

Who's Really in Charge?
In an earlier blog post, I intimated that at least some of those who espouse feminism in politics or science fiction were not so much interested in changing the structure of society as changing which sex had the socially dominant position. This leads to a related question: In any society, who's actually in control?
Despite all the political scholars, the media talking heads who pontificate on the subject, the professional politicians, and the academics on both the left and the right and elsewhere, all of whom claim something along the line of "Whoever it is that's in charge, things would be better if we were," the answer is far from that simple.
Today, most polls suggest that the war in
Those merely slightly less cynical than I would claim that "apathy" is really in charge, but I can only find it chilling that with each expansion of the electorate two trends have continued to predominate if not accelerate. The first is that the intelligence of the average member of Congress has increased dramatically while the quality of decision-making has deteriorated equally dramatically. The second is that the numbers and scope of pork-barrel, earmarked, federally-funded projects have sky-rocketed.
Could it just possibly be that the expansion of the electorate might just have resulted in a political system where ever-brighter politicians use increasingly sophisticated technology and techniques to pander to the wishes of a majority of their constituents, regardless of the long-term consequences or the overarching national considerations?
Also, what about propaganda? It's a powerful tool that can be effectively used to sway people into making decisions against their own interests. This is a rich field of human psychology in, and of, itself.
The idea within the US that you are the "greatest nation on earth", also paradoxically ensures that (democratically) you are not, because there's nothing to fight for, nothing to argue about, no passion being lit in the average citizen's breast to better her/his own society. This breeds complacency, apathy. In that respect, I would rather live in a country with a "chip on its shoulder", because those societies are where I've seen, and spoken to, people who are much more politically aware. (And yes, I also lived in the US for several years. When I criticised anything, the inevitable response was: "If you think like that, why don't you leave?". How is that the mark of a thinking, democratic society? I see the same attitude in Australians I've spoken to.)
I'll leave it here, as this will otherwise turn into a rather long-winded treatise, but those are perhaps a few other factors to consider.
It is inevitable that the electorate vote into office persons of dubious caliber, as most often the electorate is presented with an elaborately contrived short list of choices. I believe that the ones who have battled to get their names on those short lists have been engaged in sometimes vicious political fights that, by the time they are presented as a choice in an election, have been permanently mutated by the process of getting there.
Dear Mr. Kas Augustim,
Were the U.S. to have a true hegemony, I might agree with you, but that is certainly not the case. The "greatest nation on earth" is a view all citizens should have of their own nations.
One might ask about the intelligence of the voters? If you have average intelligence, then what percent of voters are below average intelligence? Supposedly democracy is the least of all evils, one sometimes wonders?
I would agree that many politicians around the world appear to consider it a way of making large sums of money, just note which US companies are taking money out of Iraq and where their leaders come from!!
Will there be any change, will intelligent voters come to see the deceit that is being played on them or will duplicity and apathy reign, well history would appear to show the latter will increase?
Kind Regards
Ian
On the intelligence of voters, it seems common sense that a group of people are more likely to make a better decision than one person. How intelligent must a voter be to vote and to make a good decision? With your question, you are implying that leaders in democracies are chosen by an average or dull lot and that this lot is inadequate to choose a representative. I stick with my first sentence.
A political culture in which the led choose the leader will always be a superior model to one in which the leaders choose the subsequent leaders. Dictatorships, etc, will always mutate like an incestuous ancestry and morph into something of less quality.
Humans are imperfect. Corrupt leaders will always exist, thus the value of term limits. Not all of the elected are corrupt, nor would I equate mistakes with corruption. U.S. companies taking advantage of the turmoil in Iraq are doing what they've been trained to do: make money. That is the default behavior in a capitalist economy. But, I agree it is not justified; indeed, it is simply wrong.
Where do the leaders of U.S. companies come from? Please, enlighten me.
Looking at the history of politics, I would reiterate that corruption has always and will always exist. Democracy offers the electorate a chance to pick another, who is hopefully guided with a better moral compass.
