January 16, 2007
Runaway American Brainwashing
You may not want to know this. Americans have been successfully brainwashed to fear exactly what their revered Constitution gives them the right to have. Those smart Framers of the Constitution decided that we needed exactly what the establishment, pro-status quo elitists who run our plutocracy do NOT want us to have. There is even a well funded semi-secret group organized to prevent what we the people have a right to.
Has the brainwashing worked? You bet it has. In the absence of public furor, for over 200 years Congress has not done what Article V of the Constitution says it “shall” do. Congress has never issued a call for an Article V convention of state delegates to consider constitutional amendments, in response to two-thirds of state legislatures asking for one. That numeric requirement – the only specified requirement in Article V – has been satisfied, with 50 states submitting over 500 requests. Such a convention operating under authority of the Constitution would be a fourth, impermanent branch of the federal system, not beholding to the three permanent branches. Such independence has been cartooned into a frightening monster.
There is no uncertainty about what the Framers thought the nation needed. They wrote in crystal clear language a two-step process for amending the Constitution. First, craft proposals for possible amendments. Either Congress can do it or an Article V convention of state delegates can. Second, ratify proposed amendments by three-quarters of the states, either through their legislatures or state conventions, as Congress chooses. The Framers believed that Americans, acting through large numbers of state legislators, deserved a way to circumvent the excessive power of Congress or its refusal or inability to satisfy sovereign citizens – their bosses. No role was given to the federal judiciary and executive branch in amending the Constitution.
An Article V convention is a clear threat to the political, social and economic establishment exerting self-serving influence on Congress. It can put into public debate ideas for amending the Constitution that threaten established political forces, both liberal and conservative. Acting independently, it can courageously propose amendments without interference from status quo defenders.
So, not surprisingly, many persons and groups holding power oppose an Article V convention. How have they brainwashed Americans to fear such a convention? They fostered the image of a “runaway convention” – something to fear on a par with fears of a physical attack on the nation by foreign enemies or terrorists. How could something placed into our Constitution to thwart an ineffective federal government be turned on its head to become such a feared threat?
Clever people grasped onto a historical fact and extrapolated it into a phantasy nightmare. In fact, the nation’s first and only constitutional convention was a runaway. Rather than do what had been planned for it – namely to modify the Articles of Confederation that first tied the states together – the state delegates constructed what we have for over two hundred years worshipped: the U.S. Constitution. Those rascal Framers created a strong federal government that not everyone at the time wanted. The anti-status quo guys won.
Backstage power brokers have never wanted another convention that might change the political system they expertly corrupt and control. They made people believe that a convention could destroy their cherished, constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. Or, equally bad, strange amendments would overturn the structure of our federal government and throw the nation into chaos and destroy our lauded political and governmental stability.
Is there any supporting evidence for fearing an Article V convention? No. To the contrary, there are solid reasons for demanding it.
First, there have been many state constitutional conventions and a huge number of amendments to state constitutions. Look around. Our states and their governments have not been ruined. Conventions were not hijacked and turned into weapons. And the first national constitution convention was hugely successful, even if it was a runaway, telling us that the good is the enemy of the better.
Second, the requirement that three-quarters of the states must ratify any specific amendments produced by an Article V convention provides a safety net. This is such a high hurdle that it is crazy to believe that truly awful amendments could ever become permanent changes to our Constitution. Anyway, when an amendment not worthy of retaining has happened, it was fixed through another amendment.
Third, the nation’s first Article V convention would be so unique and of such historical significance that in our modern age of media and Internet communication there would be a solar-bright light on all its activities, from the election of state delegates to their debates and final amendment proposals. In fact, this temporary fourth branch of our federal system would be under more public scrutiny and less susceptible to corruption than our present, permanent branches of government.
Fourth, we should reject the indirect way of changing our constitution, namely through interpretations and judgments by those few non-elected, political appointees that serve on the Supreme Court. Plus, as President George W. Bush has demonstrated, a runaway CEO of our nation along with an ineffective Congress can take big bites out of our constitutional rights and protections and suffer no consequences.
Fifth, while it is true that we have had considerable political and governmental stability, we have paid a heavy price for it: namely a permanent culture of corruption, lying and deception that have danced around our constitutional protections and riddled American democracy with hypocrisy. Too much stability has turned our democracy into a plutocracy and a convention could consider remedies.
Sixth, the majority of Americans are independents, not loyal Democrats or Republicans, and only an Article V convention offers a truly independent route to addressing intransigent root problems that the political system under two-party control has allowed to fester.
Seventh, the congressional experience with proposing amendments has shown that though many may be considered, few survive. Over 11,000 have been considered by Congress, but only 33 reached the ratification phase, and only 27 were ratified – very few in the last 100 years. [The last amendment was finally ratified in 1992 – 203 years after it was first proposed by Congress!] Why should we think that a convention would agree on a huge number of amendments? With all America watching, delegates that know their states would focus on a few critical amendments likely to be ratified.
Lastly, what about that semi-secret group that was created to block attempts to amend our Constitution? Few know about The Constitution Project (www.constitutionproject.org), “that urges restraint in the constitutional amendment process.” It was formed in 1997 to “oppose the facile rewriting of the U.S. Constitution.” They fear “unthinking tinkering with fundamental rights and liberties” – actually, amendments on social and fiscal issues from conservatives. It has been funded by The Century Fund, a liberal group. The nearly 70 members in the constitutional amendments initiative are true status quo elites. Many were members of Congress or presidential appointees. They produced guidelines for evaluating possible amendments that, as discussed in “The Second Constitutional Convention” by Richard Labunski, were formulated to defeat attempts to amend the Constitution.
On the political right, the John Birch Society has consistently pushed the Big Runaway Lie and said the “prospect [of a convention] is ominous.” “We do not believe that, under today’s mentality and morality, the nation can handle that much sovereignty in one place.” To support their position, they cite elites: Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.” Liberal Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg said “one of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. …delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.” Ardent right-wingers admire what a joint congressional resolution said in 1935: "The government of the United States is not a concession to the people from some one higher up. It is the creation and the creature of the people themselves, as absolute sovereigns." Yet, they do NOT trust we the people to exercise our sovereignty and be smart enough to make a convention work in the public interest!
There are, luckily, pro-convention advocates. Listen to the wise words of Judge Thomas Brennan, former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and Dean Emeritus and President of Thomas Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan: “There is no danger of a runaway convention. That phrase, ‘runaway convention’, and all the accompanying horror stories about repealing the Bill of Rights are utterly without substance. They are myths, harmful to democracy, invented by those who are afraid to let the people exercise their historic and God-given right to self government.” Amen.
Despite the truth, opponents to an Article V convention have successfully framed the issue in the public consciousness. A highly negative status quo bias belief has been cemented into many minds – but not everyone. Even when confronted with pro-convention information, brainwashed people fall victim to the pain of cognitive dissonance. The truth is blocked out to minimize discomfort. They stay fixated with the implanted Big Runaway Lie that a convention will harm the nation. For those that let in objective reality, angry dissent must fuel demand for one.
Where do we go from here? If respect for our Constitution and our sovereign selves prevails, pro-convention patriots must work extra hard to move the nation towards an Article V convention. The first battle is to get a convention. The second challenging battle is to prevent a convention from being abused and co-opted by the power elites that would be out for blood after failing to prevent a convention. A high level of public support is critically needed to win both battles. To win the first battle, the smart strategy is not to let people become sidetracked about specific possible amendments. Those who have fostered the Big Runaway Lie will surely posit some terrible possible amendments – ones that would immediately frighten and alienate huge numbers of Americans. Public fear is their weapon.
Back to reality: What we now have, along with runaway public distrust of government, is runaway political disengagement as evidenced by low voter turnout, runaway disgust with both the Republican and Democratic Parties, runaway economic inequality, runaway corruption of government by corporate and other special interests, and runaway mainstream media dysfunction – a corporate press more than a free press. The only thing Americans should fear is more of the same.
Can people purge their brainwashing? Only if they confront the false status quo bias belief and acknowledge that power elites did it to maintain a system they manipulate. To be against a convention is to stay a victim. Let the truth set you free. Do not fear the second American constitutional convention. Embrace it. Do not worry about a convention being hijacked. Instead, stay focused on this ugly truth: America has already been hijacked by corporate and other special interests on the left and right, along with their sycophant corrupt politicians. Stay vigilant! Because power elites will use every dirty trick imaginable to instill fear about a convention and then to undermine it, should they lose the first battle.
Come work for an Article V convention to reboot American democracy and provide a transfusion into the body politic through a heavy dose of transparent direct democracy. Help the USA remain committed to the rule of law. Compel Congress to respect what is clearly stated in the Constitution, and the meaning of “shall.”
The Supreme Court decides whether laws passed by Congress are or are not constitutional. But it refuses to tell Congress and the nation that Congress’ refusal to call an Article V convention is unconstitutional. What happened to checks and balances? Maybe Supreme Court Justices have also been brainwashed, or like members of Congress don’t want to risk losing their power.
The bitter truth is that literally every individual, group and institution now holding real power opposes a second national constitutional convention. Does that make the quest for a convention futile? Only if one gives up on the supermajority of Americans that should, for their own sake and the sake of future generations, want a convention. Elitists have much to lose. Everyone else has much to gain.
The fight for American democracy is not over. Our Founders fought British oppression and now we must fight congressional oppression. Can nonviolent collective action produce an Article V convention? Only if each of us says “yes!” And then help spread an idea virus to reach a tipping point among we the people: Millions of Americans must tell state legislatures and congressional delegations they demand a convention. Tools may include citizen state petitions on the Internet and thousands of community meetings arranged through meetup.com. Such activities and a convention itself would provide what many believe the Framers intended to create: a deliberative democracy.
