V
Educating the Public
Sat, 2010-09-04 07:44
#1
Educating the Public
Sat, 2010-09-04 07:49
#2
I've just written about the federal NDP and educating the public.
But of course, the topic is bigger than the NDP... and I do go back and forth between talking about the left in general and the NDP in particular.
Most of what I wrote is a series of 4 posts in the soon to be closed The polls, the polls, and everything but the polls, polling thread that I will re-post here.
Sat, 2010-09-04 07:54
#3
The debate was shifted right by having a well thought out, ideological platform, supported by think tanks and promoted at grassroots levels that found traction within the political climate of the recession and constitutional debates.
Yes and No. Or, not really
I also frequently, and not just here, referr to that success of the Right. Unlike us, they deliberately shifted vaues, shifted the frame of the debate.
But WHO did that? Not some steering committee obviously. But can we point even to a more amorphous who, concrete enough that we can learn something from it? I suspect there is, but it would not be easy work, and be full of deep discussions of who is really involved, etc.
But the pragmatist wants to know what was done, and how. So I cut straight to that.
There is practical relevance to the point that it wasnt some steering committee that accomplished this for the Right. Thats what is behind my "Yes, but no really" response above. The Right didnt plot out in whole form what they eventually accomlished [even if you can point to someone who layed it all out in the 60s or 70s]. It was done in steps, with a common general overarching view of what needs to be done. Explicit coordination wasnt required. When it happend, fine. But the train moves forward whether or not there is actual coordination.
Thats easier to replicate. But unfortunately, we just dont do it. We have precious few even of individual thinkers who discuss it.
Sat, 2010-09-04 07:57
#4
The NDP needs to 'push the envelope' about what its universe of supporters and potential supporters will get behind, or can get behind.
Right now, that universe likes the NDP for the incrementalist politics it does. A lot of the NDP core wants more, or would at least accept it, but going straight into more would alienate too much of the universe of voters, and straight into not voting for the NDP. [A lot of that having to do with the fact that a goodly chunk of the unvierse prefers the NDP, and trusts the NDP more, but frankly doesnt like some of the things they know it stands for. If those stayrelatively in the background thats OK, but if they dont....]
If you push away some of your universe of voters, there is no longer term to discuss.
Fortunately there is a way out. Because even those things people know about the NDP and dont like, plus the ones that could surprise them, they tend strongly to have 'dotted lines' between those issues and core values or principles that the voters support. So they can be drawn first to loosen up on what they dont like, and ultimately to re-consider what is proposed to them in light of general principles of the NDP that they support.
Now I know that no one thinks that will be easy. But unfortunately, the left in and around the party has a bullshit delusion that you do this movement purely through the means of making strong and clear stands. You all are intoxicated on a deluded notion that the public space of the national civil society is some kind of university seminar. Where we are all going to sit down and reason things out. [Leaving aside that is practice its actually not a seminar, but we are going to lecture you on how it is.]
This is not how it works. And trying it cannot ever work.
Yes, it does not work for the NDP to go an is if the problem does not exist- to ignore the problem.
But just because you see the problem, does not mean you have the solution. And people do presume they have the solution. And presume heavily. In practice, as if my pointing to the problem is the solution. Or reveals the solution ipso facto.
[Not to mention that a LOT of the people you think are flat out oblivious to the problem, and/or dont want to see it because it will upset the staus quo, DO actually see the problem just as much as you do.]
To me the classic case of the left pushing the enevelope, is the CCF and Tommy Douglas and medicare in Saskatchewan.
Ironically this is part of the left narrative of what was good about the NDP and is no more. "If Tommy Douglas had not just gone out there /told it like it was......"
But let alone the construction of medicare, even selling it to the citizens of Saskatchewan was done very gradually. They had a plan of what they wanted to do, but thay started by just talking about the principles. And moved gradually to specifics.
All at once it would have been too much for people. And the doubts would have let the entrenched interests have a field day. And that was a ruling government with a strong mandate. An opposition party has even less tools at its disposal for taking the long road of developing a discussion.
It still has to be done. And it can be done.
