Moderation in the pursuit of liberty is a virtue, extremism in the pursuit of liberty is a vice:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/democracy_and_freedom.html
^In this article, we see a fine example of the Right-Wing brand of extremism. Using the words freedom and democracy, we get lovely testaments to the ideals of freedom such as this:
[this is a spoiler tag]
The shadows of enslavement are spreading across the democratic world. Once, some of us thought, if people were free, then they would naturally choose freedom. That presumed a desire to assume the burdens of freedom: a willingness to defend it, a restraint from using government for one's own ends even in the majority, a vigilance against those little Hitlers who lurk everywhere, and a sense of honor above advantage.
The question now -- and it is a monumental question -- is whether in this land, which first offered complete toleration and almost boundless freedom and which has protected it for over two centuries, those zombies of the night which seem to have overwhelmed each bastion of liberty around the globe can be stopped. It is a question not unlike what the British faced seventy years ago, when all that Hitler (echoed by Stalin) asked was to give up their principles and moral values, and thereby live unoccupied in peace. The easiest course, the one which almost prevailed in cabinet, was to give up a hopeless cause and make the best of things. If Churchill and his few had, our world would be horribly different today. We are now in Churchill's 1940. How will we choose? Democracy or freedom?
And then there's this:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/are-americans-too-stupid-democracy?page=0%2C2
Where we see an argument that because Americans do not know specific data points, that lack of knowledge of these points indicates that democracy is wrong. Most intelligent human beings might instead attribute this to messaging issues and inability to communicate well the points in question in a means that ensures people would pay attention, but instead there is the same mindset. As per here:
[this is another spoiler tag]
Winston Churchill is thought to have said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (He did say it, but he was quoting a predecessor at the time.) The problem isn't the form of government, but the ignorance of our polity. And that's a problem that can be addressed.
The study cited above which found that people in the UK, Denmark and Finland are significantly better informed about the issues of the day noted that some of the differences can be attributed to various models of media funding. The three European countries all have more public television and radio, which the researchers found offered more hard news and analysis, and less puffery.
Education is another big difference. In those countries, spending on education is more or less uniform between
schools and school districts. In the U.S., the amount spent on education varies wildly by school, district and state. And while it's in vogue to blame teachers and their unions for what ails our educational system, the reality is that poverty and inequality are the driving forces behind our kids' relatively low educational outcomes
where one might expect concrete ideas to improve the ability to get out particular messages and acknowledgement that no system is ever perfect, one instead sees that ignorance of particular points is held as a reason to consider dismissing democracy altogether.
The fundamental root of tyranny and the police state is seldom ignorance, and it is seldom abnegating liberty for security. The police states always back education and (a perverted twist upon) the law. They also likewise fail to deliver security. Tyranny thrives best in a climate of fear, hatred, and suspicion. It thrives best in permanent insecurity, in creating overmighty subjects with no limits on their power instead of concrete tools of the state. Tyranny is indeed a product of ignorance, yet it is often the most well-intended defenders of freedom and liberty who prove to be its most insidious opponents and advocate its destruction by pursuing policies that in the end must collapse both.
When there are people in democracy saying that democracy must be bad because the bulk of the voters do not agree with their narrow, partisan conception of the self-interest of the masses, then there is something seriously rotten in Denmark. Democracy will produce votes people don't like. As a wise man once said on the Silver Screen, a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals. The proper answer, however, to the arrogance and stupidity of the masses is to convincet he masses of new, better solutions. It's to get people out to vote. It's to ensure people understand why refusing to invest in the system will only perpetuate its failing aspects and not provide any instance of redemption of said system. Ultimately them who blame democracy for their own inability to communicate messages to the voters are simply the political version of the person who never finds their own fault in any actions they say or do, and always and forever attribute these actions to someone else. Indeed, to quote one of my favorite movies, they are all individuals, just like everyone else.
^In this article, we see a fine example of the Right-Wing brand of extremism. Using the words freedom and democracy, we get lovely testaments to the ideals of freedom such as this:
[this is a spoiler tag]
The shadows of enslavement are spreading across the democratic world. Once, some of us thought, if people were free, then they would naturally choose freedom. That presumed a desire to assume the burdens of freedom: a willingness to defend it, a restraint from using government for one's own ends even in the majority, a vigilance against those little Hitlers who lurk everywhere, and a sense of honor above advantage.
The question now -- and it is a monumental question -- is whether in this land, which first offered complete toleration and almost boundless freedom and which has protected it for over two centuries, those zombies of the night which seem to have overwhelmed each bastion of liberty around the globe can be stopped. It is a question not unlike what the British faced seventy years ago, when all that Hitler (echoed by Stalin) asked was to give up their principles and moral values, and thereby live unoccupied in peace. The easiest course, the one which almost prevailed in cabinet, was to give up a hopeless cause and make the best of things. If Churchill and his few had, our world would be horribly different today. We are now in Churchill's 1940. How will we choose? Democracy or freedom?
And then there's this:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/are-americans-too-stupid-democracy?page=0%2C2
Where we see an argument that because Americans do not know specific data points, that lack of knowledge of these points indicates that democracy is wrong. Most intelligent human beings might instead attribute this to messaging issues and inability to communicate well the points in question in a means that ensures people would pay attention, but instead there is the same mindset. As per here:
[this is another spoiler tag]
Winston Churchill is thought to have said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (He did say it, but he was quoting a predecessor at the time.) The problem isn't the form of government, but the ignorance of our polity. And that's a problem that can be addressed.
The study cited above which found that people in the UK, Denmark and Finland are significantly better informed about the issues of the day noted that some of the differences can be attributed to various models of media funding. The three European countries all have more public television and radio, which the researchers found offered more hard news and analysis, and less puffery.
Education is another big difference. In those countries, spending on education is more or less uniform between
schools and school districts. In the U.S., the amount spent on education varies wildly by school, district and state. And while it's in vogue to blame teachers and their unions for what ails our educational system, the reality is that poverty and inequality are the driving forces behind our kids' relatively low educational outcomes
where one might expect concrete ideas to improve the ability to get out particular messages and acknowledgement that no system is ever perfect, one instead sees that ignorance of particular points is held as a reason to consider dismissing democracy altogether.
The fundamental root of tyranny and the police state is seldom ignorance, and it is seldom abnegating liberty for security. The police states always back education and (a perverted twist upon) the law. They also likewise fail to deliver security. Tyranny thrives best in a climate of fear, hatred, and suspicion. It thrives best in permanent insecurity, in creating overmighty subjects with no limits on their power instead of concrete tools of the state. Tyranny is indeed a product of ignorance, yet it is often the most well-intended defenders of freedom and liberty who prove to be its most insidious opponents and advocate its destruction by pursuing policies that in the end must collapse both.
When there are people in democracy saying that democracy must be bad because the bulk of the voters do not agree with their narrow, partisan conception of the self-interest of the masses, then there is something seriously rotten in Denmark. Democracy will produce votes people don't like. As a wise man once said on the Silver Screen, a person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals. The proper answer, however, to the arrogance and stupidity of the masses is to convincet he masses of new, better solutions. It's to get people out to vote. It's to ensure people understand why refusing to invest in the system will only perpetuate its failing aspects and not provide any instance of redemption of said system. Ultimately them who blame democracy for their own inability to communicate messages to the voters are simply the political version of the person who never finds their own fault in any actions they say or do, and always and forever attribute these actions to someone else. Indeed, to quote one of my favorite movies, they are all individuals, just like everyone else.