We've Come Almost Full Circle
Back in the 60s, it was "question authority" and "never trust anyone over 30." In 2008, the prevailing thinking seems to be "relinquish authority," and "let government do it," along with blind trust that government is good and will do "it" right -- whatever myriad things "it" may be.
At what point will the believers have their naivete yanked? And what happens then? Do people start thinking instead of looking for "hope" and "change" from their big, overpromising Federal nanny?
And, let's fantasize that people come to recognize what an error it is to hand over control to the government. This thing doesn't exactly have a tight turning radius. Will it be possible to turn things back? And, if so, what will it take?
I sure try to teach my kids the values of "question authority" whenever I can. (And they often question my authority!)
But when I visit various forums speaking of the election, I certainly see just what you're saying about the people placing all their faith in anything Obama might say or do.
It's astonishing to me, especially since it comes from so many who would claim to be real authority questioners.
I swear, neither of the candidate scare me as much as their zealots do.
jerry at November 1, 2008 12:44 AM
Wasn't there a movie about that ideology? Does anyone know the name of it?
Kendra at November 1, 2008 1:47 AM
Remember this? "...when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!"
That has been the perennial comment heard from those who value their firearms.
The same phrase applies to those in government, when We The People decide we want to reclaim the powers we handed to those In Authority.
There was a reason Jefferson wanted the people to have the freedom to own guns....
Unfortunately, many innocents tend to suffer when revolutions occur.
Eric F at November 1, 2008 1:57 AM
About 1990, after the Soviet Union did their implosion thing, a friend of mine went over to manage one of their collective farms, with the intent of injecting US management standards into the thing. The stories he tells are of a populace that sat around doing as little as possible while waiting for someone, or some group, from the central authorities to come around and do something. In many ways we are on that path, with our liability standards that only let top experts do/decide things, increasing regulations, and the usual slackers/goldbrickers that want their lifestyle to be the norm.
doombuggy at November 1, 2008 7:12 AM
This is the first phase of Subversive Strategy - right out of the commie handbook. DeMoralization is the phase whereby all of your norms fro good are torn down and replaced by something radically differnt. The Useful Idiots in this process are: Hollywood, Big Media and the Education Establishment. Look at the message they've been carrying for years - indoctrination of a whole different sort of society from which we started. What can you do? Turn off the TV. Be more selective in your Hollywood attachment - don't let your kids get sucked in. Correct the junk they come home with. get involved at school (better, keep them home!) Go over your kids' day - every day - correct, augment, reteach when necessary. Wage a one man war against the machine. State your truth, the truth you've always known but has been beaten down by these liberal socialist forces for 30 years, now.
gael at November 1, 2008 9:00 AM
I can't wait to read what Crid has to say about this.
Interesting: "And, let's fantasize that people come to recognize what an error it is to hand over control to the government. This thing doesn't exactly have a tight turning radius."
I think it WOULD have a tight turning radius, if people DID come to recognize what an error it is to hand control over to the government. It is precisely this lack of realization that leads to the clunky turning. However, I think it will be a while yet, before "the believers have their naivete yanked." Possibly the bankruptcy of Social Security - I don't know what it will take. Even then, the stupid bastards will probably just blame it on the free market. For now, federal debt simply grows, and it doesn't seem to affect very many people's day-to-day lives.
Pirate Jo at November 1, 2008 9:17 AM
"For now, federal debt simply grows, and it doesn't seem to affect very many people's day-to-day lives."
As long as the government can borrow, people's lives won't be affected. But sooner or later the US will try to issue bonds and won't find enough buyers. Think just what the current financial crisis means for tax income - the debt is going to grow even faster, while other countries have less money available to buy it. The day of reckoning may come sooner rather than later.
And Mr. Obama wants to "refund" taxes to people who don't pay any. Now that's really going to help...
bradley13 at November 1, 2008 9:52 AM
"You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement."
Now taking sign-ups for the Million Rope March On Congress...
--
phunctor
phunctor at November 1, 2008 12:18 PM
"Will it be possible to turn things back?"
No. No mere mortal can hope to slay Leviathan.
If you think that's too pessimistic, just consider the federal Department of Education, which was created by Jimmy Carter in October 1979, just before the ayatollahs took the American embassy hostage.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution lays out the duties and powers of Congress. There are 18 of them, starting with "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes..."
and ending with "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". Education is not on the list.
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The very creation and existence of this bureaucracy is unconstitutional. But here it is, 30 years later, with a budget of almost $ 100 billion a year and growing. What does America have to show for it, considering that the public school system is a national embarassment? But what are the odds that any future government will declare it an unconstitutional waste of taxpayer's money and tell everyone there to clean out their desks and go home?
Zero.
Martin at November 1, 2008 3:21 PM
PJ, you flatterer you.
(PS- I don't know who to vote for.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 1, 2008 3:35 PM
Phunctor, I'm sittin' here, I meeeeeeeean, I'm just sittin' here mindin' my own business, and you've got the nerve...
Egads. I'm channeling Arlo and he's not even dead yet. Perhaps there's still hope. Sign me up. o.O
Flynne at November 1, 2008 4:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/01/weve_come_almos.html#comment-1601985">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail](PS- I don't know who to vote for.)
E-mailed you.
P.S. I'm sitting in the dark. There's some power catastrophe in my neighborhood and they pulled the plug on all the electricity. Hoping to have power to blog later. If I'm late posting, will do it in the morning from a coffeeshop.
Amy Alkon at November 1, 2008 5:39 PM
And let's not forget all those people who were wild to start their own dot coms now want to work for some federal agency. Who wants to be a freelancer when he/she can be a Public Information Officer?
Kate at November 2, 2008 2:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/01/weve_come_almos.html#comment-1602219">comment from KateEventually, the whole country will just be government, like one ginormous teat shaped like the top of the capitol building.
Amy Alkon at November 2, 2008 3:28 PM
Hey - here's a "question authority" you can recognize!
Radwaste at November 2, 2008 4:33 PM
Yes children back in the good old days of my youth we spouted "question authority" and sometimes said it while sober. Of course back then there was a major authority figure telling us guys to load up for a fun trip over the waters to SE Asia. With the draft in place, options were limited if they drew your lucky number. So we questioned, and bitched and made ourselves a bit of a pain but were part of the reason the US packed it in over in 'Nam. Said authority figures did not like this so they created the all volunteer armed forces. Now our children are sent out to kill folks and almost no one takes to the street cause their ass is not on the line. I think a country trying to be a democracy must have the draft; all citizens (of the correct age group) have to play. This way leadership must do a very good job of selling military adventures or put up with much more domestic discontent.
Jim at November 2, 2008 5:57 PM
So, how much Cambodian blood is on your hands?
brian at November 2, 2008 7:11 PM
A while back on another thread, I put forth the idea that those people who were telling us to "question authority" now ARE the "Authority" and they are brooking NO questions. They were bullshitting us then, and are continuing to do so, and we're letting them. Doesn't say too much for our collective intelligence, eh? o.O
Flynne at November 3, 2008 5:55 AM
Brian
How do you want to measure the blood volume? Those killed by US bombing or those killed by Khmer Rouge or both?
Jim at November 3, 2008 11:49 AM
Had we fought the Viet Nam war to win it rather than to minimize the cultural damage wreaked by hippies back home, the Khmer Rouge would never have come to power in the first place.
So you've got some fraction of at least 2 million on your hands.
Although I'd not have some very good friends in my world were it not for the massive out-migration from south Viet Nam.
brian at November 3, 2008 12:11 PM
Brian
we started in 'Nam well quite a bit prior to hippies. We intervened there because we did not like the fact that in a UN sponsored election the clear majority choice a commie for a new leader. Actually we first screwed up at the end of WWII when someone decided we should help the French re-establish a colony in SE Asia instead of following our own history. We should have told the French that the folks in 'Nam deserved their freedom and should not have to be subject to rule by Europeans. At the time there were folks in the State Dept who supported that view but were told helping the French overruled freedom for Vietnamese. Who knows how things would have turned out if we had followed our principles instead of what seemed practical at the time? And of course it was never a declared war so perhaps by the rules of our nation it was an illeagal adventure. And quite a few historians assert the Khmer Rouge were handed a large recruiting tool when about 500,000 Cambodians were killed by USA bombs (which of course was a secrete attack on a nation that was supposed to be neutral. Ever seen photos of the results?)
Anyway stand by my original statement, if a democracy is to have armed forces, all citizens must suffer an equal chance of playing in the game. Seeing as you are the only one to respond what do you think of this Brian?
Jim at November 3, 2008 1:07 PM
I think you're a troll who can't wait to trot out the CHICKENHAWK! ad hominem, so I'm done with you.
brian at November 3, 2008 2:02 PM
"Anyway stand by my original statement, if a democracy is to have armed forces, all citizens must suffer an equal chance of playing in the game."
Well, obviously there are many exceptions; there's no way you mean "all".
Having done this myself, I must point out that citizens already have as "equal a chance" right now as you suggest - to volunteer. Many don't. Some are fearful of a variety of things. Others have opportunities that are clearly and objectively superior to enlisted service or a commission.
As usual, those who volunteer are held by some to be saps of some kind, from a false position of superiority.
Cue George Orwell about rough men.
But a democracy doesn't depend on forcing unpleasant duties upon anyone. They'll refuse, especially if they can get paid to vote. It depends on the public volunteering to be responsible for themselves, in many more walks of life than down the road to the barracks.
A democracy isn't where somebody in a position of power tells you what to do. You really need to think about that more.
Radwaste at November 3, 2008 2:23 PM
Word on the street says Peter Townshend, of The Who, is going to retitle a famous song of his,
"We will get fooled again...and again...and again."
MarkJ at November 3, 2008 3:28 PM
"The very creation and existence of this bureaucracy is unconstitutional."
Martin -- the problem is: People don't *know* that.
We have to find a way to educate people about what the Constitution actually says. To paraphrase Clarence Thomas -- it's easier to understand than a cell phone contract and a hell of a lot more important.
We're up against educational institutions that have no incentive to help, of course. But we have to find a way.
We need to make people understand that the fundamental *political* values that were a given for our country's first 100-150 years are being replaced by something very different.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
-- Norman Thomas, 1884-1968, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
Kirsten at November 3, 2008 3:34 PM
Well disgusted this country may be on the brink of electing a socialist president, I do not feel we will go quickly or quietly down this road. If Obama were to get 60%+ of the popular vote, that would scare me, but my guess is that he gets 51-52%, far from the 'mandate' the liberal media will claim it to be. (They will claim any Obama victory a mandate for 'change'.)
We can keep America great, however an Obama victory will mean we must act quickly. We must regain Congress in 2010 and put the brakes on things. If Obama wins tomorrow and again in 2012, then it may be too late. However, I have faith in America. I have faith in the folks that work hard and create jobs and wealth. We will not give up the fruits of our labor without the fight of our lives.
Aarob at November 3, 2008 3:40 PM
How long will it take for people to realize Obama isn't and can't pay their mortgage? Obama's promises will fall far short, his programs will fail because such programs have ultimately always failed.
It just a matter of how long it will take enough of the people to realize this.
DADvocate at November 3, 2008 5:36 PM
Brian define troll (someone who disagrees with you?).
Who gets paid to vote (does the paid time off my employer allows make me paid to vote)?
I agree democracy should not force unplesant activity on people. On the other hand, if all have to share in the unplesantness related to military activity (some kind of system that would not let privledged children off the hook) then many more people are forced to think about and take a stand about said activity. I think many people have opposed the current festivities in Iraq, but, because we have all voluteer armed forces many who do not have to risk dying are happy to stay home and watch tv instead of trying to convince politicians to get us out of there.
Oh, and to all who think BO will be all that radical, don't get your hopes up. Between whatever he tries to do and what all the other politicians in DC want to do not much at all will happen.
I will bet though that he does not socialize any business like the Bushies are doing to the banks.
Funny how their friends stuff is too important to fail but what they really are doing is just postponing the failure to the future.
Jim at November 3, 2008 6:31 PM
Jim proclaimed, "If a democracy is to have armed forces, all citizens must suffer an equal chance of playing in the game."
And that's why Jim has been a tireless advocate of drafting only women for the next couple of hundred years, to make up for the time women have missed out on "playing in the game." Or there's the possibility that Jim is eager to take away women's citizenship.
Micha Elyi at November 3, 2008 7:46 PM
Kirsten: "We have to find a way to educate people about what the Constitution actually says".
I try to do my part by buying lots of copies (just $ 4.95 for the combined Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation on Amazon). and giving them away to as many people (and their school-age kids) as I can. Yes, of course they could read it on the web for free, but that doesn't have the same impact. They're always surprised to find out how small and compact it is when they hold it in their hands, and how clear and easy it is to read.
Remember the European Constitution that the French rejected in a referendum in 2005? Valery Giscard d'Estaing, it's principle author, called that 1000-page abomination "as perfect as, perhaps less elegant than, the Constitution of the United States of America".
Now here we are in 2008, and half of all Americans are voting for a man who has declared in public that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't mandate or allow the redistribution of wealth.
Jefferson and Madison are crying in their graves.
Martin at November 3, 2008 9:56 PM
It was Fredrich Nietszchi who said:
"Liberalism in the turning of mankind into cattle."
Jefferson and Madison are crying in their graves.
As are many others. And Franklin is passing out the tissues. o.O
Flynne at November 4, 2008 5:44 AM
Sorry, NietszchE.
Flynne at November 4, 2008 6:13 AM
Geez, Amy started this string talking about whatever happened to the atitude of "question authority" and I think much of the drive to do so was removed when the draft was eliminated (what, me worry? i am not gonna die, just those volunteers are!).
Brian wonders if I have Cambodian blood on my hands (as a nation, yep we do, about 2.5 million dead Cambodians, also a bunch of other SE Asians and Americans).
Micha somehow spins bringing back the draft as an attack on womens citizenship (maybe she is trying for sarcasm?). Only Rad wants to talk about it.
Rad: sure powerful authority should not force the citizens into doing things they do not want to. However if a majority agree it is the duty of the citizens to serve in defense of the nation then should it not be the way things are done? Also if all have to serve then the leadership must get most folks to support whatever military activity they have in mind or face another "question authority" movement.
Jim at November 4, 2008 8:35 AM
You cannot run a country without the option of the draft. There is always the possibility of invasion, and citizens must defend their country. I do think women should be drafted. But, not only women, unless you want to allow only women to vote fora few hundred years as well, to make up for all the time we couldn't.
Question authority was annoying. I'm glad it's gone. Thinking clearly, that should be the new motto.
momof3 at November 4, 2008 10:39 AM
Here's the rub.
If FDR had supported the desires of the American people in 1941, we'd have never gotten into WWII.
That's why we have a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC and not a Democracy. Because sometimes the people are wrong.
brian at November 4, 2008 11:50 AM
Leave a comment