Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Changing the World
One of the most cherished items in my possession is a postcard that was sent from Mississippi to the Upper West Side of Manhattan in June 1964.
“Dear Mom and Dad,” it says, “I have arrived safely in Meridian, Mississippi. This is a wonderful town and the weather is fine. I wish you were here. The people in this city are wonderful and our reception was very good. All my love, Andy.”
That was the last word sent to his family by Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old college student who was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, along with fellow civil rights workers Michael Schwerner and James Chaney, on his first full day in Mississippi — June 21, the same date as the postmark on the card. The goal of the three young men had been to help register blacks to vote.
The postcard was given to me by Andrew’s brother, David, who has become a good friend.
Andrew and that postcard came to mind over the weekend as I was thinking about the sense of helplessness so many ordinary Americans have been feeling as the nation is confronted with one enormous, seemingly intractable problem after another. The helplessness is beginning to border on paralysis. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly a decade long, are going badly, and there is no endgame in sight.
Monday morning’s coffee was accompanied by stories about suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad that killed at least 150 people and wounded more than 500 and helicopter crashes in Afghanistan that killed 14 Americans.
Here at home, the terrible toll from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression continues, with no end to the joblessness in sight and no comprehensible plans for fashioning a healthy economy for the years ahead. The government’s finances resemble a Ponzi scheme. If you want to see the epidemic that is really clobbering American families, look past the H1N1 virus to the home foreclosure crisis.
The Times ran a Page A1 article on Monday that said layoffs, foreclosures and other problems associated with the recession had resulted in big increases in the number of runaway children, many of whom were living in dangerous conditions in the streets.
Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins. Where people once might have deluged their elected representatives with complaints, joined unions, resisted mass firings, confronted their employers with serious demands, marched for social justice and created brand new civic organizations to fight for the things they believed in, the tendency now is to assume that there is little or nothing ordinary individuals can do about the conditions that plague them.
This is so wrong. It is the kind of thinking that would have stopped the civil rights movement in its tracks, that would have kept women in the kitchen or the steno pool, that would have prevented labor unions from forcing open the doors that led to the creation of a vast middle class.
This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.
Those chickens have come home to roost. Being an American has become a spectator sport. Most Americans watch the news the way you’d watch a ballgame, or a long-running television series, believing that they have no more control over important real-life events than a viewer would have over a coach’s strategy or a script for “Law & Order.”
With that kind of attitude, Andrew Goodman would never have left the comfort of his family home in Manhattan. Rosa Parks would have gotten up and given her seat to a white person, and the Montgomery bus boycott would never have happened. Betty Friedan would never have written “The Feminine Mystique.”
The nation’s political leaders and their corporate puppet masters have fouled this nation up to a fare-thee-well. We will not be pulled from the morass without a big effort from an active citizenry, and that means a citizenry fired with a sense of mission and the belief that their actions, in concert with others, can make a profound difference.
It can start with just a few small steps. Mrs. Parks helped transform a nation by refusing to budge from her seat. Maybe you want to speak up publicly about an important issue, or host a house party, or perhaps arrange a meeting of soon-to-be dismissed employees, or parents at a troubled school.
It’s a risk, sure. But the need is great, and that’s how you change the world.
- Posted in
107 Comments so far
Show All"Changing the world" is the acme of hucksterism. Ergo President Obama who has used this expression several times during the campaigns is a huckster. I am even willing to call this megalomania, a well known mental and moral affliction.
This is priceless---the NYT, home of Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman, bemoaning the state of the world they helped f**k up, now implores us to fix it one house party at a time.
Lets see.....we voted out republicans and voted in democrats. We voted out more republicans and we voted in more democrats. We voted in the first black president, a democrat, with promises of change. We had hope!
The congress and the president have sided with the very wealthy.
Every conversation I get into with more than one person seems to have a crazed Rush fan or an even more rabid Glenn Beck fan. Intelligent, middle class people. There is no longer a dialogue. There is no longer a respect for the opinions of others and a willingness to see reason.
We've done more than take a few small steps. And the tide is not turning.
Things will be completely out of control soon. And there will be violence.
Whose world do we want to change, the entire planet or our own surroundings? I find it easier to change what's here at home rather than lecturing other countries to change. Our leader lied about change we can believe in and now I understand why the few out there said "Yeah, no change to believe in". Other countries are trying to change but the US is getting in their way. Any country actually trying to go green the US looks the other way when their own companies try to sabotage their efforts. Any country trying to peacefully subdue terrorist organizations and the CIA swoops in to bail them out. India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan need to unite and get the West out of the way to defeat the Western planted terrorists.
