Letters to the Editor
-
Sometimes even awareness and broad participation can't get you out of a jam
Historically, every system has a built-in mechanism for failure, although it takes a while for it to act up. Our founding fathers studied all political systems before them just to make sure they don't repeat other people's mistakes. They did a good job and put many checks and balances in place. Yet they knew they could not foresee all possible pitfalls and they advised us to be vigilant.
Unless I'm too panicked, we may be seeing a crack in our system at last. Let's call it the Mencken fault-line.
When ignorance trumps knowledge, when cowardice intimidates courage, when talk gets more done that action, then somethig is wrong at the core. It seems odd to me that you can not lose your leadership position these days by being ignorant, cowardly and a big mouth. How did we get here? You answer that and you'll know why Brooks and Kristol are ubiquitous while Dan Rather(s) and Scott Ritter(s) are absent.
When you advocate more fear and more war, you never have to be right even once, and personally never pay a price. When you advocate the opposite, you must be right all the time, and if you err once, you're finished. That's the golden rule that drags politics, journalism and academia down to the lowest common denominator. That's where we are now.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't have to be right about global warming, or WMD's, etc. ever. Day after day, he can make up arguments out of thin air and make them sound pretty. But a knowledgable person arguing against him has to be right all the time and adhere to a professional standard. If he is wrong once, he is out. Moreover, money backs Rush. Guess which way the information age will swing: in come the 24 hour infomation networks and Bill O'reily, out go PBS and Dan Rather.
Just the same, the President doesn't have to be right about a potential threat to national security to get what he wants, especially if he is at war. But anyone opposing him has to be right every single freaking time or he'll get blamed for whatever might ever happen henceforth. Same with news journalists. Guess which way politics will veer? In come perpetual war and constant fear, out go power sharing and moderation. And, so on and so forth.
The age of ignorance works like this: an ignorant person sticks a peg in the ground somewhere and declares it to be the center of the universe: "if you don't believe me, go measure", he says. Then it is up to wise people to prove him wrong.
What is happening here can not be solved simply by awareness. There is a screw loose in the machine that needs to be fixed.
My personal opinion is that the problem lies at the juncture where democracy was born; the point of departure from feudalism. This is usually the right place to look for fault-lines in any new system: taking EVERYTHING about the old system for granted.
We have no class of people who are beyond reproach. Not a single person. We don't have anyone whose livelihood and place in society is guaranteed regardless of what advice he gives. When money, and the powers that come from it, control most information and every branch of government, then there is no safety pin. The founders might have meant for the supreme court to fill this role, but it's not working.
Maybe We need a democratically elected, lifelong class of elder Statesmen whose sole debt to society is to stay above the fray (of all FOUR branches), and stop us from going over the edge. That may be what is missing from our current checks and balances?
-
@saintlucid re: my use of minority
I agree, but are you considering that if the district lines were geographical like they used to be instead of political, that these representatives would not have that powerful incentive. I meant minority in terms of the district that should exist and in terms of the entire state. With gerrymandering, both sides are polarized. Maybe with geographical lines these members of congress wouldn’t take the most popular position, but the one that served all in the area or state.
And then they would have to listen to all sides and might even decide they are wrong from time to time. From my experience watching North Dakota, Red representatives in Blue states or visa versa tend to do a lot more listening and learning.
-
@Timberman
Ask yourself why it is that the would-be oligarchs of modern Republican reaction attack and/or underfund particular institutions: the civil service, higher education, labor unions, regulatory agencies, trial lawyers, health and legal services for the poor, science, especially the social sciences, the judiciary, the legislature, and the electoral process itself. Is it, do you think, because they believe that doing so will create a government which serves the people better, or that most Americans want?
Setting aside the hooray-for-our-side cheerleading and question-begging in that paragraph (underfunded civil service?), my guess is that, yes, most Republicans believe that their vision will produce better government and a better society, just as most Democrats believe the same thing. Republicans resent labor unions and trial lawyers because they give their energy, money, and votes to Democrats. (Republicans are against the social sciences? Like economics, for instance? And Democrats love the judiciary when it is dominated by Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, etc?)
For instance, people may have different ideas about how best to balance environmental goods with other goods, but if you fall into the trap of thinking that people who disagree with you must prefer polluted air and mercury in their drinking water, then you won't understand their concerns or their thinking. Then it's good guys vs. bad guys, cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers. Failing to understand that other people have very different priorities from yours, and that this doesn't necessarily make them evil (or oligarchs, or racists, or warmongers) restricts the vision and impedes intelligence.
-
@ denning
Trust the people. Do what you can to help them be worthy of the trust. No subset will ever be as reliable in the long run as the whole. Those peddling alternatives generally have an undisclosed interest in the outcome. That was as true of Aristotle as it is of Dick Cheney, although on the whole, I'd have preferred the former.