The current state of political affairs is anything but politics as usual. The nation appears to be divided on almost every issue from Social Security to military expenditures. This general election is more contentious than any other in recent memory. We have seen a political polarization dominated by the extremes. We appear to be a people turned in on ourselves and ready to tear each other apart. Whoever wins the upcoming elections will be faced with attempting to govern a seriously divided populous.
I can’t help but believe this division is in response to the recent financial collapse and ever slow recovery. However, I don’t think it is just the failure of the economic system but it includes something more. It seems that anytime we have a major change to economic systems and means of production and services; a serious divide ensues. If we search our own short history, this type of division occurred when we began the transformation to an industrial economy. Around 180 years ago tensions began to build between the emerging industrialization of the U.S. Northeast and Upper Midwest against the Agriculturist Southern tier of states. The division of the vision for the future between the two led to the bloodiest war that this nation has ever been involved in.
We are currently caught up in a major transition from the post industrial age to the information age. The world has shrunken down to a monitor and keyboard. We are in the process of becoming a truly global society intricately connected in every dimension and at every level. Our overall awareness and access to information is unprecedented. This is driving unknown and uncontrolled social change. Every major social institution is under pressure to change; from education to business to religion and beyond. The question we are faced with is how we deal with such rapid change?
In such uncertain times and with people’s insecurities heightened by change and an unknown future; how are we to proceed? One thing for certain is that we cannot afford plunging into social and political chaos. We must acknowledge that both sides of the political spectrum are dedicated to a single purpose; the preservation of our civilization and commitment to a republican democracy. That democracy is dependent on opposing forces coming into contact and interacting in such a manner as to move us forward in the process of adaptation to the realities of globalization. The old political systems, whether socialism or laissez faire capitalism, are insufficient to meet the new demands facing us now and in the future. Globalization requires new perspectives and new social structures, some of which we haven’t even imagined.
Our republican democracy requires us to balance opposing forces and interests. We need both points of view as we move forward into the uncertainty of the future. We must not forget that after the elections we must come together to pursue our joint goals. This will mean leaving the ugliness of the elections behind and search for commonality and a balance of interests. Successful societies only survive if they are able to adapt; those that can’t or won’t will soon become extinct.
The Federal Reserve's policy of 'quantitative easing' has caused a greater pressure on the poor to make ends meet. Government can be a destructive factor when it follows an unwise policy.
I don't perceive the situation as you do and you are presenting a great deal out of context. Even so, in 16 days we will be confronted with new situations that we must all adapt to.
There will not be a rapid decline without the earned income credit and bailouts for non-viable alternative energy companies. Going broke or creating hyper-inflation because we lack the political will to say no to open ended entitlements and public sector union demands can create mischief reminiscent of Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.
Regarding IQ scores, what you say about old means of testing is true, if you go back far enough. However, the consistent result is that boys score higher than girls in high school. That is because we are testing nearly all the population of girls, but only a select portion of boys in high school. If we test the general population of boy and girls in a given community, without regard to their attendance at school, we get results that are about the same for boys and girls. But perhaps my point was not clear. My point was that males ALSO have different challenges because of their biology. They are unconsciously affected in ways that affect their finances negatively. Yet no one is saying that boys are being discriminated against. Regarding women, Bren made the typical liberal accusation, which will be used by politicians as long as the uninformed can be fooled by it. She claims that women are paid less because they are women, and they need to be compensated for what has been denied them. What she is really demanding is that others pay for the “bad” decisions that women make.
I am not saying that men and women can’t play any particular type of roll they want to, either. What I am saying is that because of biology, both adults and children will generally live less beneficial lives when they go against the biological norm, when considering the population as a whole. In fact, there are many societal institutions, like marriage, that are in place because of biology. (Speaking in a merely biological level, marriage is a means of ensuring the material welfare of women and their children, and the means of ensuring that men aren’t rearing the offspring that aren’t their own, among other things.) It is almost universally true that societies have protected their females from male until some type of commitment has been made, AND FOR GOOD REASON.
I have much more to say, but perhaps another time…………
This is what you are standing up for and why I call you lefties, extreme.
Screw you Ruble, your kind cannot be negotiated with.
She was a supporter of the early 20th century eugenics movement along with other notable intellectuals. By the 1930s her position on eugenics had substantially changed. Her views on race were consistent with the times and the idea of the 'white burden'. However, she was instrumental of giving services to the African-American Community and was supported by the Black Leadership. Brian, please try to keep things in context.
Screw you Ruble, get a job.
Thanks for being an example, Bren.
Do you disagree that your point of view is that the right must give in, and that the left is the "middle"?