Why people (i.e. Americans) dislike government -and why it matters for 2010

Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Why people (i.e. Americans) dislike government -and why it matters for 2010

Link

Quote:
A new Pew poll finds historic levels of unhappiness about the federal government and its role in the lives of average Americans, unrest that is at the foundation of what is shaping up to be a strongly anti-incumbent political year.

The current conditions in public opinion amount to a "perfect storm" of disgust/distrust toward government, according to Pew poll director Andy Kohut, who cites "a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials" as the critical factors in this building tempest.

While the report -- all 140 pages of it -- is chock full of great data, a few numbers stand out as typifying the current discontent coursing through the public.

Comments welcome, as always, especially if your name is "Rich Woods".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
easy one

People are never happy if any political discussion intrudes on their consciousness.  In other words, they don't like to think.  So they let other people do the thinking for them.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
I would consider

I would consider distrust and dislike of other humans running you life as the normal state of affairs for humans, unless those humans have been trained well enough to blindly accept it. That in no way means I support these "teabaggers" (I love saying that), but they are not the only ones who do not support government institutions.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
The population dislikes

The population dislikes corporate destruction of every ounce of stability and security in their standard of living and are rightfully furious about the government giving away money to corporations that should be spent on schools, hospitals, pensions, healthcare, ... The corporate media choose to report one side of that story through a lens of a retarded child.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:People are never

cj wrote:

People are never happy if any political discussion intrudes on their consciousness.  In other words, they don't like to think.  So they let other people do the thinking for them.

The human brain has not been (naturally) engineered for political consciousness, particularly with regards to modern circumstances, (I.e. millions of possible demographics spread across thousands of miles/kilometers.

ZuS wrote:

The population dislikes corporate destruction of every ounce of stability and security in their standard of living and are rightfully furious about the government giving away money to corporations that should be spent on schools, hospitals, pensions, healthcare, ... The corporate media choose to report one side of that story through a lens of a retarded child.

Mark this day down in history, folks! ZuS and I agree on something - without error, in fact!

B166ER wrote:

I would consider distrust and dislike of other humans running you life as the normal state of affairs for humans, unless those humans have been trained well enough to blindly accept it. That in no way means I support these "teabaggers" (I love saying that), but they are not the only ones who do not support government institutions.

The problem with this assessment, B166ER, is that heirarchal social structure has been the defining trait of our specie... hells with that, OUR ENTIRE CLASS of organisms in taxonomy!

(mammalia)

As near as I can tell, there will always be "Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Omega (humans)", just like there are with wolves! It -meritocracy- is a VERY difficult notion to escape in human society.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:People

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

People are never happy if any political discussion intrudes on their consciousness.  In other words, they don't like to think.  So they let other people do the thinking for them.

The human brain has not been (naturally) engineered for political consciousness, particularly with regards to modern circumstances, (I.e. millions of possible demographics spread across thousands of miles/kilometers.

The human society is very well coordinated, elaborate and precise when it comes to something you could call group-mindedness - an ability to create a narrative around some particular group, sub-group or meta-group of people, choose more or less central, but always important models and then use this structure to make the business of surviving on an unforgiving planet much easier on the psyche. This group-mindedness is extremely responsive to threats - if it presents a danger to the stability of the group, the narrative is dropped quickly, all fanatical figures are destroyed and any historical figures redefined to fit the new narrative.

For as long as humans have existed people that perceived themselves as being in power have always tried to wrestle this group-mindedness into submssion and they have repeatedly failed with usually severe consequences for themselves. The modern machinery of propaganda through education, politics and media shows considerable improvement of oppresive capabilities, but the very scale of the undertaking combined with it's limitation on power the leaders are able to exert show just how extremely powerful the beast they try to tame really is.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS... you make me wish...

THAT NASTY WEATHER WOULDN'T KNOCK OUT MY POWER WHEN I'M TRYING TO POST SOMETHING. YYYYAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH

ZuS wrote:
(stuff)

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
dp

dp

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Abolish Government!


