HOW ABOUT REFORMING THE REAL PROBLEM -- WE THE PEOPLE?
We hear a lot about reform as if the idea is fairly new. Actually, in a democracy, it's been right here right from the get-go. Question is -- are we trying to reform the right things...?
To reform is to re-formulate that which exists. Americans were demanding this the day after Washington took office. But the reform spirit really took flight in the mid-19th century with the anti-slavery and anti- immigration movements. Then, as southeastern Europeans flooded the nation, the late-19th century watched socialist and anarchist reformers rise up. By the 20th, we have the Progressives demanding reformulation of the political system itself.
But do you notice something missing here...?
That's right -- the citizenry! Not many people are suggesting we the people need any re-forming. Seems in a democracy we're all right and righteous just as we are. We're just everyday decent folks who in the end tend to get it right, right?
Personally, I have a problem with that fluffy perception every time I look in the morning mirror. Exactly how educated, informed and active am I -- and you? -- in our role as citizens? The citizenry is, after all, the heartbeat to a democracy. Without a good us, how can we expect a good it...?
We've all read the embarrassing polls showing large swatches of us totally unaware of how our democracy works. And yet, in the name of our equal right before the law, don't we presume we're equally competent before the law...? In the name of one-citizen-one-vote, don't we presume the illiterate drug pusher's vote should count as much as the Pulitzer Prize winning professor...?
In theory it does, but in a dangerous world with a dangerous babble of voices, it's the practice of the principle that counts! And so it's time we challenge ourselves to be the better educated and informed citizens our Founding Fathers planned for.
No, you can't take away someone's right to vote; but you can challenge voters to enhance that right by taking it at least as seriously as they do planning for an extended summer vacation. How...? Well, once they're out of schools where folks like me try to teach them about their government, maybe we need a massive national re-education campaign. One in which we exhort citizens not simply "to get out and vote," but to vote with an informed vs inflamed mind
Now there's something to think about between Bears games.
Remember how the Feds and the National Ad Council mounted campaigns to heighten our consciousness about smoking? teen pregnancy? cholesterol? highway speed? the environment? and now Swine Flu? Each of these highly finessed messages have had good results. Why not similar efforts with we the people? Especially when we the people are needed to think and vote and act honorably rather than hysterically....?
SCIENTISTS TRY TO TELL ME MY DOG IS NOT MY BEST FRIEND!
I might as well say right up front -- I hate Jon Katz and Peter Savolainen...!
My reason is a noble one, for they're doing harm to our best friend, the dog. For centuries we've happily thought of our puppies as our friends-in-need. Compared to most people, our dogs are kinder, prettier and certainly more faithful.
But now this guy Katz writes a book ("Soul of a Dog") arguing dogs don't and can't love anything or anyone. He scorns what he calls the cult of the Disney Dogs, and insists "unemotional scientists" back him up. Then in Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology, Savolainen reports while dogs have been humankind's best friends for at least 10,000 years, humankind first started domesticating them in Southern China for meat.
I grant my sentimentality over dogs (and even people), but "unsentimental scientists" always seem to be trying to take away the pleasure of my sentiments. Frankly, as a scientifically uninformed gushy guy, I must reject these two authors, and continue loving dogs for what I feel they are. You see, if we're not careful, we'll start researching humankind's domestication of human love.Then decide it too is simply a matter of evolutionary instinct and need!
You gotta wonder if these scientists ever bring roses to their domesticated mates....?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Regarding your piece on "We the People", I agree. When I look in my morning mirror, I know I should be more educated. And this piece makes me realize that it does have to start with each person. President Obama can't do it by himself, and he sure as hell isn't getting any help from the Party of NO. So you pose an interesting challenge that I hope I can live up to in the future and be more informed!
ReplyDeleteSCIENTISTS TRY TO TELL ME MY DOG IS NOT MY BEST FRIEND!
ReplyDeleteI think this is a perfect example of where too much research proves to be wrong....well at least "appears" wrong. If dogs don't/can't love, then why am I always seeing on the news how they are helping recovering soldiers coming back from Iraq, or the elderly or even young children that just need a friend? Too much science getting in the way of the heart!
Dorothy and Anonymous -- boy do I love your responses! Now if there were only more really smart people and dog-owners like us!!
ReplyDeleteJack-re-read Zorn'a column. He didn't say dogs do not love but they do not love as people love. Read in that context, Dorothy may possibly reconcile her reaction between your characterization and the point of the Zorn piece.
ReplyDeleteAs for the importance of a voter to understand the issues, keep in mind there is a two way street. Political leaders have a responsibility to explain their views, pro and con. Voters have a responsibility to understand these conflicting views.
Highly regarded democratic leaders are known for taking the lead in publicizing their opinions. While the public may be guilty of being absent students, it is amazing how less likely this occurs with pro-active leadership.
Sadly, in the current health care debate, leadership, until recently, defaulted to extreme voices.
Now that is being corrected. In my opinion what results is a growing part of the public eager to understand and support responsible decisions.
Castigating the public without due regard for leadership lapses is an unfair criticism.
Leo
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete* Without putting such a fine point on their arguments, it seems to me these writers' arguments are still denying what we dog-lovers love about our dogs. And the poor dogs can't even write back!
* As for "we the people," I agree with your challenge about the lack of leadership, but still the leaders' deficiencies can't really excuse the people's deficiencies. I think "we the people" have gotten away too long with simply blaming THEM rather than OURSELVES.Now wouldn't it be great if "the people" tried living up to their own democratic reputation...?
Re dog-lovers, it isn't "denying", so much as refining.
ReplyDeleteRe the voters, all should do better. The "people" are not some uniform organism but a broad range of individuals. If you look at my last sentence it asks only your criticism be placed in a fair context that is aware of the interaction of a two-way street that characterizes a democracy.
Events suggest to me that sharp and hostile opinions to health reform were for a time almost alone in occupying the news, thereby arousing the sentiment of a PART of the people adverse to the new proposals, proposals that on some important measures were not spelled out. Leaders of both Parties were barely heard during that span.
The subject is a complex one requiring substantial information to resolve. To expect the "people" to supply that degree of knowledge is unrealitic. The laboring oar must be undertaken by leaders of various persuasions.
Agreed the public should be alert and aware, however to select them out for special criticism (a not uncommon theme in your blogs)serves to conceal this essential dynamic.
Leo
But is it "special criticism" when the people are the very essence of the system. If we can't enhance them, how does anything else succeed? And while the people are an organism of individuals, it is still the organism (ie. political majorities) which carries elections and sways politicians
ReplyDelete