But saying, or even implying, that its just a matter of guts is false. And the distraction is debilitating.
Sat, 2010-09-04 07:59
#5
With the exception of medicare in Sask, I dont think the left or liberal welfarism did deliberatle 'push the envelope'.
In the post-war period up until the early Seventies we were just ascendant. And there were a lot of good reasons for that. The flip side of which, is that riding the ascendancy couldn't last.
The Right did have to break through that ascendancy. And they began to get their act together in the time of Goldwater in the US- when things could not have looked worse for their future.
But we've been talking about what Reform and the Harper Conservatives did- and I dont think they have ever had to push the envelope. All sorts of right wing think tanks and corporate organizations do it. And the Harris Tories did it with the Common Sense Revolution.
But no party has ever shifted the debate by taking risks with alienating some of its universe of voters. And while the Reform Party did help shift the terms of the debate, I dont think they ever had to do it in the deliberate way that is required of the NDP and the left in general if we are to break through the NDPs glass ceiling. [Without displacing the Liberals by becoming them, which wouldnt be easy either anyway.]
The Reform Party just said the right things at the right time. They could just ride the wave.
There isnt anywhere near the pre-disposition for people to grow fond of what we are selling.
We'll have to work harder and work smarter than did the Reform Party.
Being clearer and stronger will be part of getting there. But thinking you can accomplish that by just going out there right now and saying strong and clear.... that is a distracting delusion.
Sat, 2010-09-04 08:01
#6
But a comment I just made in NDP and proportional representation? makes a better beginning, and probably doesnt belong in that thread anyway.
- the 'disinformtation' (to be very polite) spread by the MSM about PR has certainly, it would seem, played a very large role in the resistance of the wider public to this change - but you can't really downplay the role of the NDP either - that is to say, the almost deafening silence about educating the public about the problems of FPTP, and what it would mean to switch to some useful form of PR. The 'public' does not get educated about something during some short campaign, it gets educated over a long period of time - and that the NDP is not doing this does not lead one's thoughts into good places.
I'm all for long term education projects.
But it doesnt help to treat this as if its just some wave of the hand. If nothing else, this: " that the NDP is not doing this does not lead one's thoughts into good places." Sounds like you are saying that since they could, but they arent, leads one to beleive they dont want PR.
Its not the imputation of motive that bothers me. Its the background assumption that doing long term public education is something that you just turn on the tap.
Doing long term education at all requires a 'hook' in aspirations that already broadly exist among the public. Very little of the public gives the slightest hoot about PR. So if you take the misguided typical left approach of "explaining" it to them... read lecture... they wont hear you.
There is out there an aspiration for meaningful democracy that can be tapped into. But the hook for tapping into that would not be PR itself- it would be part of the package. People would see its merits at some point after they see the merits of something in the window that is more immediately appealing than PR.
Engagement, not explanation.
Even people who care abut how we are governed are most of them not political junkies. You cant talk to them like they are. And you cant lecture them anyway.
Any didactic excursion- what we call "explaining"- is a lecture, however you varnish it with euphemisms or pretty words.
Sat, 2010-09-04 11:48
#7
Stephen Harper is changing this country. But the major things they have accomplished have been achieved with stealth. Not stealth as in deceiving people, stealth as in flying under the radar.
By far their biggest accomplishement is to fiscally hamstring governemnt for a long time after they leave even. They havent even had to lie their way into that. Lots of lies told along the way, but there is no big central snow job. Its mostly done with hardball use of the tools of government.
You can call that 'guts' if you want. I think 'ruthless' is more like it- and more accurate even for someone who doesnt have our antipathy to the wrecking crew.
At any rate, it has absolutely no relevance as a frame of comparison to what the NDP should be doing.
I have used one thing that Harper has done as an example of what the NDP should be doing.
The drive to get rid of the public subsidy for political parties. In a way its not a good example. The NDP needs to be selling things that in the short term their voter universe will not accept. The public subsidy thing is not an example of that because the public in general, let alone the Conservative voter universe that is what matters, will not care if the politcal parties are cut off from the subsidy.
