What is Democracy in the American Social Imagination?

Here is what it says at: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/1c.asp

Nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be? Our government is a democracy! Well, for one, as we'll discuss later, the Founders actually feared democratic rule. James Madison expressed this attitude in Federalist #10: "...instability, injustice, and confusion ...have in truth been the mortal disease under which popular governments everywhere perished..." In the late 18^th-century, rule by the people was thought to lead to disorder and disruption. Yet a democratically-based government was seen as superior to the monarchies of Europe.

Democracies did not originate with the founding of the United States. The term "democracy" comes from two Greek words: "demos" (the people) and ""kratia" (power or authority). So of course democracy is a form of government that gives power to the people. But how, when, and to which people? The answer to those questions changes through history.

Democracies are based on "rule of law." The ancient Greeks (particularly Aristotle) valued natural law, the notion that human societies should be governed by ethical principles found in nature. The Greeks are famous for practicing direct democracy, a system in which citizens meet to discuss all policy, and then make decisions by majority rule. However, only free males were considered to be citizens. So their democracy was certainly limited. Today direct democracy is practiced in New England town meetings, where all citizens of voting age meet to decide important political decisions.

But how could direct democracy work in a large, diverse population spread over a geographical distance? Generally, the answer has been that it can't. In its place, the American Founders put "indirect" or "representative" democracy. In this system, representatives are chosen by the people to make decisions for them. The representative body, then, becomes a manageable size for doing the business of government. The Founders preferred the term "republic" to "democracy" because it described a system they generally preferred: the interests of the peopled were represented by more knowledgeable or wealthier citizens who were responsible to those that elected them.

Today we tend to use the terms "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. A widespread criticism of representative democracy is that the representatives become the "elites" that seldom consult ordinary citizens, so even though they are elected, a truly representative government doesn't really exist.

What many Americans would naively wish for a direct democracy. But, as you just read in a large diverse  country direct democracy is not feasible. Of course, that wish stems from the idea that even our representative government doesn't' really exist. Really??? Yes! The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. So, concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.


Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.



http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Labels in the Social Imagination ~ Part II

Not long ago I wrote about how labels in the social imagination are used to control people. The complete irony is that those who love labels (Progressives) have an agenda "Say No to Labels". Why? Because they don't want labels put on them which would obviously tell you more about them than they want you to know. The first American to come to mind is LBJ.

"I don't believe in labels. I want to do the best I can, all the time. I want to be progressive without getting both fee off the ground at the same time. I want to be prudent without having my mind closed to anything that is new or different. I have often said that I was proud that I was a free man first (no kidding... a white male from Texas) and an American second, and a public servant third and a Democrat fourth... finally calling himself a prudent progressive ~ " Lyndon B. John, Television and Radio Address March 15, 1964.

What praises he got and continues to get for that by his fellow progressives. Yet, no one seems to have paid attention to the order of his labeling. 1st, a free man, 2nd an American, 3rd a public servant and lastly a Democrat. His priority is being a free man, thirdly a public servant... that should tell you something about progressives; especially the prudent ones - judicious in practical affairs. Sounds reasonable to have good judgement in practical affairs but given the number one label here is being a 'Free man'. Knowing that this is a fallen world, all men are not as altruistic as we would like to think. It means that 'I come first', and first was used in the phraseology. 

A group of 'freethinkers' from New York decided to create an organization back in 2010 called what else... 'No Labels'. There motto - "put labels aside and do what is best for America".  Certainly, if they were really about being Americans (as a label for all) first and foremost, then I could agree.  However, that is not their agenda. Their agenda is to label according to their agenda because they know very well that labeling is a means to discern and from that we understand what to expect. They want us to expect certain things from them only and expect nothing else from no one else. To live in a gray zone with pop outs that they control.

Think about like this... if a man pretends to be a dentist because we don't want to use labels to describe him, then would you risk an office visit in a world with 'no labels'? Or, what if you were to go into your pantry or medicine cabinet and rip off all the labels... could you or your children accidentally mix up something edible/helpful with something not?

