March 1, 2005
Damn you Poli Sci class
This is an example of what happens when you get a blog. You have a thought that seems interesting, so you post it, thinking others will agree. What you get are a bunch of incoherent ramblings that stem from a bored moment of thought
When did government become so polar? When did all of the middle ground go away? In this age of politics running rampant, I hope to see a government run by people willing to put their personal agenda aside. To ask someone not to have an agenda is just plain stupid, but can someone elected to run the country put the country before themselves? I think so. It's strange think of, but the majority of people who really love their country never have a chance to even be considered to have a chance at running the government in any way. Those people wil join the military or be good, normal citizens. What we have instead is a generation of lawmakers who have focused their entire lives toward becoming lawmakers. From what college to attend (can you say legacy program) to what people to associate with, and probably even where to eat dinner. The definition of democracy is "rule by the people". I realize that we live in a democratic republic, in which the people elect officials to represent them, but every person, in the end, has a little piece of control over the government. At least, that's how it is supposed to work. Apparantly, now, it is based on your standing within one of the two parties, which is too often determined by who you were born to. Anyone that doesn't agree that the two political parties run the government is either extremely idealistic or they're just plain stupid. The republicans and the democrats are who run this government, and thus, this country.
I can hear someone who disagrees with me now: but the people have to vote for the official, so the people have the final say. Ok, that's fine, but who decides who can run? The political partys, that's who. I'm beginning to think Washington was a hell of a lot smarter than people gave him credit for when he said that political parties would be the downfall of the democracy in America. Because there are only two parties there, increasingly, are only two sides to take. Either right-wing or left-wing, republican or democrat, or currently, Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush. A very specific case, which I alluded to a few days ago, is the PATRIOT act. After listening to the anti-Bush rhetoric spouting from the graduate student standing in to teach our class, I still don't know what to think. Why? Because I have this annoying habit of wanting to know both sides and wanting to know where the middle ground is. The first part is easy to find, apparantly, everyone against the Patriot act is completely for it. The second part, the middle ground, I guess doesn't exist. I've never seen any form of middleground, compromises, or even the acknowledgement that only one particular idea is better or worse than the rest. Apparantly, in a document that is 300+ pages long, there's not one thing that both sides agree on, and that's what saddens me about the situation. Most people hear "patriot act" and think about library records and the wrongful arresting of immigrants. However, that's only a very, very small fraction of the act. The majority of the legislation closes old loopholes and helps the FBI and CIA to work more efficiently together. But you don't hear about that stuff because it's not politically lucrative to sit on the middle ground. You get so much more publicity when you voice far-wing views, and what do politicians want more than publicity? power. They know that (and this really pains me to say it) the average person in this country is, sadly, not very smart at all. Combine stupidity with disenchantment toward the actual vote and presto, we've sucessfully turned elections into a popularity contest. Instead of talking about the issues that they support, they talk about their opponent's background, they question their credibility. At least, the winners do.
With all of the polarization going on in the political arena, it's becoming harder and harder to get what's best for most people, which usually lies somewhere in the middle. The last time America was this polarized, over a half a million Americans died in places like Gettysburg, Antietam, and Chancellorsville. This time, however, instead of explosions and guns, we'll be using manipulation and coercion. At first, it will start out quietly, but one side will eventually triumph. At first, the most challenging adversaries of the side taking power will need to be quieted. Instead of killing them, like in ancient times, the opposition will be defamed publicly. Something will be brought up that destroys their credibility (True or not, it really doesn't matter). Next, they will quietly, gobble up the important positions in the government, using their influence and popularity as much as possible. Possibly they will use a traumatic event to "rally" behind (think 1920's Germany). Once they have a clear majority, they'll begin to change laws and use their power to keep others from challenging them. Then, and only then, will the masses realize their plan, but it will be too late, the long-term coup will be done. And T.S. Eliot will have written the fitting elegy for a great country years before it died: "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper"
Egads its a prediction of the future... I hope not. But then again I can't wait. At least the tease will be over.
Crap I just realized why nobody can comment! The security code field wasn't put into your blog! Ag! It's fixed now!
Comment by: Marv at 2:15 AM, March, 2, 2005
and here I thought everyone was just ignoring me.....but it was just you :P
Comment by: chupathingy at 2:42 PM, March, 2, 2005