I do not find my fellow Americans to be fearful folks, though I do understand quite well your analogies and references to the methods used by the Rovian Bushistas. Actually I could understand better if the reasons for our national political apathy were related to fear.

I heard, on NPR recently, about a small town in Mississipi I believe wherein four or five of the local kids have been killed in combat in Iraq, including two brothers. A tragedy to be certain but contained within the reportage was the phrase; "noone in this town questions the Iraq war, ever." This I find almost horrific. The town turned out enmasse for memorial services to honor each fallen soldier, supports the families of those who have fallen in service to their nation and would appear to be kind, noble of spirit and neighborly to a fault, yet they carry their losses without a single doubt, why is this?

This example, and the dozens like it around the nation, do not stem from fear but from something quite else, and something rather worse than being afraid. These folks, and most Americans I fear, simply accept that which their government tells them without a single doubt or even the thought that should preceed acceptance. Why have we become as we are?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Sep 9, 2007 at 5:04:24 PM

  (0+)

So many of these unquestioning fools/sheep have been raised to simply obey authority-- daddy, the parish priest, elders-- unlike most of the folks who value this site, who are proud to question authority.

They've grown up accepting, raised in a school system that prepared them to be obedient soldiers and good factory workers 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 9, 2007 at 6:57:05 PM

  (0+)

I think you’ll find that faith is primarily a product of conditioning. The Jesuit dictum was “give me the boy until 7 and I’ll give you the man.”

There are of course a variety of other factors in the mix. Intelligence, ability to cope (with the ever increasing anti individual ‘caveat emptor’ world…note how older people or less complexity oriented people are intimidated by complex laws, technology, aggression etc).

Man has always had the tendency to fear that which they don’t understand. Their search for understanding has often led then to attributing natural events to God(s ) in an attempt to control/influence them. A corollary of this is those in leadership tend to claim greater influence or insights. This leads to doctrine, rigidity of views and in the GWB example self referential concepts of right and wrong. His lot believe they are right and therefore everything else is subservient to that laws, morality...the end justifies the means. Anything that contradicts their world view is simply wrong and should be changed, ignored or subverted

From the political point negative or criticism works better than positism. Likewise fear the Muslim boogie man. In a recent TV interview an American Security Advisor made similar points to the ones I made in recent comments. He also observed that we shouldn’t worry about something that’s in the news because if it’s news it’s unusual. 911 was a terrible event but Americans kill 40000 people on the roads each year where’s the war on road death?

Fear is a powerful weapon and elements in all conservative politics use it to the MAX.

Australian Politics are no exception. John Howard is in his dusk and all his party’s messages involve fear…. The evil opposition would get us out of Iraq leaving the country subject to attack! Like our 1000 will make much difference. The morality of our part in the war is not discussed. If at allit is in terms of we need to support the ANZUS alliance. i.e. We will need the US against some unspecified threat. Forget the fact that the alliance merely requires consultation.

Conservative politics takes it’s origins from the very things America was founded to combat. Lack of relevant representation, religious intolerance, and freedom from oppression (fear), right of the individual and being ruled by a ruling class (be it a theocracy, oligarchy or a plutocracy). Again Australian conservatism has similar aims.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 5:31:15 PM

  (0+)

IRV has produced two-party domination in all four countries where it has been substantially used; namely Australia, Ireland, Malta, and Fiji.  Australianpolitics.com says IRV "promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents."  Since Ireland's presidential post began, in 1938, the Fianna Fáil Party has won all but once, when the Labour Party's Mary Robinson won in a phenomenal fluke; so IRV has produced a virtual party monopoly there.  Of the 27 countries we know of that use "top-two runoff", on the other hand, 21-23 have broken free of two-party duopoly.  The same is true even of non-IRV branches of government within IRV countries.  The Australian Senate, for example, uses STV, and had 9 of its 76 seats occupied by alternative parties in the 2004 elections.  Yet Australia's House of Representatives, which uses IRV, is a two-party body.  Maybe that's why Australia's minor parties want to replace it, and why the Libertarian Reform Caucus calls it a "bullet in the foot".

The solution?  Range Voting - a simpler and much better method, which is more resistant to strategic voting (IRV essentially degrades into plurality voting because of strategy).  The simplest form of Range Voting is to use our present ballots, but simply allow people to vote for as many candidates as they want to.  It makes it safe for voters to support their sincere favorite candidates, so it's massively better for third parties.  It's also simpler than IRV, and has a higher social utility efficiency - meaning it better satisfies voter preferences on average.

Third parties should also consider Reweighted Range Voting, and Asset Voting - two vastly superior proportional representation systems that make the archaic STV system obsolete.

by Clay Shentrup (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Sunday, Sep 9, 2007 at 6:48:34 PM

  (0+)

 I'm passionate about my vote, aren't you? So is this Libertarian, and he explains the "cons" of IRV that you may not have thought of:

Anyone for a Bullet in the Foot? Instant Runoff!

