This story is archived
The Death of American Debate »
Posted by: populist 2 years, 6 months agoThey call it partisanship; in reality, it is cowardice. Thinking is not what the partisans want for the American population. They seek an unquestioning multitude. They seek the obedience of blinded eyes and heads pressed to the earth.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 294
-
-
berkeley
April 30, 2007, 11:26 p.m.this essay is really just a preface to a longer article about materialism and what passes for education. mammom will devour all who approach him.
-
tehranchik
April 30, 2007, 11:27 p.m.'The world really isn't about black and white; it's infinite shades of grey, and every issue needs to be examined on its own merits with independent thinkers learning the facts and taking a stance, political parties be damned.'>< This sentence is so true. I'm not a dem or a rep--I'm just me cause of all that grey in between. Thanks P.
-
NelsonR
May 1, 2007, 12:27 a.m.True, a person of only one party affiliation and promoting all that is within that parties agenda is quite ludicrous.
I will admit one point, while blogging I have changed my opinion on some issues addressed. I readily admit I perceived an opinion that was wrong and I adjusted. How many can admit to that. Now this does not mean I was stupid, lets just say I was educated. Reading various blogs from many individuals it seems most do not sway within their argument, regardless of their obvious flawed logic and facts. Amazing.
-
Beau7890
May 1, 2007, 12:59 a.m.Great article, populist. Thanks for the heads-up.
I hardly know what to add, except to give the Populist party this oblique plug in appreciation. The two-party system seems to me a poor way to run a country and an exclusive way to wield power. Itpromotes the black-and-white, us-vs.-them attitude and the cult of party politics discussed in the article. Under such a system, the only way to make progress on any specific issue in which you strongly believe is to elect the party to power that comes closest to aiding that cause.
If I care most, for instance, about protecting my right to bear arms, I must elect Republicans, regardless of what else they might advocate. Conversely, if I care most about women's reproductive freedoms, I must elect Democrats. The citizenry is forced into pigeonholes developed by the party elites. Public discussion becomes defensive, harsh and divisive, frequently straying from substance into blame of the other side. We've all seen it out here.
-
Radiofreeeuropa
May 1, 2007, 1:02 a.m.While I think it is true, no one should blindly follow a political party, in my lifetime, on the whole, republicans have stood against many of my core beliefs. Yet I will tell you there have been some who are OK in my book. I think I am more of an anti-fascist than a democrat. The parties themselves both started out being "clubs" through which industry and banking could mold policy to their favor. In Lincoln's time the republicans were the more liberal of the 2.
As our friend populist is surely aware,in 1896 the democrats adopted many of the positions of the populist party ( Probably for mere political advantage, not for reasons of conscience.)And ever since has been the more liberal of the 2.
-
not2needy
May 1, 2007, 1:44 a.m.They seek an unquestioning multitude. They seek the obedience of blinded eyes))
Exactly, what most of us have said all along! It's sickening!
-
JustCallMeV
May 1, 2007, 1:47 a.m."The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Plato
-V-
-
-
sixshot
May 1, 2007, 7:29 a.m.lets see i don't agree with the war in iraq but i whish they'd get out and get back killing those scumbag taliban and hunting for ousama i also belive its the right of all law abiding citizens to have firearms but i also belive that one has to make i difficult for people like the virginia killer and crimminals to posses guns but what do i know i just think for myself and refuse to let anybody do it for me.
-
MajJohn
May 1, 2007, 8:15 a.m.I don't think the political parties are corrupt, their leaders are! Usually, at least lately, it's the front runners who make you want to hold your nose. We long for honest leader who has the best interest of most of us, no matter what the party. Most politicians are self serving, having been corrupted by the power of authority.
I leave you with this thought, I've found the most tyrannical to be the one with the least authority initially. This person if not stopped grows in power until he becomes the ultimate tyrant.
As I said before, this was a good post because it left out the Populist ideological crap, which I don't care for any more than the Democratic or Republican crap.
-
ningyo
May 1, 2007, 8:17 a.m.we already have what amounts to unlimited funding for schools--the problem is the stranglehold the teachers union has on public schools--tenure is an abusive joke gone mad--same for universities--i work with a lot of schools and in NJ many public schools spend about $12,000 per student and they are disasters--graduating children who cant read--on the other side i work with some small private schools that spend $2-3000 per pupil and seem to function much better--somehow they buy books and desks etc--where does the other $10,000 go..salaries are part of it but not much--one big difference..they can get rid of students who are disruptive and parents unwilling to control them--
-
Nowalive
May 1, 2007, 8:50 a.m.Excellent read! For a large majority of today's "me" society it can be summed up this way....
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
-
stephen-johnson
May 1, 2007, 9:29 a.m.Reading about "the death of American debate" on Nutscape is comical. Nearly all of the threads here are juvenile flaming contests, not reasoned debates.