But it is an example of something the Conservatives want to do and cant get in the short or forseeable near term.
So they bring this puppy out in the famous Fall 2008 "economic update" / Throne Speech. The whole Throne Speech was a serious miscalculation borne in their arrogance and hubris. And they had to run from all of it as fast as possible- including the public subsidy thing. Apparently they thought they could force it through, but what they thought doesnt matter- it was good and dead and couldnt be talked about by them.
But despite how much that cost them, they just put it on the back shelf for the minimum of time. And it gets trotted out regularly. Again, in a way, this isnt an exact paralle of wht the NDP needs to do. The Cons have said they will put it in the election platform. There is no risk in that. And it really doesnt matter- in the platform or not: if they have a majority they would pass the legislation even if they never had talked about it since 2008.
But plugging away at it has intrinsic value. Its a longer term investment in pushing their larger agenda. And they have to "pay" something in the sense that they only have so much 'public face time' and talking about the subsidies gets them nothing in actually getting the legislation some day.
Sun, 2010-09-05 03:20
#8
hmmmm - interesting responses
(not a dig, Ken, just an observation - I don't really understand why so few people see the importance of this ... even 'lefites', I think, are very mesmerized by the mainstream media and find it very difficult to think 'outside the box' )
Sun, 2010-09-05 06:46
#9
I wasnt optimistic there would be responses.
Ready. And no begrudging. But not optimistic.
Sun, 2010-09-05 08:08
#10
I think I may have a useful angle to pursue.
Its that 'explanation vs. engagement' thing we were getting into in the other thread.
Where I was saying that the left is always explaining, which in practice means lecturing rather than egaging.
But of course explaining can be part of engaging. It may even be the only first step we know to try, and so we do it. But if the others arent listening, then it isnt engagement. Pure and simple.
And thats our problem.
So where do we go from there (here)?
One thing is we seek to understand why. And part of why naturally turns to the media and the suffused power of capitalism.
But if we go from there to the perfectly natural thought that we need to explain to people about the media and the power of capitalism. Well, while it may not be obvious, thats stupid.
More explanation.... that already isnt working for us.
And this is no vague concept, or something that we kind of know maybe we should deal with.
For discourse beyond sound bites we have two things. We sing to the choir. And for the rest- those we know we need to reach- we serve up didactic lectures.
Its questionable if we recruit even enough new people to replace the choir members who die, become terminaly discouraged, or just change their outlook on the life of the world around them.
What an exercise in futility.
Tue, 2010-09-07 05:14
#11
A comment of Daves, and my follow-up, that both reach way beyond the thread they are in:
people talk about communication strategy failures and so on - I haven't yet heard anyone pointing the finger directly at the MSM, but we really need to recognize that the MSM is a central part of our problem, and we need to work on communications strategies that circumvent them as much as possible
There's much less problem in recognizing the MSM are a problem, than there is in what to do about it.
And possibly, pointing to the MSM as problem becomes something of a problem itself.... because in talking about MSM as problem, which we do quite a lot of it, it lulls us unwittingly into thinking that we are getting somewhere about what to do about the MSM.... when actually we do very little discussion of 'what next, here and now'?
Yes, just accepting the status quo as if you cant change it is a problem. IE, limiting yourself to what can we do to successfully get their attention. Doing that not being the problem, its limiting yourself to it that is the problem.
But discussion of circumventing them becomes a drug if its always about the need to do without them, and is always about alternatives that dont work on the what-to-do-now end of things.
There are alternatives to depending on the MSM, that do not entail the long and indirect path of building counter-institutions. And a lot of that has to do with simply having a longer time frame. IE, "here is where we want to go in our communications strategy." We'll start putting it out there. While we are not going to depend on the MSM, when we are successful, they will be picking up the message too.
The difference is the time frame. Current practice is to expect short term pickup of the message, or you dont do it. The longer term developmental framework is that you put the message out there, with just an outline of communications details- adapting along the way both the the message and the method as needed.
Communications is always adapted over time. The difference is that with current practice you do your adapting after you essentially have the 'finished product' of a message picked up.