As Mr. Dylan said " When you got nothin' you got, you got nothin' to lose" or to paraphrase Christopherson "Freedom's just another word for no job left to lose"
The sentiments expressed in this article are wonderful. He simply calls on Americans to do what they have always done.
And without facing the dangers Andrew Goodman faced those many years ago. Just take a bit of personal responsibility for the country and the bottom feeders now in control.
Change the world? Forget it. Aside from the fact that only a meglomaniac would have delusions of getting so many diverse peoples and cultures to agree on anything, the idea is absurd and childish. Talk to them till they do what you want? And what ever made anyone think that the rest of the world wants what (you) want?
Its hard enough to get the citizens of one country to agree on something. There are a lot of folks that should read Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" for a bit of truthful reality.
"This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs"
Thats us.
I wonder, Henry, are these rhetorical differences?
Change the world? Why not? -- it's not like the thing ever stays the same anyway.
I don't see what change has to do with unanimous agreement. After all, we didn't all agree to the last set of changes, did we?
As to people wanting something because I tell them to, well, I'll tell you if I work out a system.
Personal responsibility - what is that but wanting to change the world? :
IF
--- I acknowledge that my actions have consequence,
THEN,
----- I might monitor my actions accordingly.
If it's not this world you change by being responsible, Henry, whose is it?
Mr. Herbert,
Please help us change the world by using your column to demand reinstatement of a new improved Fairness Doctrine and anti-trusting the media megaliths into a thousand little pieces.
There will be no change in our country until the corporate fascists most powerful weapon is taken away...the ability to control the discussion.
If we are able to sever the claws of the corporations from our mass media and return ownership to the public we can quickly address and enact authentic progressive change.
As long as the oligarchy controls the message there's only one guarantee: we will be denied true health care, there will be more wars based on lies, Wall Street will sink it's choke hold on our government even tighter and our Constitutional rights will continue to erode.
Whoever controls the media will control the country. Period.
Thanks - CX-1
Why wait for Bob Herbert to demand change? Why don't you demand change yourself?
You could start by turning off the radio and turning off the television. Get out from under the clutches of infotainment masquerading as journalism. Boycott the advertisers. Campaign against politicians who only pay lip service to meaningful change. Talk to your neighbors.
Make your own demands. Don't wait for someone else to do it.
If we all sit around bemoaning our fate without lifting a finger to promote change, we have only ourselves to blame for the result.
from the article:
We will not be pulled from the morass without a big effort from an active citizenry, and that means a citizenry fired with a sense of mission and the belief that their actions, in concert with others, can make a profound difference.
This is true, but ambiguous...a big effort toward what end? If the end is an agrarian, acoustic way of life, locally defined, sustained and defended, I would agree...however, if the big effort is toward, for example, a restarting of bygone industry and the related destructive and toxic practices, fueled by the utter disappearance of remaining natural resources and mounting credit debt to fund and purchase, I would suggest more thinking...the living planet cannot tolerate that...
People don't speak up as much partly because nowadays if you speak up, you don't get argued with, you get demonized, ridiculed and destroyed.
Another factor is how complex some of the crises are. What layman really knows how to fix the banking system? Prevent foreclosures? End the wars?
But Bob is missing the fact that people ARE speaking up and taking stands despite all that. They're being ignored.
It's the leadership and courage in government and business that's lacking. (See Obama's failure to rally around his own cause of health care.) And that feeds back to us in a loop of helplessness, promoting paralysis and despair.
"But Bob is missing the fact that people ARE speaking up and taking stands despite all that. They're being ignored." -- commenter
I agree that people are speaking out, and they are trying to be heard -- For instance, look at the polls for health care reform: anywhere from 55% to 72% of the population wants, and needs, single-payer health care. But, our elected officials represent the corporations and NOT "we the people." In addition, "we the people," overwhelmingly, did call our elected officials and we told them NOT to vote for the bank bailout. As I recall, the calls were 90-1 to vote against the bailout.
"It's the leadership and courage in government and business that's lacking. (See Obama's failure to rally around his own cause of health care.) And that feeds back to us in a loop of helplessness, promoting paralysis and despair." -- commenter
I agree!
Third parties might not be able to win elections, but if enough people support third parties, a shift can begin to take place. (BTW, I did NOT vote for Obama.) There are so many issues to confront, and NOT being able to pay the rent or the mortgage and buy food can bring on the ultimate despair of failure in a society that bows to the almighty dollar.
At this point in time, I am noticing that many of my friends -- some of whom had quit replying to my political e-mails -- are beginning to take action once again and they are speaking out, too.
