On the other hand I don’t think it’s quite fair to attack the people of any region or country collectively just because one doesn’t like the people they choose to lead or represent them. It’s too easy to criticize “those Utahans” for electing Orrin Hatch, or, in 2004, “those Americans” who re-elected GWB. This is particularly true given the razor-thin margins that characterize many elections in the U.S. All of us didn’t vote for Bush by a long shot, nor did all Utahans vote for Hatch.
:dubious: No, dude. Shaquille is rich, the white guy who signs his checks is wealthy. George Carlin was rich, and you can tell that ain’t where he came from the same way you tell he’s a New Yorker. His material is the real Voice of the American Working Class.
But, you knew that.
I don’t think even George Carlin would be arrogant or foolish enough to proclaim himself “the real Voice of the American Working Class”.
He certainly doesn’t come from a working class background. His was father was a high level executive at the New York Sun, he went to private schools and he’s never worked at any job that would remotely be considered working-class, having worked as a disc jockey and later a comedian.
At worst, his background was upper-middle class.
Now yes, like Bill O’Reilly, Chuck D and others he often plays as if he comes from humbler origins than he did, but he doesn’t.
Moreover, regardless of where he came from, I don’t see how any reasonable person could deny that he’s currently quite wealthy, and I’m pretty certain he wouldn’t deny that either. If you want to insist he’s not wealthy go ahead, but doing so simply makes you look foolish.
Anyway, as I was saying, lots of people have paranoid, delusional persecution complexes and such tendencies are especially prevalent among well-heeled whites who tend to like to pretend they know what oppression feels like.
No, I didn’t. I don’t confuse George Carlin the person with the character George Carlin portrays on stage.
Similarly, I never saw Matt Damon or Ben Affleck as the voices of the American working-class even though they often play blue collar characters.
The democracy part of “Representative Democracy” is a myth in much the same way that the democracy part of The German Democratic Republic (East-Germany) or The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North-Korea) are all lies. The democratic aspects of “representative democracy” are such that it hardly worth mention. It is also so and so with representation. But “representative democracy” at least has the saving grace over outright tyranny or aristocracy that it at least is a meritocracy of sorts. But to call it democracy is misleading.
What does “blaming the population” means? A population is just a collection of individuals, so are you to blame every single individual for the faults of the local political leaders? An active neo-nazi for the failures of his socialist government, for instance?
My conception is that every person is responsible for his own actions, not for the actions of anybody else. I’m firmly opposed to the concept of “collective responsability”.
So, IMO, you can blame for the actions of a politician only those people who voted for him. At worst, you could blame too people who don’t actively oppose this politician’s policies (but even then the issue has to be quite serious for this active opposition to be a moral requirment, IMO). And besides, as stated by another poster, the choice can be pretty limited, especially in a two-parties system. For instance, my only option during the second round of the last French presidential election was to cast a blank vote since I thought both candidates were unfit for the job. Should I be then held responsible for everything Sarkozy did since? I don’t think so.
I share your opinion of big government, but also view mass media in the same manner. Even if the general public were intelligent enough to make important decisions collectively, rather than through representatives, how will they become informed about issues? Most major media avenues are not unbiased, but have agendas just as our politicians do. I just don’t trust that they would give impartial reports on important issues when it obvious that they do not. Major media outlets even choose to ignore an issue completely when they can not put a spin on it that suits their beliefs. I find more useful information from small independent news outlets and blogs than from big media anymore. I just wish the general public was more interested in issues that affect them, rather than on some reality TV or game show…
regardless of his personal situation, what he actually says is exactly right though. Care to take issue with what he actually says and if so why so?
Not that this is necessarily relevant to your argument, but just FYI, Carlin died three years ago.
That’s too bad. He was quite funny.
That’s a good question. The Utah case seemed like a good example because 1. There is a distinctive dominant culture in Utah (the seat of the (rather aggressive) Mormon religion) 2. Orrin Hatch has been re-elected lots of times and 3. offering up statements lacking in probity and clarity is something he has in common with the dominant culture.
I suppose I have found Orrin Hatch to be morally deficient in a way that seems to reflect the weaknesses of the Mormon position, namely it being a position based either on falsehoods, denials of established fact, or both (though it is even more complicated than that). So Hatch’s moral failings seem to reflect the moral failings of (some) Utahans, regardless of their non-smoking or hard work or what have you.
However, it isn’t as if I haven’t noticed similar or worse vices in representatives from other regions. Other cases seem less clear- what do people from Ohio have in common that explains John Boehner, for example? And so on. After a certain amount of examination it seems to be the case that some populations are corrupt, and also that some individuals in congress happen to be corrupt or wildly dishonest etc., regardless.
Sorry I didn’t get back sooner. I moved, I thought the internet would be hooked up, but there was a delay.
I admit in the pit thread that there will be exceptions. If you take the time to cast a blank ballot then I think your individual position is clear. Can you as an individual actually do anything about Sarkozy if you don’t like him? Probably not, or it isn’t worth the opportunity cost, and anyway you might piss off an awful lot of French if you found a way to put your specific preferences in front of the masses.