|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modern Civics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perdition writes: Citizenship confers a lot more rights than just being able to vote or run for office. I'd be leery about taking away citizenship unless a test is passed...but voting rights are another thing entirely. I'm all for a test before being able to vote. I think that the average citizen has a responsibility to understand why the government has arrived at some of the foreign policy decisions (the last three wars, for instance) that it has made. It almost seemed like the average American was simply told that the US was protecting so and so against such and such. We were never given an option to vote in favor or opposition to any of these wars. I for one would have liked to have a brush up course on why it was our job to protect "freedom" anywhere else in the world when it cost me money, future retirement, and the lives of my countrymen. Edited by Phat, : spell-o-rama Edited by Phat, : Title spelling also
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think that the average citizen has a responsibility to understand why the government has arrived at some of the foreign policy decisions (the last three wars, for instance) that it has made. So do I. Unfortunately, without someone asking these questions, and then following up to make sure the answers aren't just platitudes, it's tough for anyone to understand why the government does anything. Too, there is such a thing as classified information. Sometimes our military and civilian leaders are privvy to information that the release of would lead to dire consequences.
We were never given an option to vote in favor or opposition to any of these wars. Such is the price of a representative democracy...or a republic. We vote for the people we trust to make those decisions. If they abuse that trust, or make poor decisions on our behalf, we can vote them out fo office. If you don't think anyone running for an office will vote (mostly) in such a way as you would like, you have every right to put yourself up for election.
I for one would have liked to have a brush up course on why it was our job to protect "freedom" anywhere else in the world when it cost me money, future retirement, and the lives of my countrymen. Well, a stable, open nation is a benefit to us. but I don't think we should necessarily get involved in telling other countries and societies how they should behave unless the people ask us to help (like if they're under a repressive regime) or if their actions have a direct, easily explained threat to our sovereignty. I'm not an isolationist, but I do think we're a little to eager to invade other countries for poor or no rational reason. That's why I tend not to vote Republican. They're more gung-ho on things like this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The problem was described pretty clearly in a broadcast on January 17, 1961 by Dwight Eisenhower.
Ike writes: This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Citizenship confers a lot more rights than just being able to vote or run for office. I'd be leery about taking away citizenship unless a test is passed...but voting rights are another thing entirely. I'm all for a test before being able to vote. So not knowing how state and local government works means I have no valid opinion on whether a proposed garbage dump should be located in my backyard? Ignorance of how government works completely invalidates my opinion on a woman's right to chose abortion? I think a voting rights test is unjustifiable, elitist, nonsense. Further, voter testing has historically been abused to disenfranchise voters. I ain't for it.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
So not knowing how state and local government works means I have no valid opinion on whether a proposed garbage dump should be located in my backyard? Ignorance of how government works completely invalidates my opinion on a woman's right to chose abortion? I was thinking more along the lines of voting for a candidate for public office. If your city or state has a referendum on something, by all means vote on it. Though, I would rather that people informed on the issue vote on it rather than people voting because they were told to, or based on misinformation.
