Political Survey on How to Save the World
Ryton 5 by Subwave_Photography
This survey has 27 questions that deal with very important issues for our local communities, our nation, and the world. My answer to each question, which actually is a specific demand to make of members of the U.S. Congress, is "No. 4--Totally Agree."
This survey has questions that are longer and more thought-provoking than typical survey questions that have you choose which candidate or product you prefer. If the survey causes participants to think about certain issues for the first time, then it serves as a teaching tool.
Many people take only a psycho-spiritual approach to world betterment: "Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me" is an example of this. Personally, I believe there has to be an equal focus on passing better laws and amendments. Masses of people praying, meditating, or singing in large stadiums for world peace might change hearts, but it won't change governments. And just believing and hoping that the current Congress will make radical improvements will not make it happen.
But if masses of people are in agreement about what the U.S. Congress must do now and demand it in widespread, nonviolent protest gatherings in major cities at the same time--amazing things will start to happen.
When the power of informed citizens united together is greater than the influence of corporations, members of Congress will start listening to their constituents when their jobs depend on it. Surveys like this one can help us find our common dreams and make our common demands.
My favorite analogy is to compare the world to the human body. Just as all the cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems must work together--the neighborhood block clubs, precincts, townships, counties, states, and nations must cooperate as well; otherwise, the body or the world lacks unity and disintegrates.
Often when I try to engage people to consider public-policy issues, the response is "Oh, I'm not political," which makes me think, "Why not?" I then think of the wealthiest one percent of the nation, who have an inordinate influence on government, corporations, and the mass media: they just love it when the masses are too preoccupied with frivolous entertainments, or their own personal survival, to question why so much money is spent on security and surveillance at home and idiotic wars abroad.
Perhaps that is why President Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation, warned the American people to keep a careful eye on the military-industrial complex. Actually, the truth is, we can have homeland security when the world and the Earth become our homeland, and every individual is considered part of the family, when we can love all, and exclude none. With family members, we may not always approve or understand their behavior, but we never stop loving and caring for them. We can strive to maintain and choose this attitude on a daily basis.
Many people believe that if they are personally honest, fair, and kind to others, then they are being good citizens. But it takes more than that: we have a responsibility to become well-informed world citizens--especially in regards to ecology, U.S. foreign policy, geography, and history.
We all have acquired or developed political beliefs and values, whether we consider ourselves political or apolitical; and our political beliefs and values affect the world, for better or worse. For me, maximizing democracy domestically and creating peace and happiness internationally are top political priorities. I want to better understand the unique needs, resources, and character of every country in the world.
Neoconservatives (Neocons, for short) are for an interventionist foreign policy: they believe it is necessary for our government to police the world with a strong and very costly military; this policy is supported by the majority of Republicans and Democrats.
Paleoconservatives (Paleocons, for short) are traditional or constitutional Republicans who believe in capitalism, and they are socially conservative, but they are against the interventionist foreign policy of the Neocons.