-
chevydog
May 1, 2007, 9:30 a.m.This was nicely said. IMHO, there are many views about any issue; too often we assume that there are only "us" or "them". One is educated so that one can think. Spouting sound bites or the like does no necessarily clarify things.
-
cleare
May 1, 2007, 10:52 a.m.most of the our population can no longer even speak properly, much less debate.
poor grammer...limited vocabularies...emotional rather than rational thinking...ignorance of the socratic method...no disciplined thought processes...lack of civility...all contribute to a society barely able to talk to each other much less debate.
and it's not getting any better.
a true debater is trained to argue either side of an issue. this forces them to clearly see the opposition's point of view and interpret the facts through their eyes. this is an invaluable capability, sadly lacking in contemporary society.
-
espse
May 1, 2007, 11:21 a.m.With conservative money owning all media and the advertisers who fund public media, there is no debate. Those questioning the motives of the owners and the "Deciders" are branded far left wing, socialists, unpatriotic and are swiftboated, fired and destroyed by personal attacks. Journalists who would report unflattering news about corporations or the lacky politicians who do their bidding are fired. Editorialists in newspapers who attack or ridicule the party of the owners of the media are fired. Unfortunately in america there is a huge block of moron flagwaving nascar bush voters who are targeted as manipulatable by advertisers. This is the sacred cow of America. The moron majority block. The people who call radio stations and organise boycotts if they play Dixie Chicks music. Who organize boycotts of businesses if they advertise on a percieved liberal TV station. Money controls media, money prevents the debate.
-
rimbaud
May 1, 2007, 11:22 a.m.Ban all paid political advertising. We need to know if our candidates can reason before we elect them. Let them expose themselves to us to get elected. Let them raise as much money as they want, but prohibit spending on advertising or P.R. Lobbyists would have to spread their money around more evenly when it is not a foregone conclusion who will be the winner. You might complain that advertising is a First Amendment right, but a case can be made that banning political advertising would encourage speech, punditry, editorializing and the parrticipation of the electorate in the debate. Elections are getting to be too much like Reality TV voting.
-
icelander
May 1, 2007, 11:58 a.m.The problem is that without a large political party behind you, it's impossible to get elected to almost any office. And because we have a system where you can either win or lose an election, you end up with two political parties, which leads to the "them-versus-us" that we see in politics today.
To solve the problem we need a better electoral system (proportional representation and/or instant runoff voting) and public funding of campaigns. That way, everyone's ideas get heard and you don't help the opposition by voting your conscience.
-
tiredofwhiners
May 1, 2007, 12:19 p.m.A well done piece. I looked for bias to left or right and he pretty much avoided that. I do think watching/listening to talk/opinion shows is a good way to keep informed as long as we take what they say with a "grain of salt". I depend on them and news programs to keep me informed. After all, I'm typical in that I don't have the time to keep up with the news very well. My contention has been for many years that good old fashioned, respectful debate with orderly rules is almost non existent anymore. Bottom line is that I go by my own basic principles and ideas and don't let anyone sway me without clear proof I should change. But I can be convinced to change some ideas.
-
Truzseeker
May 1, 2007, 12:49 p.m.Known facts have no political party, and focus the debate/discussion issue.
-
pongping
May 1, 2007, 1:33 p.m.""When people swallow every pill touted by their political party, they have ceased to be rational beings and have become cult members.""
Hmmmm! Sounds familiar.
-
lovelytxwoman
May 1, 2007, 1:59 p.m.It is so nice that everything in today's politics can be whittled down to unable to debate! What's a silly conclusion to come too!
-
dEditor
May 1, 2007, 3:14 p.m.Even today we hear the Liberal Left Leaders in Congress as they once again tell the American people they don't have a clue as to what this War on Terror is all about. Says Pelosi "we urge the President to sign this Anti War bill so that we can refocus our efforts on the WAR ON TERROR". What a fricking ridiculous statement. Don't they know that Iraq has become the front on the WAR on TERROR and that is why we are fighting it there and not in our own backyard. What fricking stupid liberal leadership. And they want to lead this country. Not today tomorrow and the American People should hang it head in shame for electing these morons to take control of our Congress.
-
dEditor
May 1, 2007, 3:17 p.m.And another thing. Just what in the hell are these fricking liberal morons doing wasting our time and money with a frivolous ridiculous BILL that they know is going to be vetoed by the President and cannot be overrided in Congress. Such waste of money and time is what the fricking Democrats are all about. And lets not forget they also tagged on some 24 billion dollars or PORK of entitlements to satisfy their lobbyists who give them the money to do these ridiculous activities.
The first 216 comments are shown. Show all 294 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