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ban rain! jk...

ZuS wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

The human brain has not been (naturally) engineered for political consciousness, particularly with regards to modern circumstances, (I.e. millions of possible demographics spread across thousands of miles/kilometers.

The human society is very well coordinated, elaborate and precise when it comes to something you could call group-mindedness - an ability to create a narrative around some particular group, sub-group or meta-group of people, choose more or less central, but always important models and then use this structure to make the business of surviving on an unforgiving planet much easier on the psyche. This group-mindedness is extremely responsive to threats - if it presents a danger to the stability of the group, the narrative is dropped quickly, all fanatical figures are destroyed and any historical figures redefined to fit the new narrative.

For as long as humans have existed people that perceived themselves as being in power have always tried to wrestle this group-mindedness into submssion and they have repeatedly failed with usually severe consequences for themselves. The modern machinery of propaganda through education, politics and media shows considerable improvement of oppresive capabilities, but the very scale of the undertaking combined with it's limitation on power the leaders are able to exert show just how extremely powerful the beast they try to tame really is.

Yes, you are correct... the collective is effective at the level of the commune.

But the commune falls apart the very moment it's leadership dies off.  No leadership, no one to direct the inhabitants of the commune in general unison.

Numerous examples of this exist in the 20th century. Far too numerous to even begin to list, but I'll start anyways: USSR.

There were also many... doomsday-oriented communities set up throughout the USA during the 1960s and 70s.  They immediately failed once their 'leader' died, in nearly every case.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Yes, you are

Kapkao wrote:

Yes, you are correct... the collective is effective at the level of the commune.

But the commune falls apart the very moment it's leadership dies off.  No leadership, no one to direct the inhabitants of the commune in general unison.

Numerous examples of this exist in the 20th century. Far too numerous to even begin to list, but I'll start anyways: USSR.

There were also many... doomsday-oriented communities set up throughout the USA during the 1960s and 70s.  They immediately failed once their 'leader' died, in nearly every case.

While the community is strong, it is not imune to outside attack and the attacking force can be both geographically (foreign intrusion) or conceptually (local criminal "elite" ) separate from the community. In the USSR the community has been under constant assault by both their own, US and European criminal "elite" for the past 60 years. The community did not collapse because it's leaders did - the community collapsed because it's leaders (arguably some of the Gorbachev administration) were defeated by criminal elements in US, European and USSR corporate and political "elite". While the community made valid and strong attempts at governing itself, all those attempts have been drowned in blood and propaganda for 60 years.

My point is that people understand this very well. They understand it even without having any school. They may lack the experience of selfgovernment that would give them confidence in their resistance, but this has got nothing to do with the fact that they understand very well that the essence of the conflict is rich against poor and that they could govern themselves at the very least as good as their "elite" elements do today. Our community creates natural contension if some particular strategy does not work, while the "new" and "visionary" leaders are simply the children of the new dieas already born by the community, a tool to get things done, sort of like the way a boat uses it's keel. There is no need for some special brain structure - we have it already. Study the Bolivian resistance to it's own govenrment and foreign corporations, going from privatization of everything by foreign corporations like Bachtel in the 1990es to communitisation of all of their resources and Evo Morales for President in a mere few years (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050214/shultz).

In fact, the only way to destroy this balance IS school - you have to be thoroughly educated to ignore your natural predisposition to be an active part of a community, for these guys, the "elite", to be able to survive and dampen popular revolt.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3339
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Numerous

Kapkao wrote:

Numerous examples of this exist in the 20th century. Far too numerous to even begin to list, but I'll start anyways: USSR.

the soviet union fell through a combination of external pressure, coupled with a leader who was heavy-handed in two contradictory directions: reform and a costly, unwinnable war.  it had nothing to do with any leader dying.  gorbachev was the strongest leader the soviets had had in over a decade.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen