What to do what to do...
cn | 10 March, 2007 23:01I've been thinking a lot lately about what's going on in the world and what's going on with people in the world and why things are how they are. I have certain beliefs about liberty and freedom and the general rights of all people that, based on events in the world, are not beliefs that are shared by other people...obviously.
I think there are so many things that influence peoples' moment-to-moment beliefs and decisions that people often are not fully aware of what they are supporting or choosing. As a result, in the moment they hear a public figure speak or read a news article, they are impassioned, they are caught up in the rhetoric of the moment and forget the implications of the action they are about to support or the action or stance that the public figure is taking.
The media and those people who exist in the public eye and have established themselves in positions of power are well aware of their own capacity to sway public opinion and belief and choose to do so in a way that will entrench enough of the general public on their own side and keep the masses at bay, as it were. You see, I believe that if most people fully understood the implications inherent in restricting our rights defined in the Constitution - especially restricting them in the manner in which the government is currently proceeding - people would to a great extent oppose the direction in which our society is moving.
But how will people come to understand what is really going on in the world? How will they come to move beyond the immediate blood and gore of the front page of the newspaper or the meaningless yet emotionally moving speeches of politicians to see the real issues? I have some opinions about this but essentially it all comes down to objectivity and respect for the general public.
It would seem that most politicians have one of two driving beliefs in place:
- the general public is ignorant and even if given all the information they will make poor choices, therefore as I (the politician) must misinform them in order to protect them from themselves.
- the general public is smart, but if I (the politician) give them all the relevant information they will not support me and I will lose my power/money/etc, therefore I must misinform them in order to maintain my position of power.
Not to say that all politicians fall into one of these two camps, but it would seem that a great many wish to present only one side of data or not data at all when presenting their ideas.
The obvious question would be 'How do we change this?' But perhaps a more important question would be: 'Why change it?' or phrased with less brevity: 'Is it even important or necessary to change it?'
I suppose that depends on one’s greatest desires in life – what one sees as important and how far into the future one looks. If all in the world I care about is the material possessions I have at this moment or the idea that I have a job today and will (I believe) have a job tomorrow, then what the goes on in the world does not concern me, so long as I’m continually assured that I can have my stuff and will have my job tomorrow. But let’s say that today I am told by an unassailable source that I can have my job forever – until I die or retire – and can keep everything I have now forever – until I die or give it away – but in exchange for these graces granted by this almighty entity I must subjugate myself and forfeit all my freedoms – those of speech, those of choice, those of religion, those of self-determination – to the whims of this unassailable source. What do I choose? I put forth that we as a culture, as a civilization, are choosing to forfeit ourselves to the unassailable source, a source which at any moment could decide to take what little it grants us, yet we continue down this road unseeing.
What will it take to see? What will it take for us as a culture and nation to step back and look down upon ourselves and ask: ‘Is this how humanity is meant to live? Is this all we can muster?’
Things for us as a society are very good right now but it seems to me that we are at a precarious position and can choose to step to the side of fear and veiled totalitarianism or to the side of freedom. The only catch is that we have to actually do something. And it might mean less TV or fewer Walmarts or more expensive gas. But that could all be gone tomorrow anyway if we choose to continue in the direction we’re headed.
I leave you with this:
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't mentally ill.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
The poem has a few versions – learn about them here.
Read an adapted modern version here.
Posted in
Ethics, Philosophy, Politics .
Comment: (0).
Trackbacks:(0).
Permalink
«Next post |
Previous post»