An explanation of what Instance Runoff Voting (IRV) is, and why it would be foolhardy for the LP or any freedom-minded party to support it.

by Devin Ray Freeman Posted August 11, 2006

“A vote not from the heart is a vote wasted” quoth Michael Badnarik in 2004. If only most voters would think in this way, and not in dismal thoughts of “electability,” drearily determined to vote against the greater evil.

No wonder, though, that so many are locked into that mindset. The current voting method (called “Plurality Voting” in voting theory talk) effectively locks us into the lesser-of-two-evils dilemma. This is well-seen, but there are some who say they hold the key. They call it “Instant Runoff Voting.” “IRV, easy as one, two, three” they tout. It'll “guarantee a majority,” “open the field to minor candidates,” “improve democracy!”

They're gravely mistaken. Instant Runoff is in no way suitable for multi-party democracy.

What is Instant Runoff?

So, you may ask, just what is Instant Runoff? It's complex and hard to put into words, but the upshot is that Instant Runoff is:

• really hard to recount and it's really hard to count in the first place.
• illusory in its ranking and in the majority it delivers.
• sure to maintain duopoly as well as Plurality does.

Instant Runoff is a tally and elimination scheme, retallying without revoting (reallocating), that repeats until a majority of votes reshuffles into one pile.

To run through this step by step, examples may be helpful....

more at the link

by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 9, 2007 at 8:21:01 PM

  (0+)

I find it interesting to use the phrase 'soccer mom'.  This implies two things, the use of petroleum to commute our children to activities, and a general fear of the sexual predator such that the average liberal will not allow their children to play unattended.  I have wondered how much oil is used because of driving our children around.

 We need to fight capitalism, the best way is to make everyone a capitalist!  As a conservative I agree that corporations exploit laborers - until those laborers form their own corporation!  We know Wal-Mart pays slave laborers two cents an hour.  Why don't those people start their own business, produce their own goods, and outdo Wal-Mart for lowest price?

 It is true that we want freedom - as long as someone else takes responsibility.  Smokers want the freedom to smoke, provided they can be insured for lung cancer.  (Notice - I read today this is changing.  Campanies are beginning to charge more health insurance premiums for bad behavior, including smoking.)

So, when we want freedom from the Bush administration this means the responsibility of defending the country.  I believe a general clause that in the event of a terrorist attack  liberals forfeit their life, after all, if we disarm and Islamist fanatics actually do attack, the liberals who put us in that position have to take responsibility for that decision.

by Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:19:23 AM

  (0+)

and unable to express even simple thoughts with any degree of coherence or accuracy. I would hope that you seek the advice of a physician who will undoubtedly prescribe a medication to help you.

Good luck and best wishes for your speediest recovery.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 6:32:57 AM

  (0+)

Whereas the term "Islamofascist" makes absolutely no sense, in that radical Islam in no way seeks domination of a nation state by corporations, the elevation of national symbols to religious status, and extreme patriotism, the term Christofascism might actually apply to the fundamentalist fringe of the American church. Although there is an ever quickening stream of progressive thought penetrating Christian fundamentalism, it yet remains basically a tool of the American bourgeoisie, favoring corporate control of the state, excessive love of national symbols, and demonstrating extreme patriotism.

The upside of the the fundamentalist church is that it has historically led the rest of the nation in "action" once it caught onto the truth. The Quakers and Shakers composed most of the first abolitionists, and the most dedicated members of the undergroud railroad. The Pentecostals were the first church to integrate their services where whites and blacks sat in the same pews. Now, pastor after pastor is beginning to teach that global warming is true and Christians have a duty to act against it. Additionally, many fundamentalist ministers are taking the position with their congregations that political activities have been misguided, and that the proper role of the Christian is to clothe the poor and feed the hungry.

So while the term Christofascist does currently fit the majority of fundamentalist Christians, it should not be used lightly, lest it hinder the conversion that is occuring within that sect.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 10, 2007 at 5:21:21 PM

  (0+)

IRV is Shooting yourself in the foot. Boo.

Do you wonder why a country like Ireland that has a vibrant multiparty political system using the multi-winner version of IRV for proportional representation is held up as an example of the failure of IRV? Quick, run and hide from it.

Don't be afraid. But do be informed.

Know that Range Voting has never been selected for governmental elections anywhere in the world. Why?

Know that Range Voting can easily allow an absolute majority united behind a single candidate to still be defeated.

Know that some people live in a fantasy world thinking they can quantify when a group of people would be 17% happier on average. Oh the joys of unvalidated, garbage-in-get-what-you-want-out computer “simulations”.

Know that some people believe our democracy can only change the way we vote every 200 years or so, that an incremental improvement now must be vigorously resisted because it would otherwise preclude any additional improvement for another 200 years.

Boo.

by Hoprai Tall (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:16:50 AM

  (0+)