I don't recommend giving up. Abolition of slavery , the female vote, and the civil rights movement each took decades of people working towards progress while the mainstream of their day resisted change. In California and many other states ordinary people can use the initiative and referendum process to change laws. Using that process to remove the destroy the two party system on the state level would put the people in a slightly stronger position to push for other reforms. The rise of the internet helps. Any attempt by the corporations or government to gain control over the internet content needs to be resisted. I would ban political advertising on FCC regulated airways and phone lines if I could. Push the candidates towards advertising in text if possible because in print it looks strange when you don't say anything substantive. Ideally every TV and radio station would be a single locally owned entity rather than part of a chain. Rather than protesting the wars, maybe we should protest the media that sells the wars. We need a long term assault on the media. When the right attacked the media for having liberal bias the media swung further right; time for the left to attack the media. Both the left and the socially conservative right are opposed to further media consolidation. The left and right and center of the America voters already all agree that the political /media system we have in the USA is a bad system that leads to bad governance. The problem is not getting the public to support political and media reform, the problem is getting the public to prioritize political/media reform over other issues. This won't be easy with the media working to preserve the present system. A great depression is likely to happen sometime in the next twenty years. Anger against the present system will intensify during the depression. That will be the time when larger reforms are possible if the political reform movement can be a little more vibrant and well organized at the onset of the depression than they are now.
Oh, trust me, I haven't. It just gets bleak sometimes, ya know? But thanks for the encouragement. This utopia would be excellent. The problem is finding the happy medium between that place and where we are now. Actually, the problem is changing the current system at all. How do you propose we do all this? Remember, it took politicians and other media groups to sway mainstream media further to the right, not the average citizen, or even the extremely loud citizen. Again, there is problem with that train of thought. While both sides have their complaints about the media, those complaints lie in the slant, rather than the structure. And that can be changed. Remember also, even if all parties can see the inherent problems with the media in its current form, it's working for the two main parties, which means that any attempt to change it will be met with either a brick wall of Democrats and Republicans, or only by Democrats, with Republicans looking to shape the new media in their own image (See: Fox News). Don't get me wrong, I like what you're saying. But I don't see it as realistic. Politicians make the rules, and they are very short-sighted. If they can get ahead right now, they damn whatever comes after them for the sake of immediate returns. Well, I'll believe a Great Depression when I see it. Otherwise, I'm not sold. But even so, I think our current situation is bad enough to warrant at lest some change. Even if it means having a person in the white house that can earn the respect of the world, then that's a good enough start for me. Besides, I can think of about a million other things that require my urgent attention. Seriously, the only real way to bring about change is to take it to the streets. Get numbers, start a riot. That's the only way.
I think it was a valid comparison. AFA the KKK by your own example: if the KKK was successful in their vision then they would have been freedom fighters. Perhaps now you see why that statement is not accurate...AT ALLLLL.
If the Klan wasn't considered Freedom fighters can you please explain why 20% of the White Male population were active members at the time? So back to my original point. When the Klan had power, they were considered Freedom fighters not terrorists like they are today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Members [quote]There is evidence in certain states, such as Alabama, the KKK showed a genuine desire for political and social reform.[55] The state's Klansmen were among the foremost advocates of better public schools, effective prohibition enforcement, expanded road construction, and other "progressive" political measures. In many ways these reforms benefited lower class white people[/quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Members Another example of the Klan fighting for basic freedoms for lower class whites. Now they're mocked, ridiculed, and destested, now that they're devoid of any significant influence in the mainstream. That's why the infamous member Byron Beckwith was sucsessfully prosecuted decades after he committed acts of terrorism against the civil rights workers in Mississippi. At the time, the people of mississippi considered Beckwith a freedom fighter, that's why he was able to escape justice in both trials that were held. Fast forward to 1994, the good people of Mississippi now see the Klan for who they really are, terrorists, which led to the conviction of Mr Beckwith.
I think your problem is rooted in the obscurity of the term terrorist. the obscurity is offcourse intentional, for very pragmatic reason. there is no hope for determining who is a terrorist unless you provide a clear definition.
notwithstanding the terminology, you surely agree that might, as such, is something very complex; that also includes endurance, persistence, logic, reasoning, the right priorities, economic distribution of resources, cooperative handling of challenges, wisdom, ethics...... in fact we end up discovering that right is interwoven with might !. we can not substitute the notion of right by the notion of might, unless we understand the complex structure of might ..
first of all, be sure that modern democracies which are complex institutionalized systems of governing societies, representing a state of law and order rooted in public support and human values, have nothing to do with mob rule.. I guess you either lived in one or visited a modern democracy.. did you find any mob ruling?!. some democracies appear to be too disorderly compared to totalitarian rule .. however a certain level of freedom, even the ability to actually do mistakes, is an inherent factor of a system, be it an individual or a society, that is learning = maturing.. things are not so complex if you project your vision in a personal scale. would you really choose a family structure modeled after a totalitarian system, or after a democratic system.. unless you choose the position of a dictator for your self, are you willing to negate your self your reasoning, your most precious human qualities?. beside, if you wait for a good dictator, you will do so for a long time, and it is quite risky, and finally how could you judge whether it is truly benevolent; are you going to be able to do so in such a regime???. a fundamental truth about human nature is that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, through a system of checks and balances, we as a society invented a prescription to this human weakness.
So, are you saying that might is a byproduct of being right? To a small degree yes (If that's what you were saying). However, lets take the ancient romans for exaple, who enforced roman catholicisim by the sword, as the did the muslims. So were the romans right for doing what they did because they could? If I misread your post please correct mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dear Ganymede, I would rather say that being right is a component of strength; because the term right incorporates some internalized historic human experience (coded in symbols and what ever..). many new ideas spread at the start using variable degrees of violence. this restructuring was common because most people adhered to their ancient believes. almost all ancient societies were extremely conservative. change was brought about by replacing a sizable portion of society by force. some times destroying it completely. however if the new idea or set of governing systems fail to provide for the essentials of organizing a sizable military armee, which requires a high degree in wise management, and if, most importantly, it fails to establish the complex prerequisite of a strong society, it will disappear quickly, as did many religious thoughts, sects, and communities; history choose most to ignore. remember that the romans are also famous for their Laws. Muslims have adapted an almost independent juridical system that could question the decisions of a king. there is also a bias in history for documenting wars and violence; for very practical political reasons. so beware of that. any way, the term right is not referring to absolute rights.. the shape and content of what is right is mostly evolving.. although the believe that you can establish a complex, flourishing society by brute force has at least since the ruler of Mesopotamian HAMOURABI been rightfully questioned.
believing in democracy while investing in anti-democratic regimes, is it worthwhile given future possibilities?, is it manageable in an interconnected future?.. can current democracies thrive without an enemy?.
