I don't think that most people ask themselves the questions raised here. They are mostly busy living their lives accommodating themselves to living among people different from them where they have little power; they are adjusting to informing themselves about many things, some of which interest them and others than don't; they seek independence while discovering it means interdependence in a large diverse society; they are discovering roles within family life for themselves while procreating and raising others; they are learning how to be valuable to others within a business environment or how to go it alone to earn a living; and, after a productive life they are adjusting to conserving their assets for a respectable livable life in declining years. All of these things as youngsters, adolescents, new workers, productive adults, sexual beings, wage earners, or leisure enjoying people take much thought and experience outside of politics, the tacit subject here.
Hence we have democratic bedrock elections as periodic intrusions into life. Campaigns are seen by most as beauty contests with votes going to the handsomest face or body. Party or candidate issues are seen as bumper stickers or slogans, one issue considered at a time--at the last minute before only half of citizens or less enter polling booths. Party affiliations are mostly inherited from parents or friends instead of critical thinking about their actions that may influence daily living. Superficial attention is paid to those who want to become our leaders, lawmakers and occasional elected jurists. Absent a compelling argument about existential continuance as a free individual, we don't pay much attention to 'democracy'.
So what is to be done beyond answering a plethora of political, economic, religious and self-interest questions? Politicians generate existential issues like abortion rights being taken away, that threaten bodily harm. Existing leaders start external or internal wars to insist voters not change horses mid-stream. Media facile individuals invent phony issues threatening child harm, sexual depredation, job loss, financial jeopardy, loss of living standards and the like to scare people into voting. Few in charge of the media heed the standards of fair and balanced , correct spoken/written lies on air or in print as interviewers, commentators or editors. Few former leaders insist on bedrock principles and issues that endure over time to define party platforms. So mustn't we all stand on and talk about our mutual rights and responsibilities in public and private discourse. Recall all the stories of the oddball relative at family gatherings.
Must we be scared before we act or vote, or should standard media fare include editorials and news about good things happening across the country, not just police and crime statistics.
Should we become more aware of national and international affairs to rein in foreign adventures or debunk national conspiracy theories. Shouldn't we insist that local, state and national elected officials devote their energies to our everyday living issues, with action to enhance the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't polls account for anything but media fodder. Can't we review our national past to keep or resurrect the best practices of national life instead of change for its own sake.
Can't we summon the courage of our beliefs and explain them to others so we retain the good things and reject the bad in personal and public life. We can't be afraid to tell others what works for us so they know they are not alone, or they can adopt or adapt workable solutions to their own problems. And shouldn't we all adopt a more patient attitude toward ever-increasing change in a smaller, faster, more connected world? Who should teach us these things, more answers to the article questions than just asking us to question ourselves. That's what critical thinking teaching should be in schools.
As usual, a thoughtful response. I appreciate the additional questions you presented. I am not advocating that people indulge themselves in these issues in a compulsivrly obsessive way. Rather, that from time to time, they engage in a critical self-analysis of their own opinions.
In line with what I've posted here, you may find this Twitter (or "X", if you prefer) thread by Ben Rhodes a helpful addition:
https://t.co/CtwqKZi5wT
I don't think that most people ask themselves the questions raised here. They are mostly busy living their lives accommodating themselves to living among people different from them where they have little power; they are adjusting to informing themselves about many things, some of which interest them and others than don't; they seek independence while discovering it means interdependence in a large diverse society; they are discovering roles within family life for themselves while procreating and raising others; they are learning how to be valuable to others within a business environment or how to go it alone to earn a living; and, after a productive life they are adjusting to conserving their assets for a respectable livable life in declining years. All of these things as youngsters, adolescents, new workers, productive adults, sexual beings, wage earners, or leisure enjoying people take much thought and experience outside of politics, the tacit subject here.
Hence we have democratic bedrock elections as periodic intrusions into life. Campaigns are seen by most as beauty contests with votes going to the handsomest face or body. Party or candidate issues are seen as bumper stickers or slogans, one issue considered at a time--at the last minute before only half of citizens or less enter polling booths. Party affiliations are mostly inherited from parents or friends instead of critical thinking about their actions that may influence daily living. Superficial attention is paid to those who want to become our leaders, lawmakers and occasional elected jurists. Absent a compelling argument about existential continuance as a free individual, we don't pay much attention to 'democracy'.
So what is to be done beyond answering a plethora of political, economic, religious and self-interest questions? Politicians generate existential issues like abortion rights being taken away, that threaten bodily harm. Existing leaders start external or internal wars to insist voters not change horses mid-stream. Media facile individuals invent phony issues threatening child harm, sexual depredation, job loss, financial jeopardy, loss of living standards and the like to scare people into voting. Few in charge of the media heed the standards of fair and balanced , correct spoken/written lies on air or in print as interviewers, commentators or editors. Few former leaders insist on bedrock principles and issues that endure over time to define party platforms. So mustn't we all stand on and talk about our mutual rights and responsibilities in public and private discourse. Recall all the stories of the oddball relative at family gatherings.
Must we be scared before we act or vote, or should standard media fare include editorials and news about good things happening across the country, not just police and crime statistics.
Should we become more aware of national and international affairs to rein in foreign adventures or debunk national conspiracy theories. Shouldn't we insist that local, state and national elected officials devote their energies to our everyday living issues, with action to enhance the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't polls account for anything but media fodder. Can't we review our national past to keep or resurrect the best practices of national life instead of change for its own sake.
Can't we summon the courage of our beliefs and explain them to others so we retain the good things and reject the bad in personal and public life. We can't be afraid to tell others what works for us so they know they are not alone, or they can adopt or adapt workable solutions to their own problems. And shouldn't we all adopt a more patient attitude toward ever-increasing change in a smaller, faster, more connected world? Who should teach us these things, more answers to the article questions than just asking us to question ourselves. That's what critical thinking teaching should be in schools.
As usual, a thoughtful response. I appreciate the additional questions you presented. I am not advocating that people indulge themselves in these issues in a compulsivrly obsessive way. Rather, that from time to time, they engage in a critical self-analysis of their own opinions.
Yes, but as I indicated, people don't feel such a strong attachment or dependence on democracy as I'd like or expect, compared to myself and you.
And that is exactly the problem.