I think a voting rights test is unjustifiable, elitist, nonsense. Further, voter testing has historically been abused to disenfranchise voters. I ain't for it. I've seen way too many people vote for a candidate, and then, when that candidate does things they said they would do, the person who voted for them is shocked and outraged. I'm in Wisconsin and we're in the middle of a signature gathering to recall our governor. I think the recall is entirely justified, but I know people who voted for him and then signed the recall petition. He's pretty much doing what he said he woudl do (though some of the details weren't released during his campaign. I could see the way he would act, but many people who voted for him either didn't take the time to learn what he stood for, or merely voted for "their" party's candidate. Now we have to spend tax money to run a recall election just a year after a gubernatorial election. It's a waste of time and money that could have been avoided had the people merely taken an interest in what the candidates stood for. I know that in the past poll taxes and literacy tests have been used to disenfranchise voters. But in the information age, anyone with access to a library can learn about the candidates. maybe even non-partisan poll workers could inform the people who fail the test about the stated platforms of the candidates. Then, once the voters are able to make an informed decision, not merely a gut-reaction one, they can vote. I'm not a fan of disenfranchisement, but I'm also not a fan of uninformed voters. ABE: I never said you had to know the workings of government in order to vote. I said you needed to kow the views and plans of the candidates. So, too, for referenda, you need to know what the referendum is saying and what its effects are. Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So not knowing how state and local government works means I have no valid opinion on whether a proposed garbage dump should be located in my backyard? Ignorance of how government works completely invalidates my opinion on a woman's right to chose abortion? Wouldn't this work equally well as an argument against citizenship tests for immigrants? I too don't want a garbage dump in my back yard, just give me the vote already. If that is what you propose, then that's consistent, but if it isn't then I'd like you to explain the difference. Personally I don't think the suggestion is that outrageous. Anyone who wanted to vote has the option of learning this stuff. Anyone who can't be bothered probably didn't feel that strongly about voting in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I've seen way too many people vote for a candidate, and then, when that candidate does things they said they would do, the person who voted for them is shocked and outraged What kind of test would have uncovered such a thing? Who gets to select the test questions? How do we prevent politics from creeping into the test? I cannot imagine that people who identify themselves as Republicans would think my summary of the policy positions of the leading Republican candidates were unbiased. What should happen in an election is that the candidates provide enough info to allow voters to make a decision. If one candidate is lying or over promising, that candidates opponent has every opportunity to expose him.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Wouldn't this work equally well as an argument against citizenship tests for immigrants? I too don't want a garbage dump in my back yard, just give me the vote already. If that is what you propose, then that's consistent, but if it isn't then I'd like you to explain the difference. I haven't given citizenship tests much thought. I don't see the point of making sure that immigrants know information that most adult citizens probably have either forgotten or never knew.
Anyone who can't be bothered probably didn't feel that strongly about voting in the first place. We could say that about many artificial barriers to voting. If you cannot be bothered to learn interpret an arbitrarily chosen section of the constitution to the satisfaction of an Alabama clerk who really doesn't want you to vote, then why should you be able to vote? The fact is that people can have perfectly valid reasons to vote for or against a candidate or proposition without knowing much civics.I imagine that illiterate, former slaves in 1868 had perfectly good reasons for not voting for Democrats in local elections. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Any right-to-vote test is a moral abomination and has no place in a free democracy.
Anyone thinking otherwise needs to get their head out of the clouds that are in their ass. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Anyone who wanted to vote has the option of learning this stuff. Anyone who can't be bothered probably didn't feel that strongly about voting in the first place. People who vote don't vote because they feel strongly about voting, they vote because they feel strongly about the issue they are voting on. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jon blithely writes: Uneducated people shouldn't vote. They are easily swayed by campaign ads and news infotainment propaganda. Perhaps mandatory civics could at least warn people of this strategy, so that anyone who votes at least knows darn well the issue and the propaganda and money behind or against it.
Any right-to-vote test is a moral abomination and has no place in a free democracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Uneducated people shouldn't vote. They are easily swayed by campaign ads and news infotainment propaganda. They are also easily swayed by other silly things, like the desire to vote for policies that provide for their education. Damn illiterates. Only ever looking out for themselves... JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jon writes: They are also easily swayed by other silly things, like the desire to vote for policies that provide for their education. And Ive nothing against that, provided that i dont have to pay to help raise their many kids!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3988 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
NoNukes writes: I think a voting rights test is unjustifiable, elitist, nonsense. Further, voter testing has historically been abused to disenfranchise voters. I ain't for it. I'm a'gin it for the same reason I oppose the death penalty. It may be that some criminals don't deserve to live--but I don't want the state deciding who deserves to die. Similarly, maybe some people are so ignorant we'd be better off if they didn't vote--but I don't want the state deciding who those people are."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
People who vote don't vote because they feel strongly about voting, they vote because they feel strongly about the issue they are voting on. Well, read "voting on the issue they're voting on" for "voting". I knida took it for granted that people only vote on the things that they vote on. Suppose you're worried about the garbage dump in your back yard, and you want to vote for a mayoral candidate who's against it. Someone says: "But before we let you vote for a mayor, you've got to know whether the mayor of this town is subject to term limits". If you decide that you can't be bothered to learn that in order to be qualified to vote, how much did you care in the first place?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024