On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Constitution, esteemed political scientist James MacGregor Burns, warned that “major changes will not be made until there is a severe crisis – at which time we might open the floodgates to reckless constitutional change.” Instead, he advised taking thoughtful action now. “We must all become framers,” he advised.
To keep working on the goal of forming “a more perfect Union,’ and as a political necessity and a moral obligation, we OUGHT to have a second national constitutional convention – which means we the people CAN have one. Simply put, an Article V convention is all about “power to the people.” Either you believe in it or you don’t. The people who created our nation and Constitution believed in it. They gave us Article V. Our elected MISrepresentatives in Congress and their masters don’t believe in it. They won’t willingly give us a convention. We have a runaway Congress. That’s what’s frightening. And that’s why we must fight for a convention.
Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at January 16, 2007 01:25 PMIsn’t this just a reprint of your previous article?
Do you have anything else to say?
Posted by: LawnBoy at January 16, 2007 02:02 PMEven though you have written about this before, it bears deep consideration. We could reframe the questions without corporate hype of which there is too, too much.
With 500 failures to get a convention, maybe the People should just convene one and get on with it while the Congress stares and listens in shocked awe.
I keep bringing up the fact that the Preamble is the only piece of the Constitution to measure laws against. The convention can reinforce that. After all, summary justice is not establishing (real) justice.
The common defence is not a standing army beholden to a few who want to remake the world and squander our taxes for empire. I could go on but that is how the arguments need to begin.
Posted by: Carol at January 16, 2007 02:53 PMIgnorant people are ripe for brain-washing.
In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and the voters’ education is on the way (the smart way, or the hard, painful way). Already, some unavoidable consequences are in the pipeline; especially for future generations (the truly innocent who don’t even yet have a choice or a vote).
Government is irresponsible, corrupt, and growing ever larger to nightmare proportions, but voters keep rewarding incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them (rewarding them with re-election rates of 90% or higher).
When will it end?
When will things improve?
Only when the status quo becomes too painful.
Unfortunately, in this current era of selfishness and laziness, too many Americans want to be taken care of from cradle to grave. Everyone has their pet project (e.g. stem cell, bridges to nowhere, sewer renovations, prescription drugs, healthcare, etc.).
The consequences are on the way, as our irresponsible, FOR-SALE Congress will continue to ignore the nation’s most pressing problems, and voters will continue to reward them for it … until the inevitable consequences become too painful, which may not be too many years away, as a myriad of problems are now growing simultaneously, possibly into a perfect storm (debt, borrowing, spending, war, terrorism, open borders and ports, illegal immigration, a nation swimming in debt, excessive money-printing, constitutional violations, eminent domain abuse, perversion of the laws to do the very things there were supposed to prevent, etc., etc., etc.).
Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2007 03:15 PM
Joel: Perhaps if you provided a list of amendments that you think should be discussed and possibly passed by a Contitional convention, we could have a better understanding of why a convention is necessary.
I agree that in many ways, the American people have been brainwashed about a lot of things, but about a Constitutional convention? Most Americans don’t even know there is such a mechanism. That is not because of brainwashing, it is a failure of education. Government should be a required course for every student every year that they are in school from K thru 12 and beyond.
Posted by: jlw at January 16, 2007 03:16 PMjlw,
You’re right.
Education is the key.
I am trying to stay away from advocating specific amendments to maintain credibility as an advocate for a convention. There are many possible amendments that are not related to social issues and, therefore, are less likely to stir up a lot of emotional positions - for or against. For example: making Election Day a national holiday, requiring same day registration for all federal elections, allowing a citizen not born in the U.S. to become president, requiring a federal balanced budget, giving the president a line item veto on spending, creating four-year terms for president/vp, senators and representatives and eliminating mid-term elections, replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote, and many more.
As to the comment that this article is just more of the same, only two paragraphs are more or less were in the previous article; while most is entirely new information and deeper analysis. I strongly believe that if major political/government reform is of interest to you, then only a convention is likely to make it happen. People will be status quo oriented or activist dissidents and for the latter more information about the Article V convention “right” is critically important.
The many comments to my previous article motivated me to go deeper into the issue to better convince people that a convention is in the interest of all Americans that are not now members of the power-elite class.
Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at January 16, 2007 04:26 PMBRAINWASHED!!!!!
YOUR ALL BRAINWASHED!!!!!
No, not really.
I know I’m not convinced by words like that. They essentially say “People should automatically agree with me because otherwise they are just folks who prefer to be controlled like robots by others. I know people might feel that way, especially when frustrated by outcomes they don’t like, but such a point of view has more than a couple problem with it.
First, the point may not have been adequately explained to them. People are imperfect communicators, They also only know so much, not because they’re stupid, or they’re sheep, but because they are only human.
Second, people know this is true, but also have a degree of knowledge that they are confident in. So, people who have not seen the weight of the evidence turn against what they think they know tend to be complacent about what they think is true. It doesn’t necessarily help somebody to convince them if they do not regard their target with respect.
Third, folks can and will be wrong, even when they believe something strongly.
I do not believe that the requisite number of convention calls has occured. If that is the case, whether Congress should call one is a moot point.
You can call people names, allege that they’re simply too scared, or you can realize that with good reasons, people don’t change the fundamentals of government in this country all that quickly.
What makes a convention a pause-worthy event is that in such a convention, the political fashion of the day could become the guiding principle of our government from that time out. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a profound thing to occur, and sometimes such things can have fearful consequences.
Yet if it is asked for in a timely fashion that expresses the immediate, not cumulative will of the people, then it is what is called for.
I just don’t think the standards have been met, and I don’t agree with the author’s use of a cumulative number, since the obvious intent of the founders, as with any vote, was to catch a good picture of the people’s will at any one point in time. If it takes seven years to capture that… Well, in that time the Senate and the House have changed parties. Why should we allow a vote that important to be stretched indefinitely, when the point is to only do this when a supermajority of the states wish for this to take place? As I argued before, we should give just enough time for all the legislatures to have time to hold their sessions and put the convention to the vote. Any longer, and we complicate things by introducing the factor of these legislatures changing hands.
This is especially important given the recent change, since a good number of states that might have called for a convention now will have been handed to a different party by the people. The point in keeping the vote short is to make sure that the convention represents the actual will of the people at the time the calls go out. Anything less, and we will be doing a re-write of the constitution with half-hearted public support and/or interest, which is no way to approach such changes.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 04:35 PMJoel-
I don’t like it. We already have a mechanism for Amendments available to us. The only reason to call a convention is because there is some central issue that must be amended around. Without that being there, you don’t have something real to hang the convention on. It becomes a grab bag of people’s special interest amendments, something they could have handled with less extraordinary means.
The reason to call a convention is to reengineer the government. That was the point of the original convention. Unless the people see some overwhelming reason to begin and carry out this reengineering, then trying to get it called is foolish.
People may be happy with the reforms that come without such drastic measures. If they are, this will not be necessary. If more is necessary, there are amendments that can be passed. If more than that is necessary, we go to the convention. As I said before, this is not a shortcut. Call a convention, and there will be debate, and the debate itself could have profound consequences for America’s stability.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 04:44 PMStephen — If you really believe Congress has done the best job possible when it comes to lawmaking and government reforms, then fine, stick with supporting the status quo. If you really believe that Congress is not corrupted by all kinds of special interests and is truly serving the public interest, fine, stick with the status quo. As to the facts: yes, there is a record and truly over 500 state applications for a convention from 50 states have been submitted to congress. Interestingly, congress has chosen never to create an open, transparent system of keeping tabs on those applications. That tells me they really do not want any competition when it comes to proposing constitutional amendments. As to your belief that only applications from a certain, narrow time period can be counted: that is NOT what the constitution itself says — period. I put that fact about the ratification of the 27th amendment — about it taking over 200 years — to accumulate enough state votes in favor of it to point out that important precedent. If you truly believe (and if congress truly believes) that only convention applications from a specified period can be counted, then you and congress should want to propose an amendment that amplifies on Article V. Isn’t it interesting that congress in all these years has never tried to amend Article V to give congress the powers it has implicitly grabbed??????
Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at January 16, 2007 06:04 PMWhat I wonder is whether there have ever been enough requests for a convention on a particular topic. If 50% of the states request a convention 10 times, that’d be 250 requests, but it would never been enough to spark any particular convention.
Are there any specific amendments that had enough support to warrant a convention but were denied?
Posted by: LawnBoy at January 16, 2007 06:31 PMJoel-
This congress has not had time to fully demonstrate it’s capacity for either mischief or reform. As for it corruption? I think the jury is out on that as well, but I do think we have some improvements.
You say there are are over 500 applications. I know this. But those are over the life of the country. It should be quite obvious that this was not their intention, that they expected such a vote to mirror the way the constitution was designed to be ratified.
In that case, then a limited timeframe is applicable, and the purpose is clearly to get a supermajority of the states involved at any one time, in order to repeat the constitutional convention.
As for the strange case of the 27th Amendment, that is for ratification of an amendment, not for the calling of the convention. The precedent for the ratification of the Constitution of the United States was less than one year after the Constitutional convention finalized it: From September 17th 1787 to June 21st of 1788 the following year, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify.
If the founding fathers did not wait years to ratify the constitution, why should we accept such a long cumulative wait for the calling of the convention? They didn’t even have the advantage of telecommunications or modern travel, yet they got right on it. Apparently, it was important to the Founding Fathers that the survey of the national opinion on this subject would be done promptly and comprehensively.
Why should the calling of a Convention be drawn out where the approval of the constitution was not? The obvious purpose for waiting until two-thirds of the states had called for the convention together is to make sure that they are doing this together, that this is a genuine call from a supermajority of states for the convention. To allow a drawn out vote would invite the constitutional crisis of a convention called not by the will of most of the people the people, but in the technicality of aimless accumulation.
Which do you think is the more likely scenario here: that the Founding Fathers wrote this in so that when two thirds of the states decided at once to change the constitution wholesale (the point of a convention) they could, or that they wanted such things to happen any time the number of state calls over time reached an arbitrary fraction of the total states?
I believe the Founding Fathers wrote this in to give an alternative to complete political anarchy, not to indulge the interests of those who just have a bunch of pet amendments they’re frustrated with trying to get through Congress. The complete rewriting of the constitution is a last resort we are nowhere near needing.
I am not a fan of the status quo. I want change. I’m not at the point yet, though, where I think a radical rewrite of the constitution is necessary to enable that change.
You obviously think differently. Until enough people agree with you and tell their legislatures to make that call, though, it’s not going to happen. You should be thankful for that, given all the constitutional monkeying in the past that you would have objected to.
The point of Democracy, ultimately, is not to let small vocal groups like ours, to take the rest of the country on a ride without the consent of the majority.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 16, 2007 09:41 PMStephen Daugherty,
There ARE far too many Americans that are:
- (a) brainwashed
- (b) ignorant
… because of laziness and selfishness.
That’s the era we live in.
It’s not always that way, but it runs in cycles.
Why is it that nobody is calling this current generation the “Great Generation” ?
Because it obviously isn’t.
The “Great Generation” was not pathetically dependent on a bloated, corrupt, wasteful, and increasingly oppressive government. They didn’t have the pathetic sense of entitlement we see today, where people want to be cared for, from cradle-to-grave, by the government.
The “Great Generation” was not swimming in massive debt.
The “Great Generation” didn’t start unnecessary wars. They finished them.
And, after WWII, they almost paid off the debt from that war.
We (this generation) is not the “Great Generation”.
And the younger generations aren’t either.
In fact, they are less educated, and become more uneducated every year.
And if none of that is proof enough, just look at our corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, FOR SALE, irresponsible Congress.
Congress is a reflection of us, since we keep rewarding them be repeatedly re-electing them.
Congress is too corrupt and irresponsible, as evidenced by the nation’s serious problems, growing in number and severity.
And, irresponsible politicians (and other cheaters) tap into the voters’ laziness by convincing voters to blindly pull the party-lever (i.e. straight-ticket), by seducing them into the circular, divisive, distracting, controlling, time-wasting, partisan warfare, and fooling them into rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them.
In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and the voters’ eduction is on the way. Unfortunately, it looks like they’ll have to learn the hard way (again).
A convention ain’t gonna cut it.
The only motivation that voters will finally understand is pain, and voters are doing exactly that; ensuring the painful consequences of their own making; pain and misery is a good educator.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2007 10:00 PMI don’t think it brainwashing as much a a lack of teaching the Constitution and our rights under it. When I was in school I had to pass a test on the Constitution in order to graduate high school. Even then they really didn’t explain our right all that well. This hasn’t been required for at least 30 years. If folks don’t know what their Constitution says then how can they know what rights they have?
Our politicians and their willing allies the media sure ain’t gonna tell the public about their rights. Specially the bunch up there in Dc right now. Both parties included.
And the courts rewriting the Constitution to suite their political views ain’t helping matters either.
In Wikipedia’s article about this means of amendment, they say
Congress has never responded by calling a convention because those applications requested amendments on different subjects. This Congressional inaction has contributed to impression that the applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures must petition for the same amendment(s) although the federal courts have never ruled on this “precedent,” which has been quietly established through Congressional unresponsiveness. A court case, saying that it is illegal for Congress to avoid calling a convention, was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The article goes on to list the four times that the number of states has gotten close to the required number for a particular issue, but it was always not enough.
It really seems as if the original post is based on anger over a flawed premise. Congress hasn’t had an obligation yet to invoke a Constitutional convention. No rights have been abridged; no brainwashing is in effect.
Posted by: LawnBoy at January 17, 2007 09:11 AMdan-
Democrats did not win back Congress by calling people brainwashed and ignorant. Instead, we exposed where reality and what these people were saying diverged. We used facts and stories, instead of just flinging a bunch of pre-made conclusions at people expecting them to agree.
I have a little theory on the nature of communication: There are smooth ideas out there, and prickly. The difference is the degree to which ideas adhere to people’s attention, and the reasons for that adherence.
We are not just trying to reproduce an opinion, but bring that person to the same conclusion. You can hit somebody with a car, or you can open the door and let them. All too many people try to run others over with their opinion, backing over them to tell them how dumb or brainwashed they are for rejecting them.
It is all too slow and torturous in my opinion, to try and force my conclusions on people. Now, when you write, you all too often employ these encapsulated ideas, these preset conclusions, instead of discussing the rather less abstract character of events elsewhere.
This is a significant problem in many political movements, for two reasons:
1) Using real stories and real evidence to illustrate a point makes the ideas more prickly, gives people’s attention, memory, and other faculties something concrete to process, rather than bombard them with well-known and quickly skimmed talking points.
Politicians and Pundits, faced with complex situations, often default into talking points mode, and over time, they can forget than even they had to learn.
2) It keeps the ideas in feedback with reality- observation and experiment, you could say, testing theories. We can be wrong, much as we hate to admit it. Politics, with its strong feelings can even lead us to be spectacularly wrong. Keeping our high-flown interpretations in touch with reality is crucial.
So what’s the reality here? The reality is, the Founding Fathers did not waste time. Between the time of the Annapolis Convention, which is what called for the more famous Philadelphia Convention, only a year passed. It was less than a year before the constitution was ratified. Nowhere do we find the constitutional framers taking their sweet time, even in a time without even the rudiments of modern telecommunication and motorized travel. More astonishingly, which I didn’t even know, the State Legislatures, known in that time to meet much more infrequently than ours, still managed to call themselves into session to ratify the constitution in nine months.
If they did it that way, with all the inconveniences it caused them, then the precedent is for the time frame to be rather compressed, not long and drawn out. Both the call and the ratification took place more or less in the space of a single year each.
By that standard, then, the cumulative theory makes no sense. That is the reality that must be the touchstone for any call for a convention. You can call people brainwashed and ignorant, but history shows that on constitutional matters, the Framers did not wait around.
That demonstrates that they did not intend the constitutional convention calls to be a long and drawn out process. Speed was part of what they expected from such a vote, and for good reason: the time wasted getting things together, even in those more deliberate times would dampen the momentum and muddy the waters of the convention’s legitimacy.
Speed means decisiveness. The high threshold for state calls was meant to make this a decisive call, something representing the immediate will of the people. This wasn’t mean to be the half-hearted result of the accumulation of calls. This was meant to be something people were determined in their calls for.
By taking this approach, the Founding Fathers must have been hoping that this would set a critical threshold of public support for the changes, so those changes would have that authority behind them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2007 09:18 AMJoel,
Whether people have been brainwashed or not seems irrelevant to me. What difference does it make if some interest group doesn’t want it? If the stipulations of Article V are met by the Legislatures of two thirds of the States calling for a convention, then the bottom line is, it should happen. If it doesn’t happen then the states need to sue in federal court. You mention the SCOTUS not wanting to get involved. Was there an actual case brought before the SCOTUS? If so, what was the case, and what were the reasons for the SCOTUS deciding against a convention? The devil is usually in the details.
Posted by: JayJay at January 17, 2007 11:13 AMBesides, shouldn’t we be more worried about getting the the three branches of government to do their jobs to protect and enforce the Constitution as is? What good are more amendments when the government refuses to enforce the ones we already have?
Posted by: JayJay at January 17, 2007 11:59 AMRon Brown wrote: I don’t think it is brainwashing as much a lack of teaching the Constitution and our rights under it. When I was in school I had to pass a test on the Constitution in order to graduate high school… . If folks don’t know what their Constitution says, then how can they know what rights they have?Ron Brown, Good question. All they have to do is google “constitution” or visit their library. Unfortunately, in this era, too few care enough to do so. They prefer to remain in ignorance. If you polled any group of Americans, you’d be appalled at how little they know about their own Constitution or a wide range of things.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Democrats did not win back Congress by calling people brainwashed and ignorant. Instead, we exposed where reality and what these people were saying diverged. We used facts and stories, instead of just flinging a bunch of pre-made conclusions at people expecting them to agree.Of course not.
They won their temporary majority by tapping into the voters laziness and ignorance, by brainwashing them to pull the party lever (rather than actually knowing something about who they are actually voting for), by fueling the clever, circular, divisive, distracting partisan warfare, a lot of dirty money, by fooling voters that the Republicans were more corrupt (which is really merely a result of being the IN PARTY; both parties merely take turns), and by fooling the voters into continually rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
Do-Nothing Congress is still:
- the same teams (merely taking turns being the IN PARTY and OUT PARTY)
- the same players (90% were re-elected)
- the same old game
Of course, some believe this new 110th Congress is somehow different and wonderful, and will fix a lot of things, but the track-record of the last 30+ years doesn’t warrant much optimism.
And Nancy Pelosi (this week) trying to omit Samoa for the minimum wage (because she represents StarKist who opposes the minimum wage) doesn’t warrant much optimism. Sounds like more of the same old dishonest, FOR-SALE Congress to me. Nancy Pelosi didn’t reverse that decision until she was caught trying to make that little omission.
Congress is still FOR-SALE, corrupt, and dysfunctional, and ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We can be wrong, much as we hate to admit it. Politics, with its strong feelings can even lead us to be spectacularly wrong. Keeping our high-flown interpretations in touch with reality is crucial.
I agree completely. And reality is that this 110th Congress is still far, far too corrupt and FOR-SALE, because it still consists of 90% of the same incumbents, and because ignorant voter keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
Of course, some people, due to partisan motivations will strongly disagree, but a mere shift of power in Congress (between the two party duopoly) is not the balance of power that is needed.
