Tag Archives: Politics

Perfect Storm versus Continuous Apathy

Politics,

There was an article today in the Salt Lake Tribune that points to its poll that indicates 1 in 5 people in the US right now trust the US government. This is at a major low in this country, but what should really be concerning people is the apathy that exists from several perspectives.

First, there’s apathy in government towards the mindset of the people. Even though 4 of 5 people distrust the government, the people in charge of government don’t seem to care. Oh, sure they’ll use it to their advantage to get votes, but overall they’re apathetic towards the way people feel about them. And the reason for this is because they realize that no one can do anything about it. People are stuck with the representatives they have, and those representatives know that. There is never going to be an election to just “kick the bums out” because every election in this country is designed to put new “bums” in even if we get rid of the old ones. The people we keep trying to elect to change things, to shake things up, don’t ever do it and end up becoming part of the system and then corrupted by the very nature of the system itself.

However, the real apathetic factor that needs to be paid attention to is that of the people themselves. There’s a reason why things don’t change in this country, and that’s because the majority of the American people are generally too lazy, or just don’t care enough, to do anything to make a difference. Americans, for the most part, are apathetic souls when it comes to politics. And that’s been a benefit to the power brokers who keep going to work every day living off the trough they continue to award themselves as a part of their power base.

But the 2008 election should have woken up the politicians to the realization that something has changed. Up until this election, politicans were the power, and they pretty much set the stage for exactly what they wanted, when they wanted. In 2008, the normal power brokers were unable to push forth their usual candidates for president, which is a major reason why Obama was elected in the first place. A lot of grass roots organizations made themselves seen, and they got this somewhat unknown politican elected over the “accepted” candidate Hillary Clinton who years before was all but guaranteed the presidency at the end of President Bush’s 8 year debacle. It didn’t matter whether or not the politician being elected was the “right” politician; he was different, and that’s what they wanted.

Well, it turns out he wasn’t different enough. Once in office, he became exactly what every other politician tends to be, and his public opinion polls are diving into an abyss of never-ending freefall. He might pull things around, much like a Clinton-like turn around, but for the most part, he has destroyed the fiber of what it was believed he was: An outsider who was going to change the status quo.

So what does any of this mean? Well, it means that something happened in 2008 that may end up becoming very important over the next decade or so. People woke up and started paying attention. Now, a professor of government might think this is a great thing (they’re always wishing more students would pay attention to politics) but to a person who desires stable government, this might be a horrific time to be around because waking up this apathetic public might be the worst thing that could have happened for the current paradigm. Because nothing changed, and people wanted change. If people realize that they can do nothing to change the political system, one of two things is going to happen:

1. People become apathetic again and give up on changing their environment.

2. People become angry and look for alternative ways to get what they wanted in the first place.

The first alternative is what we expect. The second one is dangerous, the kind that leads to revolutionary thought. Now, not all revolutions are 1776 kinds of revolutions; sometimes they’re as revolutionary as the iPod in a sea of MP3 players. But there’s no predictability when it comes to an impassioned public. In 1787, the public sent representatives to a Constitutional Congress to fix the government and ended up with a brand new government instead. I seriously doubt that the people back home were actually expecting that to happen at the time.

But with a public that is rearing for change and no change actually taking place, the future might be a very dangerous one because revolutionary thought is never really a polite process. I was watching the miniseries John Adams over the weekend, and one thing I kept coming away with from the series was that the average American in the 1770s was a hot head, just looking to burn something down. Even the big names that we attribute to some of the greatest moments in US history were essentially just angry men and women who carried clubs with the intention to bash in someone’s skull if they didn’t get their way. And that’s just the enlightened ones. Underneath every revolutionary movement is a huge segment of the undesirables of society who use that time to do some of the most despicable actions imaginable, and they do it believing they are justified because everyone else is pissed and doing revolutionary things.

Unfortunately, the current civilized man and woman has no idea of what his or her neighbor is capable. But as people become less and less apathetic, some attention might be paid to those around you, because once a movement begins, there’s usually not a lot that can be done to contain it until it succeeds in running its course.