Apathy fluctuates, like a pendulum. In the upcoming presidential election, I believe we will see a higher voting rate than in the recent past.
I appreciate your thoughts,
Kevin
many thanks it was a depressing day at work so reading your post cheered me up immensely!
We agree on some points and I've not drunk enough whiskey to be to be too vociferous.
That said, you're happy for a committee to decide the fate of your political system. I believe there are numerous quotes about committee's and the results from their deliberations? A group deciding the future of your country, with no respect to whether they are half wits or nobel prize winners, at first glance appears quite ridiculous? I tried a second and third and it didn't change my opinion!
One company that springs to mind is Haliburton, with respect to what appears to be an incestuous relationship with the current regime.
Please look up meritocracy it might enlighten you.
Everyone should think their country is great, ho ho; well I suppose it is Christmas, but no I disagree. I am quite aware of the history of GB and understand it's current position in the world. Would indigenous Indians; not the Calcutta variety, in the C18 think their world the greatest? Isn't that, not seeing the bigger picture and delusional?
Well if all those dastardly bits of paper fall off and Jeb has been chaired, maybe you'll have a chance of the figures you long for!
Many thanks for your post and apologies for being slow in replying.
Kind Regards
Ian
PS Are you a teenager?
PPS Write a profile, what harm can it do?
PPPS You can see my profile which indicates I'm a doddering 40 something!
As everyone over 18 is invited to be on the committee, yes I am very happy this committee decides our fate since we are, by extension, deciding our own fate.
If a group of 5 dimwits select one amongst themselves to lead the other 4, I'd gamble they made a better decision collectively than any one of them would have individually.
Yes, Halliburton is a great selection; in general, where to leaders of the majority of U.S. companies come from? Halliburton is not representative; it is an aberration.
In a meritocracy, who determines who has merit enough? A select few? An IQ test?
Yes, everyone should love their country...enough to try to change what they don't like about it; else we could all spin the globe, find a nation we would like to try and migrate.
The Bush election controversy was not the first, nor will it be the last. Not every election will be without blemish.
Don't drink and blog. I'm glad you've admitted you'd rather be led by others with more intellect than yourself.
Kevin
Following the same logic, I understand that government revenues/spending over this period have ranged between 15 and 20% of GDP, and towards a lower part of that range recently. If we subtract SS/M from that, then, the total domestic/defense spending (as a % of GDP) has been going down over time. That suggests that spending on pork-barrel projects, while serious, does not have a major impact on "long-term" economic and national welfare -- yet.
well off to bed soon, as work in the morning, thank your parents for not having that to consider! lol
Another the words I'd advise you to look up the meaning of, are sophistry and rhetoric!
Possibly verisimilitude is another one, but no doubt you'll take offence?
I notice you don't answer all my questions, possibly because you don't have answers?
Ah, the curtailed repost cunning in it's niaveity!!
Strange, have you an issue with IQ, we all have our place!
It's not a case of liking or disliking, more a case of reality, possibly you are able to roam at will, must of us aged ones haven't got the option!
No more of a blight, than an aberration, many tricks used to turn what appeared to be an even vote, into a win for a man, who used influence to avoid the draft and also to win an election, maybe a blight.
I suppose you think giving the impression of drowning to a detainee is humane, putting a dog collar and lead on a prisoner run of the will.
Well drinking and blogging, possibly leads to honesty rather than verisimilitude? Another good word word, english has so many!!
No reply regarding profile, so I guess you want to hide in the shadows?
Sorry Wayne but social security and blowing people and places up will never have parity, one is so much sexier than the other.
The world awaits the "logical" conclusion of Bush and his advisor's, that attacking Iran is better than constructive dialogue!
As an aside, why does dialogue come up of the spell checker, do you colonials have a different spelling?
Well yes I would like to be led by people that have a greater intellect than my own, you must find this a consistent siuaion?? lol
TTFN
Ian
PS Time for bed said zeebady
<< Back to all Blog posts