I know sometimes it seems hard to continue to believe that "we the people" can make a difference. I believe we can still change things around, but it will require us to be honest with ourselves and others.
We must be willing to fight to save this nation. We must be willing to risk our lives, fortunes, and all the other things that the first American Patriots risked by signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776. We must be willing to leave both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who have caused this mess and become active in building a third party from the ground up and work our tails off to make that party the avenue that real change will come from.
I believe that same spirit that was in the generation who fought for Civil Rights is still in this generation of boomers, generation X and the young people today. Will we start to make our public officals give an accounting for their actions? Will we demand that they are honest with us and tell us the truth? Will we demand real election campaign reform so that all candidates must only take public money of a certain amount and not private donations from corporations or lobby groups. Will we have the courage to fight? If we continue in our slumber this country that was founded by our ancestors the Founding Fathers will be lost forever. We may still have the name America and politicans and others use the name of our Founding Fathers, wrap themselves in the American flag, and say how much they love this country; but we all know it will be a sham.
This article confirmed I was on the right path in my joining the Green party and to continue to work toward one of my goals of electing a member to Congress from the Green Party. I can only speak about myself, but I love this country. I love the History of this country. I love reading about what my ancestors did from the time they came over on the Mayflower and know that I their decendent must continue to fight with courage and honor as they did. I am reading a book about the First Families that is really good. We have a lot of wonderful History and the brave men and women who walked before us were willing to risk their lives for the love of this country. I was just reading last night how Dolly Madision would not leave when the British were coming without taking the picture of George Washington. They had to remove the frame and just take the picture. She just barely got out in time before the British came and burned the White House. Do we really love this country or is it just words like Politicans use every election time but without really meaning it from their hearts?
It is time for us to stand up and fight!!!! It is time for us to stand up and make those in political office do the right thing!!!!! It is time for us the American people to make sure that they tell us the TRUTH. If they lie to us than we need to make them give an accounting for every LIE they tell. Until we do that we will continue on the path that we have been on for years of allowing evil corruption to take over our government that has led us to this place of suffering we are at now.
Thank you for writing the aritcle I am posting it on my blog.
When millions of Americans marched to oppose the invasion of Iraq the New York Times ignored the protests with a vengeance. When millions of Americans seek to discover the truth about the events of 9/11/2001 the New York Times ignores their calls for a meaningful investigation with a vengeance. When millions of Americans shout warnings about global warming the New York Times ignores their cries with a vengeance.
When labor laws that protected workers attempting to organize a union were gutted the New York Times supported those changes. When bankruptcy laws that protected ordinary people were gutted to benefit the banksters the New York Times supported the banksters. When George W. Bush for eight years administered the worst presidency in history the New York Times failed to do its duty to judge his errors harshly.
If the New York Times would really like to lead the cause of change in the United States they would fire, for cause, every member of their editorial board, and their publisher should fire himself with Bob Herbert leading the parade out the door.
Stop buying it. Stop reading it. Encourage others to do the same.
The NYT e-mails me their headlines and main stories. 9 times out of 10 it gets deleted without having been opened.
What is it with the defeatist attitude of these first ten posts?
Demonized? This story is about people who got murdered. You're afraid to be demonized? How come the teabaggers aren't afraid to be demonized? Why isn't Dick Cheney afraid to be demonized? Why aren't the Christian Right and the NRA afraid to be demonized? All of them are demonized, and justifiably so, but they keep on plugging away, and they keep on getting their way.
Bob Herbert using his column to encourage the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine will do nothing, given that the Fairness Doctrine only applies to two themes, both of them called Friedman, that is, Thomas or Milton. Both "sides" of the Fairness Doctrine promote the same theme -- American global hegemony. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Bob Herbert is also not The New York Times. He's an opinion writer, and the Times, for all the obvious faults of its editorial policy as manifested in its "news" stories, publishes a diversity of opinions, and Herbert is valid as Herbert. He's the only mainstream pundit in America talking boldly about there being no such thing as a jobless recovery, and the social crisis time bomb that pretense is building. No one can touch him in speaking plain truth.
Most important here is his reminder that the only institutions that work are the ones we create ourselves, which is the only thing we as individuals control. We can't change the Fairness Doctrine to include the full spectrum of opinion. All we can do is skip over the Fairness Doctrine completely by organizing and communicating in forums of our own creation.
Ask Herbert where to start? It's your neighborhood, not his. Ask yourself. Look around you. What needs fixing most? That's where you start.
