Communists or kings. Which is it?
below Wormwood asserted the following....
"It is a fact, then, that some people are unable to govern themselves and if they are to be a part of a society, they must then be governed. Who decides who will govern and who will be governed? Well, government decides."
This is something strictly out of Walden 2... whereupon an elite class becomes "The Governing Body" - quite different from the view that many of the founding fathers had in mind when they constructed our form of government. They held that the legislative branch would be composed mostly of citizen-farmers-shopkeepers who would devote a portion of their time to the govenrment, and then return after 2-6 years in the House or Senate. I don't think that they envisioned a political life as a career (although some did make a living that way, they were in the minority).
What I fear is that we have a group within our government who are there, by a sense of entitlement... want examples?
Kennedy - D MA
Spector - R PA
Clinton - D NY
Dole - R NC
and others...
these represent families - or institutionalized names... and not quite the representation that is needed.
An elite ruling body is what we now have, more interested in maintaining their position - rather than protecting the society that elects them... I should add that the media is complacent in its examination of real issues, and examining the true positions of the candidates.
So WWood, I've a real problem with the assertion that basically leaving it "up to the government" with respect to deciding who should "Be governed" is the best way forward - ESPECIALLY when the government listens less and less to those who "made them the government" in the first place.
I use to think that because the MOC and President were privvy to a lot of information that I did not have, they were in the best position to make those decisions... However, after looking at the information that was "privaledged" I've come to the conclusion that my opinion is just as valid, and maybe more valid than that of my congressman, senators... and yes, even the POTUS. You want examples of that? just read this board, many here have good ideas... including you... why is your opinion any less valid than that our elected officials...
Elite ruling class - that is the mess we've gotten ourselves into... and even after they leave office, some still try to improperly influence public, domestic and foreign policy... want the list? Carter on the mid-east, Gore on energy consumption, Clinton on presidential election candidates.
-- Modified on 9/24/2008 10:07:06 AM
I don't know what it has to do with the liberal mind, but very interesting indeed. While I may disagree with certain of the details in your post, I believe the conclusion sound if I understand it correctly.
I believe that one of the conclusions is that we have an elite ruling class and that is inappropriate (e.g., Bush). I agree wholeheartedly.
There may be a second conclusion that is we should be governed by ordinary folk. If this is your intended conclusion, I could not disagree more. The world is far more complicated than when the country was founded. Special skills and educations are required in order to deal with that. I would not want a POTUS, for example, to have to do too much on the job learning. After all, the last year of the first term is spent campaigning and if the first two are spent learning (everyone will have some learning curve, except a former VP or possibly someone in Hillary's shoes), then the American people get cheated out of a true leader for at least half the time.
OK, so if you only intended the first conclusion, as stated, I agree and that is the subject matter of my thread below.
Thanks for your thoughts. As usual, they are well considered and IMHO, valued.
"I would not want a POTUS, for example, to have to do too much on the job learning."
Obama has spent almost his entire Senatorial career campaigning for POTUS, it appears that he will have a lot of OJT in store for him.
Doesn't this concern you?
I believe your line of reasoning otherwise is quite reasonable and is the reason that most Presidents are either former Governors or VPs
Obama is under experienced. That is obvious. We have only two choices. Each has benefits and detriments. On balance, I prefer Obama's package of benefits vs. detriments, but that is in no way to say that I do not recognize Obama's shortcomings.
You're the only one yet to have the balls to say that.
Communists or kings. Which is it?
and neither was Mill. Like Mill, I believe that more people rather than fewer should have input into government.
My basic point is that in any society there will be some people who do not have the resources to govern themselves and must therefore be governed. Should murderers be free to govern themselves? Preteen children? Paranoid schizophrenics?
The Founding Fathers obviously did not agree with you on the point of whether we should have an elite governing class and a much larger class of the governed. Even to vote, one had to be white, male, and own real property, requirements that automatically bestowed privileged status on those already privileged. I think you are right that they did view government service as temporary and part time.
However, that was in a time when the economy was much smaller and less complex. In order to help balance the interests of business leaders who sought profit above all else, government had to become larger, more powerful, and better equipped in terms of its human capital. Part time, amateur people in government could not be expected to have the time or expertise to balance those business interests.