The US Government’s Problem with the Census

Uncategorized, , , ,

There was another article today about how the Census is trying to target students to fill out their census cards because of the “need”. Every time there is an article of this nature, there is this commentary on how the census is necessary because without it our areas lose funding for roads, schools and all that. But here’s the problem that the government keeps running into: The information they’re asking has nothing to do with funding for roads, schools and all that. The questions they are asking are personal, have more to do with personal demographics, and because of that, have a tendency to cause people to become more pissed off the more they look at the questions.

Look, if the government was asking people about where they lived and ended it at that, I’m sure the majority of people would probably have very little problem with it. But they want to know my ethnicity, race, how much money I make, and questions of that sort of nature. The questions they are asking are identity questions, not accountability questions, and that causes people to start getting suspicious because those are the questions that are usually asked when a governmental entity is trying to pry.

If I answer “white”, “Native American” or “race of the Avatar people, even though I never saw the movie so I don’t really know what planet they’re from”, how does that make a difference in the money that my county is allocated for road repairs? Do we get more money if we have more Avatar-race people? Do we get less? That’s the question that hasn’t been answered once by the government, yet every public relations campaign is all about how important it is that people return their Census information cards.

And then you get the loonies, like Glen Beck, who claim you shouldn’t fill out any information at all, except for your address, because Constitutionally, that’s all the government is really supposed to be able to ask. That sounds fine until you read most articles that cover these sorts of stories; it usually has a mention that if you only put that information in, SOMEONE is going to come to your house to get the rest of the information, that you are legally obligated to answer the questions. And believe it or not, that pisses people off.

From a rational choice perspective, meaning people do what’s easiest and most logical, someone who feels uneasy about giving out so much information to the government (for whatever reason) is going to choose to not return the card because then there’s not GUARANTEE that someone is actually going to come out and strong arm a citizen for the “required” information.

Part of the problem is that the media has been in cohoots with the government on this due to the tin foil hat syndrome that seems to follow the issue. Think about that for a second. Whenever the government claims that some nut case is protesting the Census, the media laughs and talks about how people are just being paranoid. But is it really paranoia if the rationality behind the Census doesn’t make a lot of sense to people? What the government is having to deal with these days is a public that doesn’t feel represented any more. And that’s dangerous. We have congressional leaders that represent their own best interests, not the interests of the people they are supposed to be representing. Historically, the census mainly affects those people. It decides what districts get more people to represent; it doesn’t give people more representation. The people representing them are still elites, and unfortunately, changing the sheets still maintains the same elite status for the power structure that is still in place.

If you wanted to attract people to the Census, you might want to find some way to make the government more representative, but that’s never been a thought every ten years. We haven’t increased the number of representatives for many decades now, and there are no plans to do so in the immediate future. So we’re mixing up the marbles even further and allowing the elites to change their colors every ten years without really affecting the membership of the elite club.

So, when some formerly unemployed guy knocks on my door every ten years and flashes a badge that he won’t be able to wear after the Census is over, I have a hard time thinking that he’s representing me when he does so. He doesn’t even represent himself. He’s representing a power structure that has been in place for a very long time that justifies itself by pretending that it’s working for us, when it’s really working for itself. To be honest, the only positive thing about the Census is that if I don’t turn in my card, someone gets employed for three months because someone needs to come out and question me. Otherwise, the only benefit of the Census is that the people in power are then told to “represent” different lines on a map, even though they will still be in power.

I’ll leave you with my usual criticism of Census government because it mirrors my other pet peeve of stupid people who always pop up whenever it comes to representation. I’m talking about the people who always vote who then comment: “If you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to complain.” This is one of those statements that makes a huge assumption that voting actually makes a difference rather than causes one to choose between two already predestined outcomes that were chosen for us in the first place. I’ll say this again: Voting does not equal democracy. Lottery equals democracy, but John Adams decided to ignore the lottery portion of democracy when he was putting the big plan together some odd 200 years ago. He liked the democracy part of Athens; he just didn’t like the part that completed the equation.

Anyway, I’m ranting now. Time to take my medication that makes it all seem better again.