Comments on: Debate: It’s Time To Panic vs. There’s Light At The End Of This Tunnel

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:47:19 +0000

Ever notice how so many people discuss the “american people” in the third person. I can’t say for sure that those commenting here are american, but isn’t it a bit ironic to be degrading a class system in such an eliteist tone? Most american people don’t care/don’t know, but I am better than that because I do.
I agree that it falls somewhere in the middle. We have a lot of outspoken people, most of whom speak out because their opionions are outside the “norm” they know that, we know that, and yet we rarely here from the “norm”. I think if the ship got too far off course the “norm” would become outspoken as well.
I also have a bit of a problem with socialism and wanting “fair” to mean equal outcome has always bothered me. Of course the majority is going to vote in the best intrest of the majority, isn’t that part of what democracy is supposed to be?

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:07:38 +0000

All political systems work to maintain the power of the dominant class. This is not an observation; it is an axiom.

By: Lanoire

Lanoire — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:01:51 +0000

I think the pessimists are right.

The optimists’ arguments are well thought out and two years ago I would have agreed with them. But now, I believe that despite the tradition we have of talking about freedom, most of the American people are too lazy and self-interested to care about maintaining actual freedom. The only way they’ll notice is if the white middle/upper-class is inconvenienced. And by the time that starts happening it’ll be too late.

I hope to God I’m wrong.

By: Stentor

Stentor — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:40:33 +0000

I don’t think either side is right. I think we have a system that works beautifully at maintaining the privilege of the dominant classes, without having to resort to the kind of overt oppression that would be grounds for panicking, or create a backlash that brings it down. We’ve reached a sort of equilibrium level of injustice. Bush doesn’t *need* to become an American Fuehrer, because the current system gives him everything he wants. And while there’s a small chance of the Republicans losing some seats this year, all that will do is put a different set of Republicans in power.

By: spit

spit — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:29:44 +0000

Seriously, who here actually thinks that the American people would actually allow a Theocracy (for example) to come into being?

Personally, it wouldn’t shock me all that much if they allowed the government to… well, do just about anything it wanted, so long as it was marketed to them in a comforting and nonthreatening way. I think the American people are so easily distracted, so willing to roll over as long as there’s still new shit to buy, and becoming as a whole so utterly devoid of critical thinking skills, that frankly I’m never really that sure where this sort of optimistic “trust-the-American-people” thinking comes from. The structure of our government was built in a very different philosophical era from the one we’re in now — it remains to be seen, frankly, whether an enlightenment government can withstand a postmodern culture. And a country doesn’t have to have an official uniform-wearing dictator to nonetheless turn into some new, more postmodern shade of corporatist/fascist.

So yeah, I guess I fall on the pessimistic side. Of course, I also have a hangover today. So maybe it wasn’t the best day to try to answer this question. ;)

By: feminist blogs

feminist blogs — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

the Iran/Contra mess by Theodore Lowi, arguing for the side of pessimism. “[We must] recognize that the Iran-Contra affair and the Cincinnati are reflections of a constitutional problem: What is [...] Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted6:40 pm at Alas, a blog