The longer term developmental approach knows you arent going to start out primarily working through the MSM. And for the NDP there are already plenty of tools for that, the range of them depending on the issues and concerns in play. Mostly, you "just" need a commitment that you will dedicate resources to the continuous adapting and plugging away. Resources that normally you only devote where you can expect relatively short term payoffs. And most of the time it has to be that way, but there can and should be exceptions.
Tue, 2010-09-07 08:40
#12
" There's much less problem in recognizing the MSM are a problem, than there is in what to do about it. "
- I'm not at all sure about that - part of what I was responding to in the last couple of threads was a large number of comments along the lines of somebody had a good communication strategy and thus gained votes, or somebody else had a bad communication strategy and lost - and etc. Which seemed to me to be completely oblivious to the fact that it does not matter how great a communication strategy is if you count on the MSM to impartially cover your campaign. The necons are winning, well, I was going to say not because of any communication strategy, but because they have the MSM giving them massive amounts of support - but actually, when you think of it, a central part of the neocon communication 'strategy' is just that - controlling the MSM, so it supports them constantly - and an integral part of that same strategy is minimizing and in other ways subtly (and not so subtly) torpedoing the attempts to respond to the neocon communications by anyone such as us who opposes them. And having essentially 24/7/365 full spectrum communication dominance is, in the modern world, an extremely difficult weapon to overcome - esp in a population which has been trained to follow the 'official' communications they see on the tv and the MSM every day.
I don't think it would be impossibe to overcome this - as I have pointed out elsewhere, the NDP and other progressives share the views of 70-80% of Canadians, and you have to admit it has been a very impressive victory of the neocon-NWOers to convince the public that the people who are destroying the system are the only credible political parties in the country, and the party that speaks for the people is not to be trusted - a very, very impressive accomplishment (although it also says some things that could be construed as somewhat uncomplimentary about Mr/Ms average citizen ...) - but still, that is a very large group of people who we *should* be able to reach out to, with the right message and strategy - and as I have also said, I find it very surprising that the communications strategy is so poor from 'head office' of the NDP that they cannot seem to reach more than ~20% of Cdn voters - as I wrote in the earlier essay I referred you to, if I actually was a behind the scenes controller trying to establish some kind of elitist master-serf NWO-Canada, I would set up something like the NDP and Rabble (in Canada) for the very purpose of attracting the protest vote, and keeping it controlled and not getting into any dangerous territory.
But assuming there are well-meaning but misguided / not overly competent people in NDP HQ:
- I think their mistakes are primarily two-fold, without writing a book about it. First, they have accepted the capitalist-neocon-MSM framing of the national discussion. They respond to neocon initiatives, and they also adopt neocon priorities such as 'balancing the budget' and 'reducing corporate taxes' and other BS (a truly social democratic party would first and foremost be educating people about the complete scam of the national debt, based on bank-created money - which I have written about in things I referred to earlier) - and they would be talking about Democracy, and how it is nothing more than a farce in Canada, not only because of FPTP.
But aside from their choice of issues, their communication strategy is very sadly lacking - if, for instance, to talk about PR, which the MSM does not want much to do with, they were serious about this, they would be doing a long-term education strategy themselves - they would have ALL of their people mentioning this every chance they get, and how the current problems are very related to the archaic FPTP false-majority governments (and how the minority governments, with the support of the NDP, achieved Canada's greatest 'we the people' moments in the 70s due to NDP influence, which they could have again under PR, etc etc etc), and have literature etc available in riding offices and on their website when people heard about it and came looking for more info - this is a major shift for most Canadians, and they need to learn about it, and become familiar with it over a period of time - it has been a sad thing for me to watch the period between the last few elections be a period of hibernation for NDP communication, rather than a period of ongoing education/engagement with citizens ... )
- and this gets too long - but I think I have covered the main things I wanted to say in terms of responding to a few things ...
Tue, 2010-09-07 10:12
#13
Cueball
The public are educated fine. Most people know what is going on basically. What needs to be asserted is a clear vision of what to do about it, beyond appeals to the inviolability of "healthcare", as a national institution.
