on the futility of activism (1 Viewer)

[^graff]

Taking into account the vast chasm between the average American's grasp of our political situation and its true nature, it strikes me as pretentious to act as if one can be an effective judge of long-term trends in either domestic affairs or affairs of state, much less the deceptively complex situations hitting the news daily. How can anyone claim to understand what's really going on, in good conscience? Does a media-skewed portrayal of current events give the average American authority to spew endless diatribes and passionate libel at the elected leader of our country? The distorted and biased American media is the source of 95% of what we know of our nation's actions, and I, for one, assert that it hardly merits the sanctimonious tirades, blind to suggestion, that define today's political discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[Canuck]

when the system only stonewalls the peoples will
when the Elite run the only game in town
the time for talking ends
To those who fight for their country ,come back to america and fight for your country. The enemy within has won ever battle , your country is under attack.and it is in it's final hours


people have been brainwashed ,it is the only logical explanation that explains why america is disfunctional.

 

[Harshaw]

Taking into account the vast chasm between the average American's grasp of our political situation and its true nature, it strikes me as pretentious to act as if one can be an effective judge of long-term trends in either domestic affairs or affairs of state, much less the deceptively complex situations hitting the news daily. How can anyone claim to understand what's really going on, in good conscience? Does a media-skewed portrayal of current events give the average American authority to spew endless diatribes and passionate libel at the elected leader of our country? The distorted and biased American media is the source of 95% of what we know of our nation's actions, and I, for one, assert that it hardly merits the sanctimonious tirades, blind to suggestion, that define today's political discussion.

Thoughts?

I think it's pretentious to assume that there IS a "vast chasm between the average American's grasp of our political situation and its true nature," particularly when part and parcel of that assumption is that YOU, above all these others, actually "grasp" that "true nature."

 

[marchare]

The average American’s authority to “spew endless diatribes” at their elected public servants stems not from a “media-skewed portrayal of current events”, but from the First Amendment. Incidentally, election into office does not qualify one as “leader of our country”. You can’t lead all of the people all of the time.

On the futility of activism, and on the subject of true leadership, one has only to look at the Civil Rights Movement, and Dr King.

 

[^graff]

Harshaw -

I do not pretend to "grasp" the "true nature" of the discrepancy between what the average person knows and the actual forces behind many of the decisions made in our country. On the contrary, I am throwing the idea out there that for people to get so passionately riled up about certain events and trends parallels a certain naivety as to their own arrogant assumptions. I place myself "above all these others" only in the fact that I won't stoop to libelous fits, blind to siggestion, working from an assumption that the media has portrayed these events and trends in a manner addressing all causes.

 

[^graff]

Re: on the futility of

marchare -

Perhaps activism was the wrong word. By that i meant to convey the sense that a majority of the people posting in these forums seem to rush headlong down paths laid before them by others; these people, whom I may falsely label activists, seem to be doing much more harm than good.

Again, I may have misspoken. By the "authority" to spew these endless diatribes, I thought it was clear that I meant the factual foundation; the base of logic. And, yes, of course, the "authority" stems from the First Amendment, which we happily exercise.

Though election into public office assuredly does not in and of itself qualify a leader to lead, this election should be given due respect. Whether or not you agree with Bush's every policy or action (which I assuredly do not) his office alone merits respect; at least the benefit of the doubt. The real point of starting this thread is the growing feeling I've been having lately that our judgement of his policy is likely working off a very deficient pool of accurate information. Though many of his actions bear no further scrutiny or complication, I believe that quite a few of Bush's more controversial actions could quite possibly have resulted from situations and causes beyond the horizon - beyond what the media reports and therefore, what the public knows (also, therefore, beyond defense, unfortunately for him). This is obviously a futile point to debate - I have no doubt that I'm right about this, but I do admit that it would hold less water than a New Orleans levy in lieu of Bush's constant appearance of inane detachment from an increasingly hostile foundation of his power (for that is what We, the People, are).

 

[tecoyah]

While I have to agree with the likely limitations we have as far as accurate information allowed to us as the general public, we must base our politics on what we are given. It may very well be true that descisions are made high up that take into account data we lack, and would make sense when all said data are considered....but I do not have that before me.
So....what am I to do...as the average citizen of this country....place blind trust in the intellect of my leadership? Sorry...but I do not live in a Monarchy. If, By chance, there were fewer signs of deciet and mismanagement, I would be more inclined to accept the descisions of this administration without complaint.
I do not consider myself an activist, as that would fall under the blanket of dissent...and I am not quite there , yet. But I am very dissapointed in what I see as the direction we are going.

 

[^graff]

That's what I meant by saying that my thoughts are indefensible - precisely that. I'm not going to purge myself of opinions based on this idea, but merely let it temper the passion with which they are expressed. I disagree with nothing you said - just wanted to get some people thinking in this direction. Maybe just to take the edge off the all-too-common invectives and promote a bit of non-condemnatory *Discussion*.