And all of you, so far, are finding reasons to declare him wrong? The struggle for change is overly ambitious? Egomaniacal and megalomaniacal in its own fashion? A NY Times conspiracy? Wow. Who are the real surrender monkeys? Is this the Common Dreams readership? What are we to expect of less ideologically homogeneous readerships? Why is so much money coming in on that thermometer every three months? So the publisher of CD can make a nice living by providing us a comfortable whining zone in which we massage each other into surrender? This is pathetic. The Democrats are spineless? No, they just know that we are, so they're free to ignore us, and have plenty of spine as they do that. Progressives of today don't deserve the weekends the labor activists of yesteryear fought and died for. Died for -- people with families, shot on picket lines, murdered in their homes. And you're claiming we can't organize today because we'll be demonized. Do you people even make a reflection in the mirror?
No, you can't change the world by organizing in your neighborhood. But you can change your neighborhood. And when a critical mass of neighborhoods have been changed, you can step back and see that the whole country has changed. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked, and there are no reasons, only excuses, for claiming it can't -- or shouldn't -- be done now. Especially when the regressives are doing it, and so aggressively and relentlessly, and so successfully.
No excuses. Go out and do it. Getting started is simple. Go to www.commonplans.blogspot.com for pointers that definitely work.
Right, Steve. And some few of us are 'doing', while the rest sit in their recliners with a beer watching tv [where they will never see us, because the owners of the tv companies and other media - 5 of them, worldwide] don't want the public to know we are out here. There IS hope. If you are a veteran, join Veterans for Peace, for we are becoming a force in the nation. Or join Iraq Veterans Against War. If you are not a veteran, join your local Peace and Justice Organization. And give your self and your family the biggest gift of your life - put your television in the dumpster and never look back. It will alter your life forever and for the betterment of you and your children. It is the biggest weapon in the arsenal of the super rich and the corporations. Kill your Television.
You said it Steve.
It takes lots of dedication to fight for change after reading most of the defeatist surrender ramblings on Common Dreams.
Still, I see changes in the world.
Sure things are gonna get worse, a lot worse.... that is why we are here to make our own lives better and help our friends and neighbors if we can.
.
I really dont know that there is much that we can do about it, anything reasonable that is.
The politicians are all corrupt, no matter who you vote into office. The politicians are also controlled by the corporations and the lobbyists. The media is controlled by the government. The people are not longer represented by their government.
There are only a couple choices really and they are not easy or comfortable to entertain. And if the people decide, there will be no turning back.
IT IS NOT so much that the "politicians are all corrupt" ONLY.
it is that AMERICA "the PEOPLE are CoRRUPT" ..as Benjamin Franklin long ago ALREADY OBSERVED.
mind you -- he phrased it by linking the FUTURE to the PRESENT character of what he already was seeing:
"should this nation fall...it SHALL fall NOT because of foreign enemies or threats, real or imagined...but because the people ARE Corrupt".
the politicians - where there is no longer a case of just " a few bad apples " but the ENTIRE system of governance is corrupt
can ONLY be explained by the nation-wide Tacit agreement , or TOLERANCE of THE PEOPLE to have such a system driven to such corruption.
it is the ACCUMULATION of CHOICES by the collective will of americans -- shared throughout the nation -
which starts with LOCAL politics, then town-wide, then city-wide, then boroughs and districts, then state, then federal...
you add it all up like little stones and pebbles
and it all becomes a MOUNTAIN of corruption.
but WHERE does it really start?
in the conscience, the PREFERENCES , the CHOICES of the everyday american.
therefore - it can justifiably be said that while there are no perfect nations or cultures or people...
NO CORRUPTED SYSTEM has evolved with SUCH COMPLICITY by an entire culture and people AS america.
if anything - this CORRUPTION - that is so intrinsic and so ESSENTIAL to america - is really an example of what the German writer Friedrich Nietsche called "WILL TO POWER"...
AMERICANS WILLED Themselves to POWER (and brag about it as "american ruggedness and ingenuity and hardwork..and all other ingredients that have led to hubris) --
and what they WILLED is CORRUPTION as the way TO power.
Thanks, Teddy, for stating the obvious.
Pogo's long ago comment is being proved more and more critical with each passing crisis.
'We have met the enemy and he is us!'
So stop being the enemy... your surrender to Corruption is your own failure.
Pick yourself up off the floor.
Please. Workers were powerless against owners when the labor movement got started. Blacks were powerless against Whites when the civil rights movement got started. Women were powerless in the workforce (and practically everywhere) until they organized. All eventually became extremely powerful. To the extent that they are less powerful today, it is because of backing off their organizing, not because anyone is inherently powerless or powerful.
You're missing Herbert's theme. It's the elephant in the progressive living room. Almost nobody amongst us actually organizes. The blogosphere hasn't helped -- we've all decided to be writers instead of organizers, as if powerful institutions will leap into existence if enough people read about the need for them. But what you have to do is organize -- from scratch, in your own town or neighborhood. The goal is to become a lobby as powerful as the regressive lobbies. None of them grew into power overnight. IBM was once a ten-key manufacturer in a small town in central NY. The entire Hughes empire came from a drill bit, and in only 30 years was a manufacturing, entertainment, and travel empire, before defense contracts even came into the picture. General Electric was once a poorly educated guy in New Jersey with a light bulb he built at home. And you don't need patents, lawyers, government contacts, and Ivy League educations to do it. The Crips started out as a small, neighborhood street gang, and achieved nationwide power without benefit of high school diploma. Everything that is now large and seemingly unassailable got started and was built.
Get started, and build. Herbert is right, and everyone here who is criticizing and complaining about him, his column's parent company, and the immutability of powerlessness is wrong. Get started, and build. Build until you're as big as you need to be to get what you want. www.commonplans.blogspot.com
Right. And do it now. It is true that we who have been on the front lines against environmental destruction and against the increasing power of corporations have so far lost. It does NOT mean the fight is hopeless. And even if it is, we can not go down without a fight. 30% of the colonials in N america fomented and ran and fought a revolution. Very few blacks stood up for their rights. Feminists were scorned by their own female contemporaries.
FUCK APATHY. FIGHT FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN!!!
This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.
===================
I came across a statement by an american poet -- but I no longer can remember his name:
"WE AMERICANS ....CAREFULLY NURTURE AN ATTITUDE OF DETACHED INDIFFERENCE TO THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS...EVEN IF *WE* ARE THE CAUSE OF IT".
IS the perfect amalgamation of "america".
despite fine, conscientious individuals...it is now a "nation" that can only be described as has BEEN described - by people high or low, famous or unfamous:
:"....the PEOPLE are CORRUPT"..Benjamin Franklin
"...we are a Nation of Racketeers"..General Smedley Butler, US marines
"...an Accident...a Disastrous accident"...Sigmund Freud
"...hubristic and arrogant"
"...the most entertained and the least informed"
and America "the nation" keeps JUSTIFYING those definitions.
America trying to "change" the world?
isn't there a line that goes:
"PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF?"
Seriously - is it so difficult to understand why we 'average' Americans have all but given up 'the fight'?
My folks were environmental activists for 30-some years - and said environment is worse now than it's ever been...
The anti-nukers - also 30+ years... and more nukes than ever, including the new, sexy bunker busters!...
We worked our asses off and still lost the 'war on poverty.' Not just lost - the score was like 52-3...
And, every single day, we read about how 'our' government is owned by Big Bankster and their Big Everything Else partners, and about how they so easily bribe 'our' Congress with peanuts to never, ever actually represent the will of The People...
Front page, right out in the open: "Frankly, they own the place." Not renting it, not leasing it - THEY OWN IT!
And, since we know that any owners of the government with both the mightiest military, and mightiest private armies, in history ain't giving up the reigns without a fight to the death, we Americans have decided that living like this is still better than being shot by a Blackwater mercenary working for a ruthless Goliath just for holding up a sign and walking in circles...
the real line of attack and defense will be found at the door to one's dwelling, the edge of one's property...under the guise of eviction and foreclosure...
that is where the economic realities of industry, law enforcement and incarceration meet the finite, dwindling resources of this living planet and the human business destroying such...
will you be alone in your financial plight at that moment, or will neighbors band together and provide defense and shelter? we must reassess the notion of private property, as it enslaves us all to the detriment of our living world...
service economies cannot self-sustain...
neither can planet-destroying economies, as we have no more planets...
the bankers and landlords vs. you and the living world...
that is the future...how many will fight with the bankers?
The question is not how many will fight, the question is, are you gonna fight?
that is right, sir, and yes...the time between now and then is for preparation...freeing one's mind from the current cultural grip is not easy...local food, water, shelter and alliances already in place will go far in relieving the individual fear of fundamental change and confrontation, a not unreasonable fear in a world typified by groups of armed officers assaulting already-bound individuals at will with no repercussion and robotic weaponry being fired at innocents from thousands of miles away...the core idea would be that many who currently side with the establishment, for whatever reasons, would cease to do so that day...
the interwoven fragility of our living world and the industrial tyranny of our current society, together, threaten all existence...a united, global movement to retake the physical planet for the sake of the living planet is the only way to prevent the death of all things...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...time to plan and plant...
When you watch Fox News you see a well-funded, well-oiled smear machine dedicated to preventing any change to the status-quo by labelling it communism and unleashing the Tea Party attack dogs. Every change Herbert calls for is being fought, and anyone who stands up to pursue them is being targetted. Fox News won't tell its attack dogs that the crisis that are hollowing out the country are actually good for international business interests and hence its advocacy. While the ordinary young American is being targetted for third world status, great care is being taken to pull the attack dogs from those segments of the population who've benefitted the most from a previous generations largess (ex-military, rural folks, older folks on Medicare). Such people from the start can't feel the pain of others because society has been generous enough to them in the past and still is. Add a healthy dose of misinformation of the 'you did it all yourself' variety, and off they go. It helps Fox that these people are operating on faith, it makes it easier to train them.
In effect, America's corporations are engaged in training the very thugs that killed Andrew Goodman in '64. They are numerous, extremely well-armed, and WILL start killing people if they are pushed into a Fox-defined 'point of no return' corner (such as passage of healthcare legislation).
Herbert: "Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country" Goodman's generation were, lets admit it, a little naive about the threat posed to them in Mississippi. Today, we are more like the Germans or Italians of 1930s, watching helplessly as no less than one-third of our countrymen goose-step their way into a glorious corporate future. Those folks are taking names, making lists, and preparing retribution. Under such circumstances, passivity may be the better part of valor.
I understand the argument for passivity. I do not buy it. In fact, there is another word for passivity, and that word is cowardice. It is not that the American people are passive. It is that they, like Obama, are gutless. Spineless. I think often of going to the Canadian border [a few miles from my home] and altering the sign at the border to read: Welcome to America, home of the terrified. And if people on Medicare are in some special well off category, I'd be interested in knowing about it. I am on Medicare, and Social Security. My total income is 1140 dollars per month, 100 of which is taken for the partial health insurance I get. No dental, no vision, and lots of doctors will not accept us, for the government will not pay the exorbitant fees they charge. I have been an activist all my life. I have nothing but contempt for the majority of Americans who allow 'passivity' [read cowardice] to destroy this once great country. I am a veteran, and proud of it. I love my country, but I despise my government. And I especially despise the corporations who own it.
You can call it what you want, but we are channeling it right now. And I think the appropriate historical reference point to study and combat it is NOT America's civil rights movement as this article implies, but Germany's Wiemar Republic, and Italy's fall into fascism (see also Spain 1920s). In all three cases, corporations funded fascist parties and media who targetted immigrants, other countries, and leftists. They expanded debt and maintained permanent war-status (leading to World War) to explain and distract the debt. Then, as now, fascists encouraged a view of society that was two-tiered by bearing rather than class. Upright, forward looking, never wavering: all attributes I've seen literally promoted by Fox as indicative of 'truth'. Fox is telling its minions: 'Don't listen to what I said, listen to the way I said it'. Hitler gave much the same message. And, yeah, I think those of us who see parallels with Hitlers Germany are justified in being scared and reacting with cowardness. There are some forces of human psychology that are tidal in their outcome. Start with debt, target foreigners, permanent war, emphasis on 'bearing', Heil Hitler.
Read Bonner and Wiggins 'Empire of Debt'.
The economic parallels are especially frightening. People are now scared, and are being misinformed by Fox etal as to the source of their fear. Thirty years of supply-side economics are coming home to roost, and all that's left is to misdirect people toward a scapegoat. For many people, that scapegoat is named Obama, and the people surrounding him.
You sound like old Hitler and Fox News has you in a psyops prison camp.
So what if people are scared, how long do you want to be ruled by that kind of groupthink?
Here here Michael C....I am in total agreement!
It's my understanding that we would be doomed, if it were not for a group of incorruptible, enlightened men who have the ability to galvanize BILLIONS of people into action....to finally solve our major crises, such as environmental degradation, hunger, extreme poverty, and war. They are about to step forward and begin working with humanity, calling on everyone who believes in a new way forward, away from greed and war.
The global peace & justice movement is ONLY BEGINNING.
Sharing = Justice = Peace
www.Share-International.org
Holy crap, pun intended. I just looked at the website. Wow. The situation here amongst the Common Dreams posters is worse than I thought.
Agreed but please don't stereotype Common Dreams posters based on this nut.
In the 1930's two things didn't exist that now do - the mass media and the American diet of processed foods.
In the 1930's there was no mass media - only radio and film had been invented. While it had some impact, there were only a handful of stations and most people read for information. Today, the growth and power of the media is almost unfathomable. Television, cable, satellite, video games, internet, cell phones, CD's, DVD,s, movies, imax, theme parks, etc. Americans live in a bread and circuses environment of Orwellian proportions. Reading forces you to think and consider what is written. Listening or watching television causes you to not think, to passively accept things. No wonder dictators prefer to use television and radio for propaganda rather than the written word. Maybe that's why the Soviet Union failed - the Soviet engine prefered paper to TV. Americans are a different story.
The other issue is the American diet of fast foods and processed foods served up by corporations. In the 1930's people cooked at home. Many lived on or near farms. They ate whole foods. Today they eat microwaved foods out of boxes, umpteen types of salty chips, factory-made foods laden with corn-syrup, and Wendy's and Taco Bell. I've heard that when lab rats are fed a diet similar to the Standard American Diet (SAD), they become passive and lethargic, unwilling to even go through a maze to get to the cheese at the end, or bother with running in a wheel. They just sit there, lazy and apathetic.
The end result: you couldn't engineer a more compliant populace if you were a dictator with the intention of doing so. Coincidence? In places like Argentina they banged pots in the street. There culture there and in other places outside the U.S.remains somewhat traditional - people still read, aren't surrounded by the media blitz, and eat traditional diets. I supect when change comes, it'll be from outside our borders first.
Thanks, Alex P. Jones. Like your libertarian buddy, you're completely wrong. There was mass media in the 1930's besides radio and film. That would be newspapers. That's how consent was manufactured prior to television and the internet. There were periodicals and newsletters. And by the 1930's radio and film were extremely powerful. The two political parties were not only fully machine-controlled, but much more openly tied up with violent gangster elements and private armed forces like the Pinkertons than today. But labor, racial minorities, and women fought for justice, and to a fair degree they got it.
I gotta go. I'm due back on Planet Earth.
The media of the 1930's and even the 1960's - notably print, was far more diverse and honestly covered genuinely newsworthy events to a much greater degree that the corporate media today.
You have read Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" haven't you?
If Gandhi or MLK were attempting to achieve today what they did back in their day, their causes would be ignored, and they would be regarded nuts with a tiny following - exactly like Rev. Wright. If like Rosa Parks, they comitted a CD action, they would be sent to jail in obscurity and that would be that.
And before you ridicule anyone who proposes armed struggle, it does, in fact have a pretty good record at effecting change through world history - twice in the last 234 years on this continent. We are a long way from that point, but surly, there must be a stage in any struggle where it needs to be considered.
I'm not arguing against armed struggle because it doesn't ever work. I'm arguing against it (not ridiculing -- that wasn't there) because it's not sufficiently more effective, or more frequently effective, than non-violent resistance, therefore totally fails to justify all the killing, maiming, and suffering, and has unstable results because it reinforces the methodology for anyone who doesn't agree with the side that won, and so on. It's a bad idea.
The evidence is widely available; the passivity related here finds its roots in the welfare state we have created; from seniors on subsidized medicare and social security (hypocritically arguing against a public option, all the while sucking on the state tit), to a government guided and regulated in complicity with insurance companies and medical facilities and providers resulting in absence of any personal accountability for expenses incurred at the individual level; to corporations (recently - banks and auto, previously - agribusiness, steel, and on and on) receiving every kind of support and subsidy; the list goes on. We have become a nation of people willing to seed our freedoms, the fruits of our labor, our very thoughts and opinions to the state and its various appendages (corporations, unions, political parties, etc.). A return to the simple vision our founders had; one in which personal freedoms were sacrysanct, government is correctly limited and always suspect, and personal responsibility reigned. I am perfectly capable of hanlding the bulk of my affairs, and of choosing who deserves my helping hand. I am repelled by the risk of losing my freedoms and choices with the threat of force, even mortal force, to bring about my compliance. As a simple example; I reject the premis that I should be forced by my government to deliver to undeserving individuals the fruit of my labor such that they might continue to behave without regard for my interests, but that I should act with regard to theirs.
dpjr and c cruz...
well said...the individual must return to primary prominence in their own sustenance...it is not the job of the distant farmer or local grill to provide food for you...grow or gather your own food...health care? stop eating crap and exercise...we live as ignorant infants, sucking on binkies, gorging on media...
the underlying principal strangling all of us is the requiring of money for land...land is taken by force, sequestered, raped for resources, and sold back to the highest bidder...therein lies the planet's, and our, peril, as the planet includes all of us, along with every other living thing here...
the flip side of the insanity of dependence upon money for necessities is the crzy notion that one who has money is successful, and need not do much else to help out, virtually regardless of how that money was obtained...
There is such self righteous arrogance and naivete in the libertarian view.
The assumption, as in free markets devoid of regulation, that people left to their own devices will always demonstrate a high moral principle--which totally defies the experience of history.
