On the Necessity of Respecting the Voters
Posted in response to this article:
And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with politics today. What was just described is emotional manipulation of the people in order to win. Yes, it's the way things are usually done. But if anyone here is suggesting that's how things should be, I am against you, for one simple reason. Let me say this without equivocation: if the public is not well-informed and does not behave rationally, democracy fails. There is no chance of its functioning under those circumstances. None.
That is the fundamental internal conflict faced by America today. It's not liberal vs. conservative, rich vs. poor, or DC vs. everyone else. It's rational vs. irrational. No people can survive without good decision-making skills, yet those skills are being destroyed every day by liars and manipulators from all sides. Encouraging irrational choices, or decisions based on incorrect information, for any reason, is utterly unacceptable to me. I would rather lose in an election that turns on legitimate debate than win in one like was just described. At least then I'd be participating in democracy, instead of in a farce.
If you honestly believe that victory or defeat can only be determined by how well we can appeal to voters' hopes or fears in thirty seconds, if you honestly believe that that's the only way politics can ever be, then I am unable to comprehend why you would run for office in the first place. There would be no point in winning, no point in representing people who behave in such a manner. We, the people, would already be lost.
The people of this country are treated like idiots by their elected leaders, and it's because of philosophies like what was posted above. But the people are not idiots, and they deserve more respect from those that serve them. I refuse to believe that the American people are so ruled by their emotions, so incapable of thoughtful decisions. Believing that would mean giving up on America, and I'm not ready to do that.
I agree that we must know what Horiwitz speaks of, not so that we can emulate it, but so that we can defeat it. You don't beat irrational shouting by more irrational shouting. You don't become what your enemy is, because then victory is meaningless. You beat irrationality by presenting a well-reasoned argument. Yes, many won't listen, but many will. It will take time, but eventually we can convince people that a well-reasoned argument should always win over shouting.
If we can never get to that point, then what's the point? If there is no hope that people can ever make good decisions, with their minds, then what difference does it make who gets elected? Whoever it is will be a tyrant. And I refuse to accept that our only choice is between one tyranny and another, with the only difference being variations in economic beliefs.
And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with politics today. What was just described is emotional manipulation of the people in order to win. Yes, it's the way things are usually done. But if anyone here is suggesting that's how things should be, I am against you, for one simple reason. Let me say this without equivocation: if the public is not well-informed and does not behave rationally, democracy fails. There is no chance of its functioning under those circumstances. None.
That is the fundamental internal conflict faced by America today. It's not liberal vs. conservative, rich vs. poor, or DC vs. everyone else. It's rational vs. irrational. No people can survive without good decision-making skills, yet those skills are being destroyed every day by liars and manipulators from all sides. Encouraging irrational choices, or decisions based on incorrect information, for any reason, is utterly unacceptable to me. I would rather lose in an election that turns on legitimate debate than win in one like was just described. At least then I'd be participating in democracy, instead of in a farce.
If you honestly believe that victory or defeat can only be determined by how well we can appeal to voters' hopes or fears in thirty seconds, if you honestly believe that that's the only way politics can ever be, then I am unable to comprehend why you would run for office in the first place. There would be no point in winning, no point in representing people who behave in such a manner. We, the people, would already be lost.
The people of this country are treated like idiots by their elected leaders, and it's because of philosophies like what was posted above. But the people are not idiots, and they deserve more respect from those that serve them. I refuse to believe that the American people are so ruled by their emotions, so incapable of thoughtful decisions. Believing that would mean giving up on America, and I'm not ready to do that.
I agree that we must know what Horiwitz speaks of, not so that we can emulate it, but so that we can defeat it. You don't beat irrational shouting by more irrational shouting. You don't become what your enemy is, because then victory is meaningless. You beat irrationality by presenting a well-reasoned argument. Yes, many won't listen, but many will. It will take time, but eventually we can convince people that a well-reasoned argument should always win over shouting.
If we can never get to that point, then what's the point? If there is no hope that people can ever make good decisions, with their minds, then what difference does it make who gets elected? Whoever it is will be a tyrant. And I refuse to accept that our only choice is between one tyranny and another, with the only difference being variations in economic beliefs.
posted by Stephen Collings at
8:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home