Mondo speak? I don't want you to fall behind.
greater voter involvement, generally, would require more participation by politicians, especially those already in office. 25% voter turnout packaged into familiar, easily-manipulated groups (AARP, unions, etc.) means less physical campaigning, traveling, fewer variables, more reliance on PR agencies and ads and less of the dangers of debating and articulating positions.
and more educated voters might be less likely to forgive the scandals and negligence that feed on voter apathy, from budgetary and tax abuses to blatantly corporate-friendly laws to pre-scripted presidential 'press conferences' in lieu of a real Congressional debate on war.
sure, these things would occur with any voters, but greater involvement just means more headaches, so why make things more complicated for those in office, if you don't have to... jmho
you don't even deny that you are a student trying to figure this stuff out. I hope you figure it out before they let you loose in society.
You may be right, but politicians would then be required to become more familiar with the issues and constituencies. I think that we'd get better legislation out of the deal as well as more accountability. We might even get rid of the career politicians. The way I look at it, if a politician's involvement gives him/her a more complicated life or more headaches then their priorities may not be in the right place.
Thanks for the explanation
Do you have a computer that spits this stuff out? It's amazing. You haven't made a single point on this thread that makes anyone want to change their position on democracy, the history of democracy, or it's potential applications in Iraq.
And students aren't a part of society? How does that work?
I agree! not saying it is preferable, just that it seems to be the way it is. greater voter involvement and more legislative accountability would almost certainly yield better legislation overall... but if the voters don't demand it, it seems doubtful the incumbents are going to provide it....
who are you referring to?