The law of the jungle of self-driven ambition at the expense of others is the corruptive force that raises greed to a religion and everything else be damned. It is cooperation that furthers the interests of the common good, and the reality is it requires restraint on those whose "personal freedom" is limited to their own entitlement when it ignores the rights of others to even survive.
Vern: Good post!
Well said.
Thank you.
What hooey. The Founders did not hold personal freedom sacrosanct (and they could spell, too), as evidenced by the preamble to, and remaining content of, the Constitution they wrote, not to mention how many of them were slaveholders who refused to sign on to the independence movement and The Constitution unless slavery was protected. In fact the only danger of government to which they all openly subscribed was in the area of armed forces. The Second Amendment was largely to provide for national defense without the requirement of significant standing armies -- the vision, as its establishment clause states, was that the right of the individual to own arms was inseparable from the need for that to be the center of our national defense posture. Would that gun proponents and armed forces proponents could get together on that founding concept -- you'd see a lot of gun control people sign right up.
But I digress. The point is the founders were very clear about personal freedom not being unlimited, both in word and deed. They were also very clear that the whole point of the amendment process was to allow future American societies to have recourse with our "holy" documents as times and technologies advance, so they didn't want to be held responsible for any decisions Americans would make two hundred years after their passing. In other words, they didn't want you quoting/blaming them in 2009. If your view is your view, than claim it as your view. Don't try to validate it by pretending it was the view of demi-gods, who were mere mortals, morally challenged, and not in agreement with you. It's bad enough the Christians always make the same claim, and the Republican so-called "originalists." They're wrong, too.
Steve, my hope for you is simple; that you never lose your misspelling righteousness by ever inadvertently misspelling a word (an apparently significant shortcoming you have, to this point in your life, avoided - good for you!)
I am happy to claim my desire to protect my personal freedoms, as well as my aversion to have them usurped by such as you. A simple rereading of the Declaration of Independence refutes your assertion, though, as you rightly point out, these are not "holy" documents, and their creators only men with opinions.
Why, though, did you avoid commentary on the meat of my rebuttal to the original article; that the passivity related is due to the broadening welfare state? It is with passion that I believe that, while there are certainly those (a fractional minority) who are in genuine need and arguably incapable of caring for themselves, the vast majority of government subsidies go to individuals and institutions who, rather, have made poor choices. As with a child who faces no consequences for bad behavior, they are affirmed in their choices by a complicit society, often because the institutions empowered to discern between genuine need and fraudulent need are incapable, either by regulation, litigation or apathy. On the other hand, I believe I can discern for myself which are the truly valuable social service providers based on my values, as I beleive you can based on yours.
One poster asked who am I to assume I can discern who the frauds are. A fair question, indeed. Rather you and I should discern than some politically motivated lackey, though. Assuming that you and I are serious about our commitment of time, talent and treasure to community service, aren't we best situated to learn and discern how our service is best distributed? Or are you of the elitist mindset which assumes most are too selfish, unsophisticated, or uninformed to make such judgements for themselves. From my reading of your other posts you do not seem so. The risk, of course, comes from those who consider themselves to be so enlightened. It is they who assume to know what's best for me.
I will end by saying respectfully that I welcome this debate and hope it can elevate us both over time.
Sincerly,
Don McGee
Melbourne, FL
I think that you fail to understand both human nature and the purpose of social groups.
Humans make mistakes. It's part of the human condition. Indeed, as far as we know (and that's quite far) making mistakes is part of life. We know of nothing that lives that never makes a mistake in its life, though many individuals only make one.
Society exists not to be a 'shooting zoo' for predators, as psychopaths believe, but to be a buffer against predation and simple random disaster. That's its whole purpose.
You can live alone if you'd rather, never partaking in any way of the fruits of social work -there are still places on Earth where nobody wants to live. But your first mistake is likely to be your last one, too. Miss your footing and snap your ankle? Not see the rattlesnake? Be standing in the hundred-years-dry riverbed when the flash flood comes by? It's all over. You have to be either perfect or perfectly lucky. And there's no record of such a person ever having lived yet.
Or you can pay the price of having the insurance that a healthy society provides by its very existence (the US has a predator society at the moment. But that's due to change). Part of that price is that you help bail out people who, being human, make mistakes ('bad choices' in your phrasing). Of course, if you're sufficiently stupid AND lucky enough never to need bailing out, you can resent having to pay your share of helping other people recover from their mistakes or bad luck. But nobody *wants* to make a mistake or have bad luck, so a smart person would rejoice at their own trouble-free life, not complain about having to help rescue the less-lucky.