But the end result in this is that, once installed, the representatives are isolated from those they represent and end up paying attention only to that which makes the most noise.
Did organizers gain any ground for unions until there were huge work stoppages and even street wars demanding them? Was there any significant action on Civil Rights until there were mass demonstrations and riots? Would we still be slugging it out in Vietnam if no one had taken to the streets, burned their draft cars, defected to Canada and said "Hell no, we won't go and backed it up with their willingness to go to jail?
Government of the people, by the people and for the people my, by its very definition, be a reactive government. It was intended that way. Anything else would be contrary to the idea of democratic principals. So I fail to see why we are so unpleasantly surprised to find that our elected officials find little influence in our opinions and why we do not understand why they take action only after we become intolerant of the current way of doing things.
Representative government, I have determined, is like the parent of a small child who, hearing it cry, figures out that it is not in any real danger, but only wants attention, and, so, ignores the wails and shrieks and goes on about their business. It's only when the child crawls up and whacks the parent on the ankle with an empty bottle that parent takes note and does something about it.
What we say matters only when we care enough to back up the words with action.
The fact is that the people do still control the direction and activity of the government. The radical right has proven that over the past 20 years with the way it continually forces the issues it supports through their threats of withholding donations, boycotts, and the like.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
