From: Nathan Lund (nathan_lund@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 21:14:10 BST
PACO:
> 1) people are apathetic, and
> 2) this gives Democracy the ability to weigh not just
> the numbers but the WEIGHT OF CONVICTION. This isn't
> always a good thing, nor always a bad thing (but I
> suggest good overall -- see "Democracy, Capitalism and
> Ralphs Pretty Good Grocery" by J. Mueller for more on
> this theme.
NATE:
Most people with high conviction, in my opinion, are often zealots. Not a minority I want running things.
PACO:
> Do you have any evidence either that:
> 1) Democracy (or representative Democracy) works better
> at full rates of participation? or
> 2) What the ideal rate is?
Nate:
I think, personally, it works best not with apathy, not with burning conviction, but with interest and concern of the masses.
>PACO:
>Two responses (for you and Erin)
>First, I would hate to think of all the stupid things I
>have said over the years. God forbid that I had a
>microphone to my lips 24/7. I wonder if you or Erin
>are so much better? especially if the press had an axe
>to grind.
>
>Second, according to your Democracy feelings, you must
>see Bush as a heck of leader, as he is approved of by
>the majority of apathetic and unapathetic Americans.
>For your sake, I hope your view of either Democracy or
>Bush is wrong.
>
> ERIN:
> I just realized I missed the second comment.
> Well I don't recall saying anything about democracy
> so don't know how to respond to that.
> But I would like to suggest one of the reasons that his
> approval is so high because since Sept 11 if you say
> any criticism of Bush you get frowned upon.
> Frowns upon criticism of the government make me very
> nervous. At least you didn't call me a terrorist for questioning
> Bush's intelligence.
> I saw this one guy in a car with five American flags on
> it tell another guy in a car with three American flags on
> it to go back to the Axis of Evil.
>
> erin
NATE:
On Paco's first point: No no, I honestly think the things he says and the decisions he makes are that truly stupid. Unlike the stupid things I routinely and knowingly say because they're fun. On your second point: Is it coincidence that the majority of Americans are apathetic and that the
majority of Americans approve of G.W.? There's some concomitancy there.
As for Erin's point, I'd have to agree. Before Sept. 11, Bush had a fairly low approval rate, and when suddenly there was a war to fight, yee-haw!, the masses quickly approve and condemn anyone with ideas of their own. The momen I open my mouth with any criticism of the current war,
there are many quick to reduce me to some kind of immoral monster, "But what about the people who DIED in those towers?!"
KEVIN:
> Regardless of your opinion of Bush & Co., the ultimate responsibility
> for the government's actions rest with the people.
>
> If politicians are scumbags, it's because people allow them to be. If
> citizens do not participate in the democratic process to hold them
> accountable, why should we be surprised when power is abused for
> selfish
> gain?
>
> For example, the recent resignations in the Dutch government as a
> response to public outcry concerning the Srebrenica massacre. When is
> the last time the US population was united in outrage over a political
> scandal to such an extent that it resulted in actual punishment of
> those
> in authority? Furthermore, what kinds of political scandals capture the
> attention of the collective conscience of Americans?
>
> The answers to these questions are their own indictment of the state of
> democracy in America. If Bush is a stupid, evil ass monkey, then
> perhaps
> he's exactly the leader we deserve.
NATE:
This parallels my point that apathy is a problem. I would agree almost entirely. If this country wants to see any positive change, they need to change themselves from the inside out. Though I must say, apathetic or not, NOBODY deserves Bush as a leader; that's just cruel.
>I admire LC enormously.
>Squonk. :-)
>
> ERIN:
> I do too. I don't know why it took me so long to
> discover him. But enjoying him now :-)
NATE:
The last girl I dated just turned me onto him like a month ago. Beautiful stuff.
A quote I find applicable to this discussion:
"...But neither have I gone out and picked fights with authority.
That's stupid. They're waiting for that; they invite it; it helps keep them
powerful. Authority is to be ridiculed, outwitted, and avoided. And
it's fairly easy to do all three. If you believe in peace, act peacefully,
if you believe in love, act lovingly, if you believe every which way, then act every which way, that's perfectly valid - but don't go out trying to sell your beliefs to the System. You end up contradicting what you profess to believe in, and you set a bum example. If you want to change the world,
change yourself." p. 400 of Even Cowgirls Get the Blues by Tom Robbins
--Nate
pacodegallo@attbi.com wrote:Hi Erin, Nate and Rasheed
> PACO (ON VOTING PARTICIPATION RATES):
> I would argue that this is an inherent STRENGTH of
> democracy. It allows minorities with CONVICTION to
> overcome apathetic majorities.
NATE REPLIED:
Rasheed didn't say this, I did. I must emphasize:
apathy is NOT a strength.
Minorities should not, in my opinion, have that much
influence over such
important things, over so many lives, just because so
much of the population is
apathetic.
PACO:
See my earlier response on this criticism. Democracy
works fine without full participation. Certainly I am
not advocating apathy. I am saying that:
1) people are apathetic, and
2) this gives Democracy the ability to weigh not just
the numbers but the WEIGHT OF CONVICTION. This isn't
always a good thing, nor always a bad thing (but I
suggest good overall -- see "Democracy, Capitalism and
Ralphs Pretty Good Grocery" by J. Mueller for more on
this theme.
Do you have any evidence either that:
1) Democracy (or representative Democracy) works better
at full rates of participation? or
2) What the ideal rate is?
Just wondering.
NATE:
> In this case I honestly don't think it's a
caricature. The man's an idiot (as
> illustrated by Erin's list of his many, many dim-
witted quotes and claims) and a
> poor leader (as observed by most everyone here).
PACO:
Two responses (for you and Erin)
First, I would hate to think of all the stupid things I
have said over the years. God forbid that I had a
microphone to my lips 24/7. I wonder if you or Erin
are so much better? especially if the press had an axe
to grind.
Second, according to your Democracy feelings, you must
see Bush as a heck of leader, as he is approved of by
the majority of apathetic and unapathetic Americans.
For your sake, I hope your view of either Democracy or
Bush is wrong.
Paco De Gallo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT