There is a school of thought that believes citizens can opt to be politically uninformed; that it is OK to focus on their careers, family, and hobbies and leave the details of governance to the political elites and more politically concerned citizens. It is a popular school of thought.

I have some questions for y’all:

It's a free country, kinda. But is it moral to be apolitical? (When our countrymen died on foreign beaches?)

Does this foster a government by the grease monkey for the squeeky wheel?

Is this practical? Can the average Jane/Joe grasp the basics of politics when she/he struggles to compete in the job market, works half the year just to pay taxes? (We haven't even started to pay for the stimuli/bailouts yet)

Can democracy function if everyone claims to be an expert?

Is indifference a threat to democracy?

What is more important to know, the number of members in a congress, or the role of government verses the role of the individual?

What should a citizen know and what percent of citizens do you think are prepared to vote?

What should be done if anything?

__________________
Homo Homini Lupus? Its OK, I don't bite...hard.

The party of the "Wide Stance" and the "Windy Day" who trump up folks like Mike The Wurzelburger are typically uneducated, and thus often ignorant and poor, or lower to middle class. They consistently vote for fellas they would just love to have a beer with or support women from "The Heartland" who say things like "Golly Gee Bob" and "You Betcha!"

Yes, that is a popular school of thought indeed.

I don't think it's necessary for every American of the age of majority to be "up on politics". It's equally "American" for people to just live their lives and stay within themselves. This of course is not to say that if the need came these "shut-ins" would not jump to or be required to serve.

Patriotism is not measured on a scale: that would be un-American.

I'd imagine that the percentage of the population of this country that gives two shits about politics hasn't grown or shrunk since our founding. So, no, I don't think it's any immediate threat...after all, we've made it this far. Kind of.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

I think every citizen should have read their Constitution before they get out of high school and definitely before they vote.

From a moralist perspective, it could be viewed as less moral or less ethical to be ignorant of our own federal form of government; but, I also think individuals should be limited in their liability, to their two cents worth when they vote.

It also depends on the form of Government involved.

A few years ago I learned that something like 43% of Americans can not name a single member of the Supreme Court. I then felt a responsibility to keep on top of everything To keep control out of the hands of the dummies. When I fell seriously ill I had to relinquish control for several years. I think it is every citizen's responsibility to have a basic understanding of civics.

Our Constitution is written in simple language. It explains our form of federal statism very well.

I don't think we would have as many problems as we do, if more people read their Constitution.

I will disagree with your use of "statism": that is an opinion. I would refer to it more as a collective responsibility. We live in a plurality, our Constitution makes excellent work of that fact of human nature.

I will grant that our kids know nothing except the regergitation of colonial events.
I believe that it is the duty of every representative in this democracy to see to it that his or her constituents have copies of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: money that would be well spent.

The trouble is, we politicize even the interpretation of the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution and the very meaning of the Declaration of Independence and 'most people' don't want to argue politics. So, they avoid it: selective ignorance. But many of these people vote: doesn't mean they're dumb, just means they don't want to argue.

Here is some context for my usage of statism. The reference to "the governmental framework" illustrates a form of socialism that can only exist via States and State-ism.

I think it should be taught in school better. We already have the expense of public education.

The simple language used is easy to comprehend with only a basic dictionary. That it is "politicized" is understandable given our First Amendment.

The US is the pluralistic philosophy manifest in a contained area. Socialism implies a from of government that does not exist in this country. The Constitution and the diversity of this country will not allow for simple socialism. The only thing that will work here is the elasticity that was built into the framework of the Constitution. The complexity of this country demands a complex form of government.

I disagree with you labeling of our educational system as 'expensive'. This implies a prejudice. Free education was a design as a right of the human experience: it comes under 'promoting the general welfare'. Unfortunately we live in a "must produce" competative society and this fact leaves our educational system opened up to all kinds of influences. Our public educational system must be better defined and more evenly distributed for it to serve its purpose.

I did want to add something about the politicizing of the Constitution and free speech. Yes, free speech does porvide for that, however it's like taking 'black & white" and trying to break it up into different shades. Ploiticizing this document is done for the ourposes of agenda. My own opinion is that this type of thing insults the integrity of the Constitution and ultimately leads to no good. I would also cite the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment: this case clearly demonstrates that politicizing the Constitution will not work; it was worded very specifically to avoid such traps.

Moral ? As in right v wrong ? Its wrong. Typical but wrong.


You betcha.


Yes, they could (mostly) if they wanted to.


Sure. Its just that practically nobody will ever be happy.


No, its what the polititians covet.

The latter.


What ? See above. % ? 10-20%


Eliminate money from politics.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

I am not limiting my usage of "socialism" to the obsolete political science version. I disagree with you on socialism not existing in our republic, since it is my view that no first world political-economy can be a first world political-economy, without sufficient socialism (e.g. Hoover Dam as a public sector "means of production" as a criterion for forms of truer socialism as described by most political science definitions).

Actually, I stated that we already have the expense of public education.

I think we should be getting a better informed electorate out of it, since every time we have to bail out the private sector, the "elites" lose ground on their credibility for "new world order", despite all the publicity.

I agree with you on this. I don't think we would have as many problems as we do, if more people read their Constitution.

How do you feel about a test that would have to be passed before voting? Can of worms? ie. Who decides how the test is written? Who teaches the course content? How do you achieve nutrality?

__________________
Homo Homini Lupus? Its OK, I don't bite...hard.