Only the voters can truly balance the power and bring about a more responsible Congress, and that won’t ever happen by rewarding crooked politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
But that will require education, and the voters education is on the way.
Will it be the smart way or the hard way?
Continually rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them will guarantee the hard way. Pain is a good teacher.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Instead, we exposed where reality and what these people were saying diverged. We used facts and stories, instead of just flinging a bunch of pre-made conclusions at people expecting them to agree.Ha ha ! There’s no partisan bias in that sentence. : ) Dems don’t fling pre-made conclusions? Dems don’t expect people to agree with them? That’s reality? The partisan bias of those statements are the farthest thing from reality. The reality is that both parties merely take turns being irresponsible, and voters keep rewarding them for it by repeatedly re-electing them, because the voters have not yet received their education, which is on the way.
Yesterday on CNN, Jack Cafferty asked for E-Mails about Congress’ new plan to increase the staff of the Ethics Panel. The joke of course is that appears to be the solution for everything, in our government, as it grows and grows ever larger to nightmare proportions. Anyway, a viwer’s E-Mail said the problem is the voters fault too; so much corruption in Congress is because voters keep re-electing crooked incumbents (e.g. William Jefferson comes to mind).
Unfortunately, I was once one of the brainwashed and used to pull the party lever.
Therefore, I understand the problem well.
To say that too many voters are ignorant and brainwashed is simply a fact.
There’s no sense in sugar-coating it.
Voters will either think about it, discard it completely; refuse to remove the their partisan blinders, or don’t care one way or the other.
But it is high time that people stop complaining about Congress and understand that Congress is merely a reflection of the voters that keep empowering and rewarding those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We can be wrong, much as we hate to admit it.
One thing is for certain.
It makes no sense at all to continually complain about corruption in government, but continually reward those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
That’s reality, and the sooner voters understand it, the better.
While voters will get their education eventually, sooner would be better, and that requires education, or we will learn the hard way. Already, some unavoidable, painful consequences are on the way, and lazily wallowing in the circular, divisive, distracting, destructive, time-wasting partisan warfare is not the solution.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 17, 2007 12:16 PMI guess you can count me among the brainwashed. I am not, however, a pinko commie fag.
By tying this article to the John Birch Society, you make clear the intent. Perhaps it is just coincidence that this article appears a few days after MLK day. JBS staunchly opposed the civil rights movement as a communist plot.
Lawnboy points out some factual distortions in your post.
Maybe I’m a brainwashed moron, but I wasn’t born yesterday.
Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 01:50 PM
Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote: Back to reality: What we now have, along with runaway public distrust of government, is runaway political disengagement as evidenced by low voter turnout, runaway disgust with both the Republican and Democratic Parties, runaway economic inequality, runaway corruption of government by corporate and other special interests, and runaway mainstream media dysfunction – a corporate press more than a free press. The only thing Americans should fear is more of the same.Sadly, but very true!
Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote: Can people purge their brainwashing? Only if they confront the false status quo bias belief and acknowledge that power elites did it to maintain a system they manipulate.Joel S. Hirschhorn, There is another method, right under our very own noses, which contains the peaceful force that is required to make government more responsible. And, that method is not continually rewarding corruption by repeatedly re-electing corrupt politicians.
Joel S. Hirschhorn,
Could you please elaborate on how a convention would provide the necessary force required to make government responsible, and increase education, transparency, and accountability?
Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote: To be against a convention is to stay a victim.I’m for anything that will make government more responsible.
However, government is a direct reflection of those that elect that government. Our Do-Nothing Congress is corrupt because voters reward them for it, by repeatedly re-electing them. For example, consider Rep. Jefferson Williams, caught red-handed with bribe money … yet the voters still re-electing him.
Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote: Let the truth set you free. Do not fear the second American constitutional convention.No, there’s nothing to fear. It just doesn’t seem to have the peaceful force to change anything. And that force can only come from the voters by voting out irresponsible incumbent politicians.
Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote: Embrace it [Article V Convention]. Do not worry about a convention being hijacked. Instead, stay focused on this ugly truth: America has already been hijacked by corporate and other special interests on the left and right, along with their sycophant corrupt politicians. Stay vigilant! Because power elites will use every dirty trick imaginable to instill fear about a convention and then to undermine it, should they lose the first battle.OK. However, in a voting nation, an educated electorate is the only hope of learning lessons sooner than later. So voter education is needed to, and is possibly more important. Also, there still exists an easier method of reform, right under our very own noses, that has the peaceful force necessary to make government more responsible.
The real problem is one that permeates the majority of Americans, so it’s difficult to see how any reforms will ever be possible until one of the following occurs:
- (1) Some significant event (war, another Great Depression, etc.) becomes a catalyst for change. Pain and misery motivates voters to insist on change, and that won’t happen by rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. Pain and misery is a good teacher. The voters will get their education one way or another. It is a cycle. However, there’s no guarantee that the nation will survive either. Many nations have disappeared when they finally grew so corrupt, decadent, and dysfunctional.
- (2) Congress reforms itself (not likely; not without an incentive which most likely, based on history, can only be provided by the citizens of the nation, which may occur peacefully (simply don’t re-elect them), or not so peacefully (e.g. revolution, civil unrest, another civil war, another revolution, etc.).
- (3) An Article V Convention? (doesn’t seem likely, since a majority of voters can’t even manage to vote, or study who they vote for and let others do their thinking for them by pulling the party-lever).
- Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Voters have the one simple, responsible mechanism, right under their very own noses, that voters were supposed to be using all along to peacefully force government to be Transparent, Responsible and Accountable too !
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Them !
gergle wrote: I guess you can count me among the brainwashed.gergle, I admit to being brainwashed for a long time (a party-lever pulling, straight-ticket voting Republican for 28 years). Not that the Republican party is better or worse than any other party. But the effectiveness of the powerfully distracting, circular, distracting, divisive, destructive, and time-wasting partisan warfare can not be under-estimated. It is extremely effective at fooling voters into pulling the party-lever, fooling voters into wallowing in the partisan warfare, and blindly supporting the party, and demonizing the other parties … dividing Americans, pitting voters against each other, while voters reward politicians for it by repeatedly re-electing them. It’s all about controling others, and the sad fact is, too many voter (many smart people otherwise) fall for it. Posted by: d.a.n at January 17, 2007 02:51 PM
Dan-
Just how far are either of you going to get on arguments that show such little faith in people.
I think one of the most powerful political forces in recent times, and not for the better, has been voter cynicism.
Pundits have wasted no time in marketing the whole political cynicism thing to death. It’s the constant refrain, the constant excuse for not voting, not caring.
Why reinforce that kind of bullshit?
Only when the people become convinced that they have power will they use it, much less use it properly. You won’t get anywhere towards your goal by telling people they’re pathetic drones.
I think people are well aware of the problems of excessive partisanship. I think they have some motivation to participate. All they need are two things: they need to be made aware of the real problems they’re dealing with, and they need the confidence to believe that they can do something about it.
You say we won by cynically brainwashing people to pull a lever. I say we won because we cared about the same things many Americans did, and because we gave them what looked like a way out. We can keep that up, and by doing so, simultaneously benefit our political aspirations. That’s the deal, and the deal as it should be: governmend does good for the people, government gets reelected. incumbency becomes a reward for positive actions taken on behalf of the people. The key is to maintain a relationship of feedback. To your credit, you speak of such.
But you drown it in cynicism. To me, cynicism is the flipside of the coin called naivete. It’s the irrational lack of confidence in a system. Cynicism breeds passiveness, acceptance of the corrupt order. Without hope for something better, people will lose the will to fight for it.
Vigilance is the price of liberty. If the watchers don’t care, they won’t stand guard on values they already see as debased.
The point is not to break America’s spirit, but to revive it, and I see nothing in rhetoric that treats the vast majority of Americans as brainwashed dupes that raises the spirits.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2007 03:14 PMd.a.n.,
I don’t disagree that the partisan circus is distracting, but I was only being sarcastic. Insulting Americans will not win or influence many friends.
Prior to reaching voting age, I was pro Nixon, and voted for Ford. I then voted for Carter. I did not vote for Clinton. I voted for Perot. I haven’t voted once for an elected President. I guess I am contrarian , by nature. I think Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, Jr. were and are inveterate liars and “show presidents”
I don’t have an answer, except education and continued diligence. I agree with you that we over support incumbents.
My only point really was that this post was fatuous and dishonest.
Posted by: gergle at January 17, 2007 03:18 PMStephen Daughtery wrote: d.a.n , Just how far are either of you going to get on arguments that show such little faith in people.I think one of the most powerful political forces in recent times, and not for the better, has been voter cynicism. Pundits have wasted no time in marketing the whole political cynicism thing to death. It’s the constant refrain, the constant excuse for not voting, not caring. Why reinforce that kind of bullshit?
Those statements are so hypocritical and partisan motivated, it’s hilarious.
First of all, stating facts is not cynicism.
So, Stephen, why this 180 degree turn-about of late ?
You never seemed to mind any cynical sounding statements about Republicans.
If only you realized how obviously partisan such statements are.
So, it’s OK to demonize Republicans, but now that the majority of the 110th Congress are Democrats, things are different, eh?
Well, it isn’t.
So, your new crusade is against cynisism now that the majority of the 110th Congress is Democrats?
Ha !
Sorry, but it is so partisan motivated.
But, I understand the problem well, having been very partisan too at one time.