Don't worry about the MSM, they are not your friends. They are not going to become your friends, because you hire better PR people or talk to them nicely.
Tue, 2010-09-07 10:23
#14
Thank you for your thoughts on this, Ken. Before the party can take the initiatives you mention, however, I believe that there will have to be some societal concensus as to the sort of political economy we can expect to emerge in the face of Globalization's continued inroads on sovereignty and the degree to which we have to conform to Gaia's needs...for a habitable planet.
Tue, 2010-09-07 10:29
#15
Cueball
Not that it is conceivable that the NDP could actually have a role in building a "societal consensus".
Tue, 2010-09-07 10:48
#16
Not until it comes to terms with the workings of a capitalist economy at the dawning of a possibly complete environmental breakdown...a not inconsiderable task. Unfortunately, the more radical proposals - coming from somewhere in the literature - have even less chance of general societal approval, for the same reason.
It's a hugely complicated problem, made easy only by a right wing that gives you solace in Jesus and complete avoidance of little complications like Climate Change.
Tue, 2010-09-07 12:32
#17
The public are educated fine. Most people know what is going on basically. ...
- so you are saying that the public understands the money supply situation, and are ok with the banks skimming tens of billions each year from the economy through their control of the money supply, creating "our" money as debt? And they understand that the world financial meltdown was the direct result of private banks creating and controlling our money, and are ok with it all, etc etc? I kind of doubt this, actually - are you yourself ok with the idea of private banks creating and controlling our money supply, and thus "our" governments assuming a trillion dollars in debt (national and provincial) over the last 30 years, through which they have claimed the necessity of slashing all the social programs etc whilst paying a couple of trillion bucks in completely unnecessary 'service charges', when we could have created exactly the same amount of money through the Bank of Canada, without having to pay all of that interest to private businesses, thus not requiring the gutting of the social programs etc? (I explain it all here, if you are not familiar with it - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html ) - I think the public is not that very well informed at all about some very important things - even the PR stuff - there have been studies that have shown people who understood PR were highly in favor of it - but the 'average Cdn', relying on the MSM for their info, knows very, very little about it - the MSM presents it as boring and complicated, and the average Cdn listens. Well informed is not an adjective I would be using for Mr/Ms average Cdn. Sadly.
Tue, 2010-09-07 12:50
#18
'Educating the public" always gives me that vanguard of the proletariat feeling.
Maybe its the verb I find uncomfortable. I like to think people educate themselves when they feel a needs for it.
Tue, 2010-09-07 13:02
#19
'Educating the public" always gives me that vanguard of the proletariat feeling.
Maybe its the verb I find uncomfortable. I like to think people educate themselves when they feel a needs for it.
Yes, I do understand (and agree to a point) with the concept, but coming out of some mouths it's right up there with "saving the planet" as an expression of blind hubris.
With respect to the public, unless the "teacher" understands that education runs both ways it is an endeavour doomed to failure - and it can undo the work of some who do understand.
Tue, 2010-09-07 13:59
#20
I'd just as soon see the great unwashed as knowledgeable as their current "masters" who use them as objects of labour. What you chaps are engaging in used to be called obfuscation or mystification. No, it's not being elitist to talk about education, not in a "meritocracy"...and I'm sure you chaps have jumped through the appropriate hoops in your paper chases.
Tue, 2010-09-07 14:32
#21
George, I was commenting on Caissa's reservation about the turn of phrase, because it can sound a bit top-down, even though I know it is not.
Secondly, (just to make sure nobody thought I was making an absolute judgement on the OP) I said "some people" and I also made several allusions to the fact that I agree with education of the public, but that it needs to be a two-way street.
Just like educating the masses as a whole, I think it is a small lesson that bears repeating, since there are always would-be teachers who can be helped by hearing it.
I think we have all had our share of teachers - in and out of institutions - who don't seem to understand that.
Wed, 2010-09-08 01:52
#22
Cueball
The public are educated fine. Most people know what is going on basically. ...
