Thinking about the issue some more - maybe I was wrong to disagree with your edited initial comment. I really do think that the American public is both apathetic and ignorant, and the majority of the country's current problems derive from these failings.
They are apathetic, but they are not apathetic towards any specific issue. No, they are apathetic to anything that would seem to distract them from the normal course of their daily schedule. I do not think that it would be difficult for "ordinary" people to take a few minutes and become informed about what is going on. If I know, you know, and (probably) most of the people on Hacker News know - well, it can't be impossible to find out.
I think that, well, most people content themselves that party affiliation and straight-ticket voting are all that is necessary to ensure a functioning democracy. It just seems strange to me, that in a country where so many people pride themselves on being patriotic, there is so little intellectual curiosity with regards to how it functions.
The tyranny of the majority is usually used to refer to the potential for the opinion of the many to disenfranchise the rights of the few. I wonder if there is something more insidious than this though. What could be the side effects of the self-selected nonchalance of the many?
I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss. How do you get the majority of people to be interested in something that does not provide immediate economic benefits (without resorting to indoctrination)?
> I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss.
I raise my glass to you, as we've arrived to the same place. I don't know, either. The old trope goes that we get the government we deserve. And here it sits. It makes me so angry and frustrated because it's one problem I can identify regularly in my world that I am powerless to address. The issues are too large, too systemic, and too self-perpetuating. Another trope: to enslave a man, convince him he is free. Fearing a powerful government, ours was too feeble to prevent the rise of corporate power with influence on all, accountable to none.
I fear something must break first. I'm sadly reminded of Brave New World – everyone doped up on whatever meager pleasures they've been convinced matter. Until people lose their cable TV, their Doritos, their strip mall shopping centers, they can get fucked but still convince themselves of their prosperity. And perhaps they have it, relative to history, and relative to the rest of the world. But at what cost? How many choices are no longer theirs? How much information can they no longer trust? How much of their potential is capped because of opportunities denied to them by corporate interest?
I agree with both of you but feel compelled to weigh in:
1. Although you recognize political problems, you're not about to become a politician to fix them: The best way to solve a lot of these problems might be from the inside. But, politics has got to be the worst field to go into. An offhand comment can end your career. Best case scenario, a lot of people will hate you for making decisions. A right decision for some will be an absolute wrong decision for others, and vice versa. And let's say you try to go your career supporting the underdog... the underdog often doesn't have any money and you need money to campaign... and you might say, "you shouldn't need a lot of money to campaign", but let me ask you this: if it's not money you need to campaign, then what should it be?
2. Has there ever been a time when those in power don't get extra privileges for supporting causes that benefit their [monetary] benefactors? I think it's important to at least acknowledge that never before in history has there existed a time when political favors of some sort are not divvied out in exchange for monetary favors. It just seems to me that for every law that people create to stop this, the money finds a way around it. But, if you're going to design a better system, what would that even look like? I'd say, you're better off designing around this concept than working against it.
3. Most people don't care, they never have, and they never will: Seriously, not to be too extreme, but I really think there's truth in this and it's baked into the human race and the practice of democracy. For an extreme example (and to include the nazis) I remember thinking about Germany in the 30s: Why didn't people get out when they had a chance? Pick up and leave when they saw doom sweeping the nation. And the answer, I think, is because that was where home was and it happened gradually enough. For people to leave everything, to admit to themselves that "They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore!" it takes a certain personality that most people simply don't possess. It takes, I think, the same personality that says things are bad when things are actually good. Put it this way: if we lived in a total utopia, you'd still be pointing out problems (as would I). Most people wouldn't, nor would they really know they're living in a utopia. They'd just be getting on with their day and hoping nothing truly catastrophic happens to them or theirs.
So, for these reasons, I think things will continue about as they have, with the caveat that the internet has made things a bit more transparent and I think more people in general are becoming aware enough of the issues around to write about it and affect change in some small way. Still, that won't change things all that much.
They are apathetic, but they are not apathetic towards any specific issue. No, they are apathetic to anything that would seem to distract them from the normal course of their daily schedule. I do not think that it would be difficult for "ordinary" people to take a few minutes and become informed about what is going on. If I know, you know, and (probably) most of the people on Hacker News know - well, it can't be impossible to find out.
I think that, well, most people content themselves that party affiliation and straight-ticket voting are all that is necessary to ensure a functioning democracy. It just seems strange to me, that in a country where so many people pride themselves on being patriotic, there is so little intellectual curiosity with regards to how it functions.
The tyranny of the majority is usually used to refer to the potential for the opinion of the many to disenfranchise the rights of the few. I wonder if there is something more insidious than this though. What could be the side effects of the self-selected nonchalance of the many?
I was once told that to talk about a problem without providing a solution is not a good way to advance in society, but, really, I'm completely at a loss. How do you get the majority of people to be interested in something that does not provide immediate economic benefits (without resorting to indoctrination)?