![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, this is a HYPOTHETICAL posting!
The political machine in this country is an interesting beastie. If the majority of a political figure's constituents decide they don't like the job he's doing, they can vote him out at the end of his term. In more extreme cases, there are ways in which they can call for his removal before the term is up.
If they lose faith in the individual, they have confidence that they can replace him.
What happens if they lose faith in the machine?
What impact would it have upon the American populace, if they decided en masse (or were shown) that their input into the political machine is illusory -- that in fact they have no input whatsoever, either individually or collectively?
Sadly, many would just shrug and ignore it. Many choose not to participate in the process anyway, or already believe that they have no input.
What about those that do not ignore it? Since we've already removed the (far too plentiful) apathetic ones from our consideration, what is the most likely response from the remainder of the population?
I suspect many would follow a line of reasoning something like this:
If there has been no legitimate election, then those occupying political office have no legitimate claim to do so.
If they have no legitimate claim to their office, then nothing they say or do has any validity.
If their statements and actions are invalid, then they may be completely disregarded -- in effect, they no longer exist.
But Nature abhors a vacuum, and Man seems incapable of seeing a hole above himself in any power structure without at least considering whether or not he could step into that hole.
At this point, things turn ugly.
There would almost certainly be those, either individually or in groups, who would attempt to reinstate the practice of Might Makes Right, "persuading" those around them to go along with their wishes either in exchange for protection (there's safety in numbers, after all) or simply to avoid whatever methods of "persuasion" is being used.
At the very best, we would end up with something akin to the Confederacy of the middle 1800's, with all of that culture's drawbacks and few -- if any -- of its redeeming qualities.
All of which assumes, of course, that no other world power decides to intervene "for our own good" or "to provide economic/military stability" -- as we have been known to do in other countries.
I am afraid that if the majority of our population became convinced that the machine was broken, the results would be disastrous.
What if I become convinced that it is broken? What does that mean for me, personally?
I'm the first to admit that this country has its problems, but I'm still proud of her, and I love her even with her flaws. I sincerely believe that, taken as a whole, it is among the finest nations in the world. Think what you will of me, but I still believe in her, and in the Dream that so many have embraced down through the years -- even when they knew in advance that doing so might mean their own ruination.
I'm no conspiracy theorist. Too many times, I've seen the proof of the old adage about not attributing to maliciousness that which can be attributed instead to simple incompetence.
But what if I'm wrong? More importantly, what if I become convinced that I'm wrong -- that the Dream is dead, that all that remains of it is the man behind the curtain who knows which levers to pull to create the illusions?
The very thought turns my stomach... but is the alternative worse?
Which is better -- to continue to pursue the Dream, or to try and protect against the nightmare?
The political machine in this country is an interesting beastie. If the majority of a political figure's constituents decide they don't like the job he's doing, they can vote him out at the end of his term. In more extreme cases, there are ways in which they can call for his removal before the term is up.
If they lose faith in the individual, they have confidence that they can replace him.
What happens if they lose faith in the machine?
What impact would it have upon the American populace, if they decided en masse (or were shown) that their input into the political machine is illusory -- that in fact they have no input whatsoever, either individually or collectively?
Sadly, many would just shrug and ignore it. Many choose not to participate in the process anyway, or already believe that they have no input.
What about those that do not ignore it? Since we've already removed the (far too plentiful) apathetic ones from our consideration, what is the most likely response from the remainder of the population?
I suspect many would follow a line of reasoning something like this:
If there has been no legitimate election, then those occupying political office have no legitimate claim to do so.
If they have no legitimate claim to their office, then nothing they say or do has any validity.
If their statements and actions are invalid, then they may be completely disregarded -- in effect, they no longer exist.
But Nature abhors a vacuum, and Man seems incapable of seeing a hole above himself in any power structure without at least considering whether or not he could step into that hole.
At this point, things turn ugly.
There would almost certainly be those, either individually or in groups, who would attempt to reinstate the practice of Might Makes Right, "persuading" those around them to go along with their wishes either in exchange for protection (there's safety in numbers, after all) or simply to avoid whatever methods of "persuasion" is being used.
At the very best, we would end up with something akin to the Confederacy of the middle 1800's, with all of that culture's drawbacks and few -- if any -- of its redeeming qualities.
All of which assumes, of course, that no other world power decides to intervene "for our own good" or "to provide economic/military stability" -- as we have been known to do in other countries.
I am afraid that if the majority of our population became convinced that the machine was broken, the results would be disastrous.
What if I become convinced that it is broken? What does that mean for me, personally?
I'm the first to admit that this country has its problems, but I'm still proud of her, and I love her even with her flaws. I sincerely believe that, taken as a whole, it is among the finest nations in the world. Think what you will of me, but I still believe in her, and in the Dream that so many have embraced down through the years -- even when they knew in advance that doing so might mean their own ruination.
I'm no conspiracy theorist. Too many times, I've seen the proof of the old adage about not attributing to maliciousness that which can be attributed instead to simple incompetence.
But what if I'm wrong? More importantly, what if I become convinced that I'm wrong -- that the Dream is dead, that all that remains of it is the man behind the curtain who knows which levers to pull to create the illusions?
The very thought turns my stomach... but is the alternative worse?
Which is better -- to continue to pursue the Dream, or to try and protect against the nightmare?
Tags:
no subject
I am trying to pursue the dream, to believe that the corruption is not as widespread and protected as it seems. But it is difficult.
:(
no subject
The relatively minimalist answer to your question is 'regime change.' Regime, however, is a very specific term, connotating a shared set of norms, scope, method, and control.
When you think the machine is busted, and enough people share your opinion, you change one or all of these variables.
This can be done in a number of ways. The traditional way in this country is to vote the bastards out. As you've posted elsewhere, this may be problematic if there is reason to believe that the vote counting mechanism is corrupted. There are ways around this. The first is litigation: hey, after all, that's how Shrub got in. The second is civil society: meetings, protests, and generally doing things that the PTB's frown upon.
The third thing people do is vote with their feet. See Icon.
The fourth is related to that i-card I sent you and your Lady Gryph today.
The fifth is coming up Sunday.
I know of no reason why gunpowder treason should e'er be forgot.
no subject
It is rather like the ostrich sticking his head into the sand, or running away. The problem still remains.
What's the old saying, that the only thing necessary for evil to flourish in the world is for good people to do nothing?
Lovely i-card, btw -- thank you!
no subject
no subject
I'm glad to hear about Montana, and I know at least one other state has done likewise (one of the East-coast states, but I'm not sure which). While paper ballots are by no means infallible or incorruptible, they are at least more difficult to bugger.