- so you are saying that the public understands the money supply situation, and are ok with the banks skimming tens of billions each year from the economy through their control of the money supply, creating "our" money as debt? And they understand that the world financial meltdown was the direct result of private banks creating and controlling our money, and are ok with it all, etc etc? I kind of doubt this, actually - are you yourself ok with the idea of private banks creating and controlling our money supply, and thus "our" governments assuming a trillion dollars in debt (national and provincial) over the last 30 years, through which they have claimed the necessity of slashing all the social programs etc whilst paying a couple of trillion bucks in completely unnecessary 'service charges', when we could have created exactly the same amount of money through the Bank of Canada, without having to pay all of that interest to private businesses, thus not requiring the gutting of the social programs etc? (I explain it all here, if you are not familiar with it - What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html ) - I think the public is not that very well informed at all about some very important things - even the PR stuff - there have been studies that have shown people who understood PR were highly in favor of it - but the 'average Cdn', relying on the MSM for their info, knows very, very little about it - the MSM presents it as boring and complicated, and the average Cdn listens. Well informed is not an adjective I would be using for Mr/Ms average Cdn. Sadly.
Far more people understand all this than you think. They can see corruption a mile away, and they don't need to know the precise details of how the money supply is being manipulated to know a bunch of bullshit when they see it. Now this is not the case for everyone of course, but most people know when they are getting fucked.
Are they ok with it? Not really, however, people have to survive and without meaningful and concrete alternatives, playing by the rules is always the safer bet, even if that means smiling when they hear a lie. Indeed, many support and agree with all the bullshit, because they believe they will end up on the right side of the equation.
They'd probably have a great deal more respect for you and what you are saying if you stopped lecturing them as if they are total idiots about the shocking details of what most people already know. If anything its you who is trapped in the thrawl of the media circus by overestimating its power to convince. If there is one thing that is consistent in the themes of left and right wing discourse, both agree that the media lies.
Start there, move forward.
Wed, 2010-09-08 05:41
#23
Far more people understand all this than you think. They can see corruption a mile away, and they don't need to know the precise details of how the money supply is being manipulated to know a bunch of bullshit when they see it. Now this is not the case for everyone of course, but most people know when they are getting fucked.
Are they ok with it? Not really, however, people have to survive and without meaningful and concrete alternatives, playing by the rules is always the safer bet, even if that means smiling when they hear a lie. Indeed, many support and agree with all the bullshit, because they believe they will end up on the right side of the equation.
They'd probably have a great deal more respect for you and what you are saying if you stopped lecturing them as if they are total idiots about the shocking details of what most people already know. If anything its you who is trapped in the thrawl of the media circus by overestimating its power to convince. If there is one thing that is consistent in the themes of left and right wing discourse, both agree that the media lies.
Start there, move forward.
- well, certainly seems odd to me that people understand the scam of the money supply, and how they have had two trillion dollars stolen from them, and the theft continues at 50+ billion per year, whilst the gov is slashing all the social programs they want etc etc claiming they have no money, and don't say anything about it. Maybe I don't watch enough tv or something.
Wed, 2010-09-08 05:57
#24
..... I like to think people educate themselves when they feel a needs for it.
- maybe in the best of all possible worlds. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the behind-the-scenes rulers have been taking it upon themselves for the last hundred years or so to ensure the public gets 'educated' in a very specific way. If you haven't read Lippmann and Chomsky on this matter, perhaps you ought to. Perhaps there's the odd thing you like to think that may not entirely correspond to reality ... maybe we could dialogue about it or something.
Wed, 2010-09-08 06:07
#25
"People educate themselves" is good as an antidote to vanguardism or other forms of elitism and simple snobbery.
But even if wasnt for the power and malice of the MSM, it would be misguided liberalism to think that laissez faire about public education was sufficient. On any topic really, let alone complex ones where few people think of all the pieces and their interelationships.
"Public education" is not a word that you would have even noticed. But the thread title would not have menat anything either.
'Public education' leaves the verb part as ghost in the machine. That hasnt worked very well for us: as a species, let alone as a political tendency of the species.
Wed, 2010-09-08 06:08
#26
And "educating the public" is really just an aspect of leadership... which I think virtually everyone sees the need for.