Well, it’s time people start seeing how destructive and distracting all that partisan warfare is.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Only when the people become convinced that they have power will they use it, much less use it properly. You won’t get anywhere towards your goal by telling people they’re pathetic drones.Not true. It makes some people think. And that’s a good thing, when what they are being told is true.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: I think people are well aware of the problems of excessive partisanship.Obviously not.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: I think they have some motivation to participate. All they need are two things: they need to be made aware of the real problems they’re dealing with, and they need the confidence to believe that they can do something about it.True. That is why so many watchdog and anti-incumbent organizations are popping up everywhere. They don’t need to fuel the cynicism. The corrupt politicians are doing a fine job of it themselves.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: You say we won by cynically brainwashing people to pull a lever.Absolutely. That’s part of it. Especially those that pull the party-lever without even knowing who they are voting for. Well, hopefully, there will be even less of it by 2008. Also, the Dems didn’t win merely because everyone voted for Dems. Repubs lost a lot of votes, that went to Independents and Third Parties from voters that still didn’t vote for Dems. So, in a sense, the Independents and Third Party voters decided the election.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: I say we won because we cared about the same things many Americans did, and because we gave them what looked like a way out.Think so, eh ? So, how about Nancy Pelosi trying to omit Samoa for the minimum wage? How about Rep. Jefferson Williams? Seems to me that Congress is still as corrupt and irresponsible as ever. I thought you said the Dems would kick the crooks to the curb? Yeah, and I’ve got some beach-front property for sale in Arizona.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: We can keep that up,Keep what up? What Nancy Pelosi tried to do (ignore the minimum wage for Samoa)?
Stephen Daughtery wrote: … and by doing so, simultaneously benefit our political aspirations. That’s the deal, and the deal as it should be: governmend does good for the people, government gets reelected. incumbency becomes a reward for positive actions taken on behalf of the people.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: The key is to maintain a relationship of feedback. To your credit, you speak of such.Yes, feedback is education, and an educated electorate is important in a voting nation.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: But you drown it in cynicism. To me, cynicism is the flipside of the coin called naivete.Nonsense. If it is true, it isn’t cynicism. Besides, it didn’t seem to bother you when it was against the Republicans. Besides, the truth is the truth and sugar-coating it won’t help anyone. Dancing around the truth or trying to package it a certain way won’t help. There is no easy way to tell voters that they are culpable. Voters can not keep placing all blame on politicians when those same voters keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them. Voters need to hear the truth.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: It’s the irrational lack of confidence in a system.Nonsense, becasuse I am very confident that enough voters will figure it out eventually.
Will it be the smart way, or the hard way?
Will it be soon enough?
Time may be running out.
So, there’s no time to sugar-coat it.
The voters will get their education.
Some of it is already in the pipe-line.
Some of the painful consequences are already inevitable.
The first signs will probably be the damage to the economy.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: Cynicism breeds passiveness, acceptance of the corrupt order.True, but telling the truth is not cynicism. Knowing the voters will get it right some day is not cynicism. Trying to help promote eduction is not cynicism.
It is mere partisan motivations that now want to portray it as cynicism.
Stephen Daughtery wrote: The point is not to break America’s spirit, but to revive it, and I see nothing in rhetoric that treats the vast majority of Americans as brainwashed dupes that raises the spirits.
If the truth hurts, it’s tough.
And it is true.
Again, such concern now seems to be partisan motivated, now that the Dems are the IN-PARTY.
When the Repubs were the IN-PARTY, many, including yourself, were saying all sorts of cynical sounding things about Republcians. It’s funny, now that Dems are the IN-PARTY, any criticism, not matter how factual, is labled as cynicism.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 17, 2007 03:56 PMJoel S. Hirschhorn wrote: Back to reality: What we now have, along with runaway public distrust of government, is runaway political disengagement as evidenced by low voter turnout, runaway disgust with both the Republican and Democratic Parties, runaway economic inequality, runaway corruption of government by corporate and other special interests, and runaway mainstream media dysfunction – a corporate press more than a free press. The only thing Americans should fear is more of the same.That’s why the anti-incumbent sentiment will grow larger by 2008. Many voters are beginning to see that they (the voters themselves) are part of the problem, and rewarding incumbents by repeatedly re-electing them is the farthest thing from the solution.
The ranks of the third party and independents are growing.
Many voters are getting so sick-and-tired of the “Democrats” and/or “Republicans” did this or that, while our problems are allowed to grow in number and severity.
But, the galvanizing event will most likely be damage to the economy, caused by massive debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money-printing.
gergle wrote: d.a.n., … Insulting Americans will not win or influence many friends.Many say that. However, when Americans blame politicians only, they are being hypocrites, because it is the voters they keep rewarding incumbents by repeatedly re-electing them (such as Rep. Jefferson Williams). Congress is a reflection of the voters.
Some voters will refuse to believe it.
Some voters don’t care.
Some voters will think about it.
But there’s no easy way to sugar-coat it.
The ignorance and wallowing in the partisan warfare by too many voters is the problem.
That’s not really name calling, such as calling voters a bunch of morons, or idiots, etc.
There’s a difference.
Saying too many voters are ignorant and wallow in the partisan warfare is constructive criticism; not cynicism, or mere name calling.
Also, I’ll be the first to admit to being one of them at one time (for a long time), and hopefully can help others avoid that same mistake.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 17, 2007 04:20 PMDan-
If the truth hurts…
Hmm. First, you have convince people its the truth. If you haven’t, they can just deny you. Telling people the truth doesn’t hurt them until they change their outlook.
The truth is that you change people’s outlooks easier through the judicious use of fact, logic, and familiarity with the subject than you can with “the truth” about their behavior.
I could waste my breath calling people names because they believe in cumulative periods for conventions, or I could point out the facts about how the last one went over. Pointing out the facts saves me breath.
I also like for people to enjoy what they read. There is something to be said for elegance of form and message, for not making the perusal of the argument a mechanical affair that leaves people drained.
If your point is to energize and inspire, you must be conscious of what is relevant, what you can most easily leave out, and what in the language, in terms of rhythm, sentence structure, and word choice can lend your passion to another person. Logic is a part of good eloquence, because meaning builds passion, and logic builds meaning. Not merely yours, but now, theirs.
It doesn’t matter what we pundits feel, it matters what we can bring people to feel. We don’t power movements by ourselves. What the Democrats did better than the Republicans is get people to believe that the other side’s exploits were doing harm to the country. The failure of the Republicanss rests much in their over dependence on partisan bullying, on bashing people in the name of the cause.
The Democrats came into that campaign with the facts on their side, and with the eloquence to encapsulate in our arguments what it was the Republicans dared not admit about what they were doing wrong. There is more to this past election than the Republicans losing, something deeper than just the revival of the Democratic Party.
To put it simply, people stopped being as uncritical in their thinking about the Republican party, as they were before. The Democrats already, long ago reached their threshold of distrust with their representatives. We don’t have the kind of unalloyed trust in their representatives as they once had.
You can talk about the Samoan minimum wage issue, but guess what: it’s been taken care of. It wasn’t rationalized, it wasn’t excused by pundits, it was corrected. Where Reid had a problem with the language on earmark reform, he quickly backed down, and they passed the measure with few changes. There’s bound to be bumps in the road. We hear about these things, and Democrats are willing to put on the pressure.
Seeing the responsiveness of the Democratic congress to these issues is refreshing. I hope they keep up the good job. But if they don’t, the Democrats of this country will not sit still for long. Like any good businesspeople, politicians do themselves good by knowing what people want. What people want now is government that works for them, which doesn’t throw a dozen excuses their way as to why they’re not doing what they’re supposed to.
They don’t want abstract movements. They want results, and that’s frankly what the system was built for. No one approach can encapsulate all that has to be done in order to make a nation work, to make it great.
Hell, that’s why people like you and me weren’t set up to be the wise people calling the shots. We know enough or understand enough to make every decision wisely. Democracy allows us to pool, with minimal interference, the talents and intellectual resources of the people.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2007 08:19 PMThe problem with our current constitution is that it was established as a republic, not a democracy. To the extent that congress passes laws beneficial only to the rich, and detrimental to working class people, it has not served the country well. I agree with Joel’s comment that power brokers have established over the years a “political system they expertly corrupt and control”. If we want a democracy we must submit changes at a constitutional convention which explicitly require all laws to be in the interest of all citizens, not just in the interest of the rich and famous. The current congress will not do this of it’s own accord.
Posted by: Richard Backus at January 18, 2007 02:07 AMStephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , If the truth hurts … Hmm. First, you have convince people its the truth. If you haven’t, they can just deny you.True. Also, its important to realize that some are incapable or unlikely to see the truth. You can see it here every day. Far too many are blinded by partisan motivations.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The truth is that you change people’s outlooks easier through the judicious use of fact, logic, and familiarity with the subject than you can with “the truth” about their behavior.It is effective both ways … with facts and logic about both the subject and behavior. Afterall, it’s all about our behavior. Again, voters that just want to complain about crooked politicians need to also recognize that they are also to blame if they are one of those that are rewarding those same crooked politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. There’s no good way to sugar coat it. It doesn’t do any good to try and blame it all on politicians or the OTHER party. The truth is the best policy, with supporting facts and evidence, which is abundant. The facts and logic is not the biggest hurdle. The biggest hurdle is exactly as Joel S. Hirschhorm said it is: overcoming the brainwashing.
That is not name-calling or cynicism.
It is constructive criticism.