I fully agree with you that my ideas have as much merit as those of most politicians. I've had the displeasure of speaking at length with my US representative and I can say unequivocally that he is a pretentious dumbass who hasn't had a thought of his own in a long time. Unfortunately, he represents me. I wish for the day when I might be able to represent myself without some idiot pretentious dumbass being in the way.
Why is it improper for ex presidents to try to influence the world in ways that they believe will make it better? I'd much rather see that than them just settling in to give speeches at 410k a pop. Former presidents have a unique knowledge and skill set that makes them valuable resources. Like Carter, Gore, etc. or not, they are certainly proving to be valuable in stimulating public dialog and that's the lifeblood of the democratic system.
Well give it a try. Run for office. Organize some voters. Cut some deals. Take some kickbacks. Have sex with some aides. Go to jail. Get reelected ect.
You seem to be very idealistic. But you would need way more than ideas to be a politician. You don't seem sleazy enough. And you need to be to understand how politics works.
Politicians have to seem to govern for all of the people otherwise factions will form and attempt to undermine the organization.
Therein lies the gray area that is dangerous for politicians. They have to appear to be clean while they are covered in shit.
Become a politician. Do you have what it takes?
have a stiff one, and think about it...
lets start off!
"in any society there will be some people who do not have the resources to govern themselves and must therefore be governed."
This begs the question of WHO gets to govern - and last time I checked "We" elected the idiots....
"Should murderers be free to govern themselves?"
I have only two words for ya "TED KENNEDY"
Paranoid schizophrenics?
I have only two words for ya "Dick Nixon"
"Founding Fathers.... Even to vote, one had to be white, male, and own real property, requirements that automatically bestowed privileged status on those already privileged."
Remember - when this was written. It is very easy to criticize historical events... from the perspective of an "enlightened time." Sometime in the future perhaps we will recognize some other injustice and correct it, but does that make "us" unjust? I would think not. Society evolves. The great thing about our constitution is that it allows for social, economic and political growth. Sadly so few members of our society recognize that - and choose to sit on the sidelines and bemoan the situation without active participation in the process....
You've seen me wax on about education - but I am an active and highly vocal presence in my community for fundamental change in the educational system, and have been for DECADES. I also am very active in local community issues, and do care... Governance is not just at the national level - it is at multiple levels. Argue about that, but most that affects my life from day to day, is controlled by my local municipality.
As to former presidents - they had their shot at making history - and yes, they are a wealth of experience and knowledge... BUT, they need not make public statements wrt our foreign policy.... or take "sides" in international debates - such as Carter... a deeply disturbed individual. Gore.... I pray for the day when all will see him for what he really is - a huckster, with limited skills who is out to take a buck from anyone who is willing or coerced into giving him one.
I too, have had to deal with my MOC. I asked him to explain to my then 10 year old daughter what he does as a MOC.... Sadly - he could not. What does that tell ya? We agree there, but know what - that occurred right outside the polling place.... I went in and voted against him... but others felt he was doing a "GREAT JOB" and that my friend is what it is all about... much like running for High School Class Pres... it is a popularity contest... no more, no less. AND THAT IS WHERE WE DIFFER FROM THE ENVIOSIONMENT of the FOUNDING FATHERS... which gets us back to the constitution... The reason for the limitation on who voted was simple... they wished those who were educated, current and had a "Stake in the game" to be voting for the BEST representative they could select - not some yahoo who looks good on the 6 O'clock news... or in those times... portrait... We are very far from their intentions - cause we barely have a population with an 8th-grade understanding of how stuff works - technical, economic, political, or social.
So you see, who gets to govern - and decide who is governed is very important, and leaving loopholes is the key.... sorry if you disagree.
or you don't understand the argument I'm trying to make.
On the one hand you criticize Mill's supposed loophole and on the other you apparently agree that some people can't govern themselves and must be governed and that a democratically elected government is the best institution to decide that.
Are you even sure of what you're trying to say or do you just have a problem with me personally and like trying to win an argument with me? 'Cause it sure seems like the latter.
Cut a deal, Compromise. lol