Wed, 2010-09-08 08:39
#27
Far more people understand all [the theft of the financial crisis] than you think. They can see corruption a mile away, and they don't need to know the precise details of how the money supply is being manipulated to know a bunch of bullshit when they see it. Now this is not the case for everyone of course, but most people know when they are getting fucked.
Are they ok with it? Not really, however, people have to survive and without meaningful and concrete alternatives, playing by the rules is always the safer bet, even if that means smiling when they hear a lie. Indeed, many support and agree with all the bullshit, because they believe they will end up on the right side of the equation.
They understand that they are being taken.
But there is a HUGE gap you are glossing over between the notion that the banks arent in this for me, and what the problem is and what might be done about it..... even in the most general sense, and of 'where do we look to?'
I have the unfortunate pleasure of helping victims put the pieces back together. In the states they are more likely to look to Fox News for affinity and guidance in what to do about it.
The understandable, and especially working class, inclination that you are better off playing by the rules... if it was only that.
well, certainly seems odd to me that people understand the scam of the money supply, and how they have had two trillion dollars stolen from them, and the theft continues at 50+ billion per year, whilst the gov is slashing all the social programs they want etc etc claiming they have no money, and don't say anything about it. Maybe I don't watch enough tv or something.
I agree with Cue that people dont need to understand the details to 'get it'. So lack of understanding of the details isnt the problem or the obstacle. [I work at it, and I have a good sense of the severe limits of my understanding of said details.]
That said, dave is much closer to how I understand the overall picture.
Wed, 2010-09-08 09:05
#28
I agree with Cue that people dont need to understand the details to 'get it'. So lack of understanding of the details isnt the problem or the obstacle. [I work at it, and I have a good sense of the severe limits of my understanding of said details.]
That said, dave is much closer to how I understand the overall picture.
- I'm afraid I don't really get that - it strikes me as saying something like you 'get' sex - so you don't have to do it, kind of a childish bravado in the face of the unknown (been there done that, it's better knowing ...) ... the scam is not that complicated at all, and I really don't think people do 'get' it - otherwise there'd be some kind of protest and action - most people do not learn that they have been taken for consumate suckers and had serious amounts of money stolen from them, and just shrug their shoulders and go back to the tv. Do they?!?!?
maybe I really am that out of touch.
Wed, 2010-09-08 09:15
#29
And to repeat, it could always be left up to these folks to educate: " a right wing that gives you solace in Jesus and complete avoidance of little complications like Climate Change."
Leave it up to them.
Wed, 2010-09-08 10:05
#30
I agreed with you that most people dont 'get it', and that they think the bankers are not on their side tells us squat.
If they got it they wouldnt be so easily titillated by government waste or welfare cheats. Unfortunately, for too many people the distrust of bankers and what they do is just a part of the mish mash of 'they are all after me'.
That doesnt make me throw up my arms. It just says a lot about how much stock you want to put in 'people know they were taken'.
That said, I disagree that people need to know much about the details at all. So the fact they dont know means nothing in itself. And the crucial flip side: we put too much stock in the utility of them knowing more of the facts. There's a fine line between saying 'knowing the basic facts is a prerequisite for people wanting to take action'.... and in practice, often unwittingly, building our own expectations that arming people with the facts is going to strongly tend to lead them down the path.
I dont agree that the basic setails of the scam of the financial crisis are not that complicated. But I do think what people need to know is not that complicated?
How complicated is it to see that the hand always in your pocket is doing you hugely more harm than the welfare cheats and the feckless bureaucrats?
Wed, 2010-09-08 10:07
#31
Ah, but the paradox bites, and hard....
How hard it is to talk to people, to reach more than a small fraction, about what is not very complicated.
Wed, 2010-09-08 10:40
#32
I agreed with you that most people dont 'get it', and that they think the bankers are not on their side tells us squat.
If they got it they wouldnt be so easily titillated by government waste or welfare cheats. Unfortunately, for too many people the distrust of bankers and what they do is just a part of the mish mash of 'they are all after me'.