It is the truth.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I could waste my breath calling people names because they believe in cumulative periods for conventions, or I could point out the facts about how the last one went over. Pointing out the facts saves me breath.Perhaps. Perhaps not. Logic doesn’t work on everyone. Some are too brainwashed. Again, that is not name-calling, but a mere fact. Brainwashing is when people believe what they want, despite the overwhelming evidence and facts to the contrary.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I also like for people to enjoy what they read. There is something to be said for elegance of form and message, for not making the perusal of the argument a mechanical affair that leaves people drained.That’s somewhat true. Now, if that is a bit of sarcasm pointed at me, why are you frequently compelled to read and comment on my posts?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: If your point is to energize and inspire, you must be conscious of what is relevant, what you can most easily leave out, and what in the language, in terms of rhythm, sentence structure, and word choice can lend your passion to another person. Logic is a part of good eloquence, because meaning builds passion, and logic builds meaning. Not merely yours, but now, theirs.Logic is important. So is the truth. One is unlikely without the other. Brainwashing gets in the way. These days, the circular, distracting partisan warfare is the favorite tool of irresponsible politicians and blind party loyalists that are all too happy to wallow in it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: What the Democrats did better than the Republicans is get people to believe that the other side’s exploits were doing harm to the country. The failure of the Republicanss rests much in their over dependence on partisan bullying, on bashing people in the name of the cause. The Democrats came into that campaign with the facts on their side, and with the eloquence to encapsulate in our arguments what it was the Republicans dared not admit about what they were doing wrong. There is more to this past election than the Republicans losing, something deeper than just the revival of the Democratic Party.I disagree. Dems and Repubs are about equally corrupt. The Dems are still ignoring the nation’s most important issues. The first 100 hours is a farce. Just the way the run the first 100 hours clock is a farce. But blind party loyalty rationalizes it as “a few bumps in the road”. Do-Nothing Congress is still:
- the same teams (merely taking turns being the IN PARTY and OUT PARTY)
- the same players (90% were re-elected)
- the same old game
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can talk about the Samoan minimum wage issue, but guess what: it’s been taken care of. It wasn’t rationalized, it wasn’t excused by pundits, it was corrected.More rationalizations and excuses.
Want more truth, facts, and evidence?
Dems plan to propose a forfeiture of pension for certain crimes.
Read the fine print.
Murder is not on the list.
There are only five felonies that apply, and they aren’t retroactive either.
Oh … and how about Rep. Jefferson Williams ?
It appears nothing much has really changed.
Hopefully, more voters will catch on to it by 2008.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Seeing the responsiveness of the Democratic congress to these issues is refreshing. I hope they keep up the good job.Nothing partisan about that statement, eh? Nevermind that Do-Nothing Congress is still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But if they don’t, the Democrats of this country will not sit still for long.Especially not the growing number of independent and third party voters, who actually decide elections.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Like any good businesspeople, politicians do themselves good by knowing what people want. What people want now is government that works for them, which doesn’t throw a dozen excuses their way as to why they’re not doing what they’re supposed to.Well, there’s one problem with that over-simplication. Blind party loyalty and brainwashing gets in the way. Too many voters believe Congress is corrupt, but keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them. That’s because of brainwashing. One thing that can overcome that brainwashing is pain and misery. And that is exactly where we are headed. That is exactly why voters will eventually get their education, one way or another. The system, in that sense, is self-correcting. Unfortunately, there is a huge time lag. Also, future generations can and will be damaged by the selfishness and irresponsibility of the generations before them.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democracy allows us to pool, with minimal interference, the talents and intellectual resources of the people.Well, if only it was that simple. The system is self-correcting (sort of), but it is not invulnerable. What we have now is a severely bloated, corrupt, wasteful, and increasingly oppressive government. That can’t last, because of the painful consequences that are one the way now.
Stephen Daugherty,
I sense your optimism that the Democrats are going to suddenly make things better, but you are likely to be disappointed. I was also a loyal party supporter at one time (for 28 years), but decades of observing the facts and evidence (at great length) reveals little difference between the two main party duopoly. When this new 100th Congress still fails to deliver, people will realize it, or continue to blindly cling to THEIR party, allowing the duopoly to grow ever more bloated and corrupt.
Richard Backus wrtote: To the extent that congress passes laws beneficial only to the rich, and detrimental to working class people, it has not served the country well.Absolutely. Congress is FOR-SALE, which is one of the most obvious symptoms of our corrupt, dysfunctional government.
Richard Backus wrtote: I agree with Joel’s comment that power brokers have established over the years a “political system they expertly corrupt and control”.Absolutely. Of course, the incumbent politicians and their blind party loyalists would disagree. However, the evidence is staggering. Still, too many voters ignore that evidence, because of the brainwashing. Partisan warfare is a very powerful tool to perpetuate the brainwashing. It is VERY effective at distracting and dividing voters, by pitting them against each other, rather than focusing on the irresponsible politicians that are manipulating and controlling them.
The effectiveness of the partisan warfare should not be underestimated.
The evidence of it’s effectiveness can be seen here daily.
The blind partisan loyalties are rampant here.
The blind party loyalists blame the OTHER party for everything, and rationalize the faults of THEIR own party, and are unable to see how they are being manipulated.
This is why politicians love and fuel the partisan warfare.
It is the best thing since sliced bread.
For the party loyalists …
Do you think the partisan warfare is the real war we should be fighting?
Do you ever get the feeling that YOUR party has priorities other than the welfare of the nation?
Do you ever get tired of trying to make your value system fit YOUR party’s agenda?
Do you ever get the feeling that this petty partisan warfare, resulting in 90% re-election rates, is actually programming (rewarding) Congress to grow ever more irresponsible and corrupt?
Do you ever get the feeling that rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them makes no sense?
Do you ever get tired of sheepishly saying “my party isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the OTHER party”?
Do you ever get tired of trying to convince yourself of that?
Do you ever get the feeling you may be helping the problem grow worse?
Do you ever get the feeling that you have been seduced into a circular pattern of behavior that distracts from real issues, and everything else has taken a back seat to merely making sure that YOUR party retains and/or gains more seats in Congress ? Afterall, we’ve done that over and over. What did it get us? Just more irresponsibility and more corruption, as evidenced by the nation’s pressing problems growing in number and severity.
So, where is the voters’ outrage?
This last election should have seen far, far more irresponsible incumbents ousted.
Instead, voters keep rewarding them by repeated re-electing them (such as Rep. Jeffereson Williams).
Voters simply choose to let the two party duopoly continue enjoying a 90% re-election rate, and their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. It is sad how many lives are wasted due to the irresponsibility and unaccountability of the gang of over two million in the bloated Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller group of 535 bumbling and stumbling politicians in Congress and their over-bloated hundreds of thousands employees.
But, we voters keep re-electing them ! ? !
Richard Backus wrtote: If we want a democracy we must submit changes at a constitutional convention which explicitly require all laws to be in the interest of all citizens, not just in the interest of the rich and famous. The current congress will not do this of it’s own accord.
Yes, Congress will NOT reform itself, until voters stop rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them.
Or, until some other serious event causes the voters to snap out of their brainwashing.
Unfortunately, that is what voters do because they have been tricked into wallowing in the partisan warfare, where gaining seats for THEIR party is all that is important, guaranteeing incumbent politicians a 90% re-election rate, rewarding them for being irresponsible, programming politicians to grow ever more corrupt and irresponsible.
A convention is good, if it can be done, and if it leads to more education.
However, there is a much easier way.
It’s been right there, all along, right under our very own noses.
Simply stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them.
That requires education.
If the convention leads to more education, then that is great.
Voters will get that education, eventually, one way or another.
The problem is, will they get it soon enough?
Already, there will be painful consequences for last 30+ years of so much fiscal and moral irresponsibility.
With it will come our lessons.
We will become educated, overcome the brainwashing, or we will suffer.
Take your pick.
Brainwashing is when people believe what they want, despite the overwhelming evidence and facts to the contrary.
No, that’s called stubborn. You folks really are misusing the word brainwashing.
Posted by: womanmarine at January 18, 2007 12:38 PMRichard Backus-
Direct Democracy only works when most people know each other. Otherwise the limits of sociological reach require people to organize into factions in order to get things done.
That is the truth that the Framers confronted. So, they constructed a government that would force factions to compete and interact with each other, forcing compromise and preventing political extremism from taking too much of a hold on things.
I believe that we should be vigilant about those who represent us, especially those we share factional identity with. If we don’t pay attention, if we allow cynicism, our partisan inclinations, or just naivete to blind us to what they are doing, then we will end up with them doing what you say.
As for explicitly requiring all laws to be in the interests of the citizens? It’s a good sentiment, one I share in fact, but as a subject for a constitutional amendment, it’s vague and open to all kinds of interpretation. Heck, in the Republican scheme of things, helping the rich was in the national interest.
No congress does the people’s will of their own accord, strictly speaking. Only when their employers (the people) make their wishes and objections clear, and the consequences for failing to deal with them equally so, does congress do the people’s business. We don’t need an amendment for that, we need vigilance and a sense of civic duty. The time has come for the pendulum to swing back from the indulgence of individual self interest, back towards a sense of greater society.
Dan-
To one extent or another, we’re all incapable of seeing the full truth. No exceptions.
All too often, when people talk about sugar-coating the truth, they’re speaking about the truth from their own point of view, which is not the full truth either.
Truth, in my experience, is something that’s better sought than regarded as one’s own. Partisanship can lead us to the latter error, and that has to be watched out for.
The thing to understand, though, is that not everybody’s interests are truly the same. The difficult thing about Democracy is that there are good reasons for people to disagree, good reason that are amplified that the very fact of the factionalizing this brings on. We can hope that we can work past our differences, make the right compromises to serve the interests of the individuals and the community as a whole, but being human, the problem of faction is inevitable.
Using the word brainwashed requires that you jump to the conclusion that people don’t have legitimate or self-intiated reasons for their loyalties. It’s a insult to those who have a reason to join a certain group or party that doesn’t begin and end with blind conformity. It’s one thing not to sugarcoat what you say, another to simply assume that people lack the strength of character to be wise enough to take your position.