That does sound a bit exaggerated but grounded in a very real sense which is that we need labels. But, you might say ...hey, we are talking about unfair labels that some people put on other people. OK, so we can't call a thief a thief or a murderer a murderer, a pedophile a pedophile, or a liar a liar, a scam artist a scam artist, or a vagrant a vagrant etc. Maybe that is unfair. Oh, you meat that we can't label someone a racist, right? No, you say because a racist is a racist and should be labeled as such. You see, that's the progressive agenda. The right labels apply...

They don't want certain labels because they know that labels work for them and they want to control them. They want to clear away our fundamental objections to make way for what they really want. When such people say, "we need to get beyond labels, we need to put away labels." What that really means is that they want you to put away your labels so that they can continue to use theirs for their program unimpeded. 

Keep in mind, this organization of people (couldn't we label them 'prudent progressives' that want us to put away our labels, follow the benchmark set back in 1964, "First, I am a free man", second an American, third a public servant and fourth a democrat. When someone puts their freedom first (not someone else's) then we should wonder about their patriotism, their public service and devotion to being a democrat.

Am I for labels? Yes, I guess I should be if I were a progressive because the right labels do serve the greater good as they by nature we socially set ourselves apart with labels; hence, its built into our evolution, isn't it? However, knowing what and who we are and are not is not necessary in natural selection. Is it human then to not label as we cannot know who we truly are and will become? So... don't label me an intellectual or rich or poor or stupid or selfish, or a thief or anything because it does not really matter now, in this present state. Nature, as Progressives and Darwinists favor, would not need or use labels because its really about the evolution of the state!

But, if we consider that in Jesus Christ all are equal, the only label is His! "The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God".…~ Romans 8:20. Only He can set us free and in Him we are free indeed... free from man's labels and man's state of labels!




* Source ~ Jonah Goldberg's "The Tyranny of Cliches" a New York Times Best Seller!

Meaning and Reality... in the Social Imagination

There is no other reality other than the meaning we gain from our social interaction in the place we were born, live and work. That is because, such a place offers us 'agreement'. We agree that where we are is who we are or at least where we come from. Boundaries give us identity and meaning.

It is meaning that comes from being together and meaning that comes together in our social imagination as an agreed upon picture which we call reality. Our social interactions are grounded in such a place through interaction in a place. Such meaning starts in our mother's womb. It moves out from there as our point of departure grounded in a common among us/agreed on social reality.

Yes, the place we were born and raised is the very beginning of meaning in our social imagination. That kind of meaning that gets written in as a default mode program. Over time in a place, we grow in our social imagination in a place. That growth can be deemed as good, bad and even ugly in terms of information shared in a place and not shared. What is good, bad or ugly comes out of experience in a place and the information shared in a place. It all has meaning.

What the world means, the universe, the cosmos and its creation all come to us in the same way - social interaction; shared information in a place. Information is passed on from one to another, from generation to the next generation. Sometimes, it appears that things have changed but its really that people in the place they are agree that doing this or that can be done differently. Even if it is just slightly different and that is likely the case. But, always agreed on less chaos or discontent ensues.

We can only find ourselves as human beings, people, society, and individuals in the same place through agreement as to who we are in that place, what borders we tolerate both physical and social psychological. We can understand abstract concepts like: justice, liberty/freedom and democracy.  And, we 'people' have traditions, customs, celebrated holidays and religions that solidify them in the place where they are.

Meaning is applied in all those aspects of the social imagination. In the US, what it means to have private property is not the same as it is elsewhere. In some countries, a person has what is called the 'right/freedom to roam'. Here in America, roaming around is frowned on. We have the right to access public parks (State/Federal) but even then we cannot just walk in or walk about doing whatever we want.

We know that in order for this country to function, people have to work and pay taxes. It means something to the American. Working and paying taxes means being a citizen in a very special place with boundaries and such boundaries are supported by law. Its such law that enables a citizen to work/pay taxes and own property.

For anyone to say that boundaries don't matter, they better think again because more than likely that person operates within boundaries either drawn up by themselves or by the place in which they live.

"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands" ~ NIV Acts 17:26.