That doesnt make me throw up my arms. It just says a lot about how much stock you want to put in 'people know they were taken'.
That said, I disagree that people need to know much about the details at all. So the fact they dont know means nothing in itself. And the crucial flip side: we put too much stock in the utility of them knowing more of the facts. There's a fine line between saying 'knowing the basic facts is a prerequisite for people wanting to take action'.... and in practice, often unwittingly, building our own expectations that arming people with the facts is going to strongly tend to lead them down the path.
- mmm - without getting into a book, the 'stock' is this - if people don't know what is happening, and you don't want to help them turn on some lights, then you are just treating them like sheep - follow me, I have the answer! - but I want to help people understand what is going on here (this is not rocket science, it is just understanding a basic scam, and once you understand it, you become immune to a lot of similar things..) - and if any individual understands what is happening in their life in general, rather than following leaders, then they stand tall and strong with others who also understand and stand tall - not to be 'led' by anyone, of whatever motives - a country of intelligent, engaged citizens (I know this is a dream, but that is nonetheless what I aim for..)
I dont agree that the basic setails of the scam of the financial crisis are not that complicated. But I do think what people need to know is not that complicated?
How complicated is it to see that the hand always in your pocket is doing you hugely more harm than the welfare cheats and the feckless bureaucrats?
- but the details really are not all that complicated - check out the essay for the longer explanation (,What Happened? http://www.rudemacedon.ca/what-happened.html ) - but in essence, it is this - we the people, through our democratic government, have not only the power and right, but the obligation to create and control our own money supply, whatever it is. But instead, we allow a private business to create our money, and thus control our money and every related thing - and then we borrow it from them - and agree to pay them interest on it! - and everything else follows - they create X dollars this year, and at year's end want X+Y dollars - and the only place Y is coming from is collateral - and over time, they get it all. It really is a no-brainer, and criminally stupid, when you think about it . There are many places where this is explained in more detail - here are a couple - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8 or for the religious gang - http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm . (and as I have noted often, it is a very good sign of the power of the last 100 years of indoctrination that almost nobody understands this very simple process, which is central to our society, and most people think economics is too difficult to understand etc, and even when I try to talk about it, people have a kind of knee-jerk reaction to turn the other way.
Wed, 2010-09-08 11:28
#33
Just a cute note:
Comparing the number of hits between this thread and Saanich Gulf Islands Poll - May In Contention :
The other one had a post an hour ago. This one also had a post an hour ago, then two more. So as well as having more posts that people interested in the tread/subject will want to see... this tread also stayed higher on the TAT list.
But the other one had more views in the hour.
Wed, 2010-09-08 11:39
#34
- if people don't know what is happening, and you don't want to help them turn on some lights, then you are just treating them like sheep - follow me, I have the answer!
People here dont know me or what I do. But I'm very far from someone who treats people like sheep or tells them I have the answers.
That note is just for some context.
but I want to help people understand what is going on here (this is not rocket science, it is just understanding a basic scam, and once you understand it, you become immune to a lot of similar things..) - and if any individual understands what is happening in their life in general, rather than following leaders, then they stand tall and strong with others who also understand and stand tall - not to be 'led' by anyone, of whatever motives - a country of intelligent, engaged citizens (I know this is a dream, but that is nonetheless what I aim for..)
I aspire to that too. I expect never to see more than isolated cases of it, but I can still hope for it some day.
But we can have one hell a lot of progress, not to mention surving well enough that the children of today dont face basic living conditions most of us have at most visited with the ticket out in hand, whether or not people are very much on the road to enlightenment.
In fact, my experience tells me that said enlightenment is considerably more likely after a process of progress is supporting and carrying folks along.
Yea, its that old chicken and egg.
But we probably cant do better than agree to disagree on what is required. 'Desirable' is easy to agree on, required is sticky.
But I will say that there is a case to be made that your intentions to free people with information can unaviodably become in practice what you dont want: teying to give people the answers. Its called presenting people with the 'information' [they need to have], rather than giving them the answers. Do you really know the line? Are you [we] capable of knowing the line?