Whatever you can say is the truth, you haven’t reached, and no one can fully grasp it. The world is just so complex and so diverse a place, with so much of the same in society, that it beggars our imagination.
That is the necessity of Democracy: instead of trying to plot a wise course with the governance of the few, we do so with the many. Parallel processing is why the human brain can do so much better in certain elementary tasks than any computer chip. It is why Democracy works better than monarchy or totalitarian rule.
Like I tell Richard, though, above a certain unit of people (about 150, according to the book The Tipping Point, social structures must organize to operate well. Our Republican is a compromise between faction and general interest, direct democracy and coherent leadership.
Now you say brainwashing is why people believe what they want, despite everything. No. That’s not it. You got to get deeper than that. First, logic itself is not a guarantor of truth. It’s merely a structure of thinking. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is a profound emotional component to rational thought, and that is the crucial reason I take the approach I do.
First, if I cause them to raise their emotional defenses, I will find it difficult to get people to agree, because they will fall back to their own logic when confronted as such. If I succeed, though, in providing good evidence for my views, I can get them to change what they feel, because what they feel depends on how they think, as much as how they think depends on how they feel. It’s a feedback loop.
People will tend to act from what they feel, and what they feel will tend to start from what they have learned and what they understand. If we want people to change their behavior, we must first change what they believe.
As for reading your posts?
It’s like looking for your place in a book where you don’t have a bookmark. You skip past all the stuff you know you’ve been through to get to the new stuff. I’ve seen the charts and everything literally hundred of times. I know the basics of the argument. Why re-read it?
I’ve already made my analysis of it long before. I want to deal with what’s germane to the situation at hand. Your arguments are too abstract, too distant. Also repeat it regardless of context, which leads some like me to believe that you just have a preconceived notion of what’s going on, rather than an active awareness.
You can say “Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt”, but I can come back and say that they’re making efforts at reform, which currently Republicans are blocking! You can say that We’re ignoring the most important issues, but I can say we’re dealing with the Iraq war, and putting out legislation on wages, ethics and earmark reform, medicare, among others.
You can say this that and the other is a farce, but its one thing to say that, it’s another thing to get the readers to think that themselves
I can cite profound changes in the attitudes and the statements of Republicans, in Bush’s public policy, forced by the fact that he has to deal with a new gameplan here. I can also say that in two years, even more incumbents will find themselves out of a job, because many are saying that the catastrophe for the Republicans is still on going. With people like Mitch McConnell holding up Ethics Reform, there will undoubtedly be more blood in the water as this goes on.
On the subject of the forfeiture law, I’m not sure that murder isn’t actually on that list already. I’m not a lawyer, so I couldn’t say for sure, but I doubt that such a grievous crime wouldn’t trigger than.
As for retroactiveness, I don’t believe that criminal law is allowed by the constitution to be retroactive.
As for Jefferson Williams? I don’t like that he’s re-elected, but he’s not on Ways and Means anymore. The Republicans kept DeLay as speaker even after he was indicted.
The open question is whether you believe any change is possible through the two main parties. You chastise me for being partisan. Well, I am a self-described liberal and Democrat. So I’m a partisan by definition. This is a perjorative term for you, and I guess I can’t do anything about your preconceived notions of what it means to consider yourself part of a party.
The thing is, I decided to be a Democrat. When I feel that decision is no longer a wise one, I will decide to take another direction. I hate being compromised, and I hate having to take what I see as unsupportable positions.
You said some time ago that you were once a Republican. So was I. But our responses were different. To me, the important thing is knowing and making things known. Accountability is as important as personnel. People have survival instincts, and those who are corrupt and who are prone to corruption are no different. If they sense they can’t get away with something, they’ll hesitate to take such routes.
The key is to change expectations, to not tolerate misbehavior. However, to not tolerate these kinds of behavior, we have to know of it. Moreover, we should not be so passive as to wait for the pain and suffering to happen.
The time has come to short circuit all that. Voters need to be educated by people eloquently revealing the dark and dirty secrets of those in charge. What we need is not a movement, but a change in place, a transformation of how we interact with Congress and the the executive branch.
In my experience, in all the years of talking about bloated government, Republicans and those who lean to the right have failed to do anything about it. They’ve in fact made it worse.
If you hope for nothing, you work for nothing. Why try to make government work if you don’t want it to? It takes time and energy to make things work, and those are not things people devote to doomed affairs.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch: if we want good government, we got to work for it. What happens between elections is just as important as what happens in them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2007 01:29 PMBrainwashing is when people believe what they want, despite the overwhelming evidence and facts to the contrary.
womanmarine wrote:
No, that’s called stubborn. You folks really are misusing the word brainwashing.
That’s not quite accurate.
I see your point, but the statement is accurate for brainwashing or stubborness.
Both involve a clinging to a belief, but for a different reasons.
Stubborness is one reason (a defense mechanism) and not necessarily related to brainwashing.
Stubborness can often be overcome more easily with logic and facts.
Brainwashing is another reason for clinging to a belief, in which programming has occurred.
The two are reasons different, but the end result is the same (i.e. clinging to a belief).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Using the word brainwashed requires that you jump to the conclusion that people don’t have legitimate or self-intiated reasons for their loyalties.Precisely. It is what it is. No sense in sugar-coating it. Joel S. Hirschhorn hit the nail on the head.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , It’s a insult to those who have a reason to join a certain group or party that doesn’t begin and end with blind conformity.Stephen, I’m not knocking belonging to a party.
You’re trying to twist things around.
I’m knocking blind-party loyalty and blindly pulling the party-lever without really knowing who they’re voting for; without really doing their own research; and blindly rewarding irresponsible politicians (such as Rep. William Jefferson) by repeatedly re-electing them, merely because that’s the candidate of THEIR party.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s one thing not to sugarcoat what you say, another to simply assume that people lack the strength of character to be wise enough to take your position.Stephen, How can anyone support rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them? The reason for the absolute certainty in my position is because it is right on many levels. No one can give any good reasons for rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. Yet, many people do just that. I’ve done it. It’s a result of ignorance, brainwashing, and politicians’ favorite control mechanism: partisan warfare. Partisan warfare is part of the brainwashing. It is a powerfully effective control mechanism, and people will continue to succumb to it as long as they remain ignorant about it.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now you say brainwashing is why people believe what they want, despite everything. No. That’s not it. You got to get deeper than that. First, logic itself is not a guarantor of truth. It’s merely a structure of thinking. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is a profound emotional component to rational thought, and that is the crucial reason I take the approach I do.Gobbledygook. Again, no one supports rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them? But that is what they do? It’s not as complicated as some want to portray it. Saying “it’s not that simple” or “it’s deeper than that” is a common tactic. The problem is as Joel S. Hirschhorn says. It’s about brainwashing. It’s about control. It’s about tapping into peoples’ ignorance and laziness to control them. It will only end when it becomes too painful.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: First, if I cause them to raise their emotional defenses, I will find it difficult to get people to agree …Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes, that’s what is needed. Sometimes, that is the only thing that works, no matter how painful it is.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: People will tend to act from what they feel, and what they feel will tend to start from what they have learned and what they understand. If we want people to change their behavior, we must first change what they believe.Exactly. That requires education. And voters will get the education, eventually, one way or another. The only question is: (a) will it be the smart way? (b) or the hard, painful way?
Only education has a hope of learing sooner than later.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve already made my analysis of it long before.You think you have, but you haven’t, since it changes and grows daily.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your arguments are too abstract, too distant.Have you ever looked at your own ?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can say “Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt”Because it is true. The evidence is massive. Of course, it varies slightly, depending on which is the current “IN PARTY” or “OUT PARTY”. But, for the most part, it is true. See for yourself. What they say may differ. What they do doesn’t differ much.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but I can come back and say that they’re making efforts at reform, which currently Republicans are blocking!Of course you can. How typical. It’s the blame game, eh?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can say that We’re ignoring the most important issues, but I can say we’re dealing with the Iraq war, and putting out legislation on wages, ethics and earmark reform, medicare, among others.All for show. And Nancy Pelosi tried to omit Samoa until caught red-handed. And William Jefferson is still in office. And the ethics reform solution is to hire more people for the ethics panels? And the forfeiture of pensions only includes 5 felonies? And the most important issues are still being ignored by the Do-Nothing Congress.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can say this that and the other is a farce, but its one thing to say that, it’s another thing to get the readers to think that themselvesDon’t worry, it’s working. It’s education, which they’ll get one way or another, eventually.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can cite profound changes in the attitudes and the statements of Republicans, in Bush’s public policy, forced by the fact that he has to deal with a new gameplan here. I can also say that in two years, even more incumbents will find themselves out of a job, because many are saying that the catastrophe for the Republicans is still on going. With people like Mitch McConnell holding up Ethics Reform, there will undoubtedly be more blood in the water as this goes on.Why? Didn’t you say the Dems were gonna fix everything, or get kicked to the curb?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of the forfeiture law, I’m not sure that murder isn’t actually on that list already.It isn’t. The Congress isn’t serious about real reform. They are passing some weak measures just to make it look like they are doing something.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not a lawyer, so I couldn’t say for sure, but I doubt that such a grievous crime wouldn’t trigger than.It wouldn’t. Also, they often plea bargain down to a misdemeanor, or get a pardon. It has more loop holes than the IRS tax code.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for Jefferson Williams? I don’t like that he’s re-elected, but he’s not on Ways and Means anymore. The Republicans kept DeLay as speaker even after he was indicted.Oh, so two wrongs make a right? Can’t resist it eh (“Well the Republicans do it too”)?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The open question is whether you believe any change is possible through the two main parties.Yes. Parties aren’t the root of the problem.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You chastise me for being partisan.Not you personally. Only the partisan motivated statements. : ) Only when it is blind partisan loyalty, the blame game, or fueling the partisan warfare.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well, I am a self-described liberal and Democrat.Fine. I never said there was anything wrong with that.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: So I’m a partisan by definition. This is a perjorative term for you, and I guess I can’t do anything about your preconceived notions of what it means to consider yourself part of a party.Again, it’s not a problem, unless it is blind party loyalty, or fueling the partisan warfare.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The thing is, I decided to be a Democrat. When I feel that decision is no longer a wise one, I will decide to take another direction. I hate being compromised, and I hate having to take what I see as unsupportable positions.That’s a good reason to not take unsupportable positions.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: To me, the important thing is knowing and making things known. Accountability is as important as personnel. People have survival instincts, and those who are corrupt and who are prone to corruption are no different. If they sense they can’t get away with something, they’ll hesitate to take such routes. … The key is to change expectations, to not tolerate misbehavior. However, to not tolerate these kinds of behavior, we have to know of it. Moreover, we should not be so passive as to wait for the pain and suffering to happen.Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s what a growing number of watch-dog organizations and political action committees, and my one-simple-idea are all about.
- Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The time has come to short circuit all that. Voters need to be educated by people eloquently revealing the dark and dirty secrets of those in charge. What we need is not a movement, but a change in place, a transformation of how we interact with Congress and the the executive branch.ABSOLUTELY ! That’s what I do contantly, without regard for party. That’s what my myriad of web-pages are about. And it is working, and it is a result of many different approaches. It isn’t as one-dimensional as you think.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my experience, in all the years of talking about bloated government, Republicans and those who lean to the right have failed to do anything about it. They’ve in fact made it worse.Stephen, Stephen, You were doing so well, up until that last sentence. Don’t you know Democrats hald the majority for most of the time (about 70 years) prior to the Republicans last 12 years as the “IN PARTY”. The Democrats have had ample opportunities to do plenty. But, that sad partisan warfare and finger-pointing is so typical of those blinded by partisan loyalties.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Why try to make government work if you don’t want it to? It takes time and energy to make things work, and those are not things people devote to doomed affairs.Precisely. That is why education, as you say yourself, is so important.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s no such thing as a free lunch: if we want good government, we got to work for it. What happens between elections is just as important as what happens in them.Absolutely. But, if this new congress still ignores the nation’s most pressing problems, the pain of the consequences will grow the ranks of the unhappy, and there will be more incumbents voted out of Congress in 2008, and a growing number of people and organizations will see to it. Posted by: d.a.n at January 18, 2007 03:25 PM
Joel,
“And the younger generations aren’t either.
In fact, they are less educated, and become more uneducated every year.”
First and foremost that is a direct verbal attack and is against Watch Blog’s Rules For Participation.
Uneducated!?!?!?!
I am a 24-year-old college student. Who is active in student and state government. My first bill proposal just became an actual bill in the House and Senate in the same week and is being fast tracked by having a hearing prior to being placed in a hopper.
I will be obtaining my PhD in political science and right now there are 13 others in this office who are just as, if not more so, capable and educated.
The number of people between 25-29 obtaining degrees has been on a steady rise for half a century.
So… if you are going to step up to make a slanderous statement that can be described as nothing less than age discrimination, you would be well advised to have some kind of supporting facts to that argument.
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 18, 2007 04:35 PMJoel,
That prior post was directed to dan.
D.a.n.,
That prior post was directed to you.
=)
Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 18, 2007 04:41 PMBryan AJ Kennedy wrote: First and foremost that is a direct verbal attack and is against Watch Blog’s Rules For Participation.Nonsense.
You completely misinterpreted what I wrote.
No insult was intended toward the younger generations, even if I was praising the “Great Generation”.
On the contrary. The point of the statement is to point out the failings of our public education systems, and affordability of college, and our problems in being competitive in a global economy.
Are you denying serious problems exist in the American education systems?
My statement may have been badly worded, but my point, and I believe others had no trouble understanding it the way it was intended, is that there is a serious problem of our failing public education and the astronomical cost of higher education.
We are falling behind in the education compared to many nations (many that are also much poorer).
Public education in the U.S. has problems, and there is ample proof of that.
The U.S. is not doing a very good job of educating its young people. Many highschool students aren’t prepared for college. And the U.S. is falling behind in math and science.
There is ample proof of it.
The graph you provided a link to only includes a very small age-range (between 25 and 29) and it is only for students that obtained some college (not necessarily degrees).
Also, more young people are coming out of college with massive debt. Some are questioning whether it was worth it.
I believe others understood my statement as it was intended, but you, for some reason, choose to feel insulted instead.
Congratulations on the BILL.
It sounds like a good thing.
I recall all too well the high cost of books and materials. The problem is worse now. It’s a racket, to be sure. There’s no reason why those books and materials should be so expensive. It’s gouging. Yet, another reason for astronomical costs for college.
Education Problems in America 1
Education Problems in America 2
Education Problems in America 3
Dan-
When I said using the word brainwashed requires that you jump to a conclusion, you’re not sugarcoating things, you’re imposing a conclusion on something you are unlikely to have any knowledge of substance on.
Brainwashing is a very particular practice, an intense indoctrination. Most of us do not learn our politics that way. We learn it from our parents, we learn it from our friends.
In short, we learn it from those who provide us our comfort in life. It is comfort with such beliefs that’s likely the more powerful conforming force in our lives. Most Americans are not put through re-education camps.
Only when you can make a person comfortable with breaking free of what they believed, only when you can give that person the required explanations others would have of them, can you overcome most people’s comfort with a political sensibility.
You say you’re not knocking my belonging to a party, but anytime I express the natural wish to see my party reform itself and the country, and for my party to succeed, you’re ready to accuse me of being partisan in the more perjorative sense of the term.
I don’t think Jefferson was re-elected by people who thought he was a crook. I think he was re-elected by folks who were convinced that he was being set up. If you study the situation, you’ll see that some of the people in his district believed exactly that. Do I approve of this, do most Democrats? No. Matter of fact is, he was once on the powerful Ways and Means committee. He isn’t any longer. Nobody’s defending him beyond his home territory. He’s an embarrassment. However, folks did re-elect him, so he’s there.
Stephen, How can anyone support rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them?
What in my long history on this site leads you to believe I have any love for corruption, incompetence, or any other dysfunction of government? I just don’t think you’ve got the solution to that, beside what is really a vague sentiment.
Not everybody who takes a partisan position feels themselves obligated to defend it at all costs. It’s not an either or. A survey which I showed to you a while back showed that people often voted straight party tickets despite identification as independents.
As for what you called Gobbledygook, I call it neuroscience. Go read Antonio Damassio’s Descarte’s Error. Go Read V.S. Ramachandran’s work. This is how people actually think. It enters into approach, and approach enters into success.
Yes, it’s not that simple. Which means you need to look at the nuances of what people say, what people think, look at the nuances of the situation. Yes, its deeper than it looks. There are some fundamental needs at play here, that people share across party lines. If you want to get beyond partisanship, you have to get beyond a dualistic sense of people and the world, most especially between you and your opponents.
The problem is Americans have more than enough people out there who think they’re robots to be programmed, buttons to be pushed. The Republicans excelled at that. The problem became, ultimately, is that when they pushed people into a situation where they actually had to think for themselves, the charm of these ready-made formulas and beliefs wore away rather quickly.
You can set up fancy equations and charts and whatever, but what counts is meaning, and there’s more of it out there than can ever be reduced to spreadsheets and numbers.
I try and respect that by not trying to reduce a human factors rich environment to laws and rules, as if I could set the world straight myself.
When I pointed out that in all their years of complaining about government, they’ve made it worse, I was making a point that should be obvious from the state of government nowadays. Is our government more functional now than it was twelve years ago? No, it’s not. Is it better since Reagan took office? Generally, no.
It’s not a partisan point, but a practical one.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 18, 2007 06:00 PMStephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , When I said using the word brainwashed requires that you jump to a conclusion, you’re not sugarcoating things, you’re imposing a conclusion on something you are unlikely to have any knowledge of substance on.In far too many cases (not all), it is the accurate conclusion.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Brainwashing is a very particular practice, an intense indoctrination.Not true.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Most of us do not learn our politics that way. We learn it from our parents, we learn it from our friends.True. That’s where the brainwashing often begins.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You say you’re not knocking my belonging to a party, but anytime I express the natural wish to see my party reform itself and the country, and for my party to succeed, you’re ready to accuse me of being partisan in the more perjorative sense of the term.False. Got any proof of that? It’s not party affiliation that is being pointed out. It’s the blind partisan loyalty, blaming the OTHER party, and fueling the partisan warfare. It’s also the extremely unrealistic assertion that this new 110th Congress is now less corrupt, when 90% of incumbents were re-elected. It’s going to take a lot more than voting out 10% of Congress before they get the message. What Congress is doing now with this first 100 hours is just fluff for show, and Congress is still ignoring the most important problems facing the nation.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t think Jefferson was re-elected by people who thought he was a crook. I think he was re-elected by folks who were convinced that he was being set up.Now, that is what you can call blind party loyalty
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I approve of this, do most Democrats? No. Matter of fact is, he was once on the powerful Ways and Means committee.That’s not good enough. Unfortunately, they are able to drag these things out for years and decades, and are rarely ever held accountable, and still collect their cu$hy pensions (or perhaps, even get a presidential pardon; like the 546 criminals pardoned by Clinton; 140 pardons on his last day in office).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: He isn’t any longer. Nobody’s defending him beyond his home territory. He’s an embarrassment. However, folks did re-elect him, so he’s there.Not a big enough embarrassment, obviously.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problem is Americans have more than enough people out there who think they’re robots to be programmed, buttons to be pushed. The Republicans excelled at that.