I previously discussed the necessity of change and now I’d like to move on to the more pertinent and controversial question: the plausibility of change.
If we the people can agree that the current state of the government is an unfavorable one, we not only have the power to make a change, but are implored and given the duty to do so by The Constitution of the United States of America. The Founding Fathers wrote that document with a very clear set of principles in mind, namely that no ruling body should ever be allowed to steer the nation against the wishes of its people. When this does indeed happen, it is the duty of the people to recognize tyranny, call their fellow citizens to arms, and rectify the wrongs.
As is usually the case, the lack of action can be blamed mostly on the people’s apathy and inadequate understanding of current affairs, government practices, and political motives. Throughout history there has always been some rebel leader who has rallied the people and led them into revolution, which illustrates the whimsical nature of the people as a whole and their tendency to follow a leader. This could surely happen again, but is this step entirely necessary? Is it not possible for the people to actually understand the current state of affairs and make judgments on their own free will?
It’s frightening to think that such a simple understanding might not be possible. Must there always be a separation between the intellectuals and the commoners? Is the common man forever doomed to follow others, whether for good or bad? I think the goal of a society such as ours should be to make that as unlikely a situation as possible. Part of the very foundations of education in this society should involve embracing criticism by responding to and acting on it, as well as some mechanisms to deter apathy and promote free thinking.
I know I’m an idealist, but I think it really is possible to form a society where the majority of people know and care about their effect on other people and the world as a whole.
Yes, you’re an idealist. I agree with you on one level about the desirability of such a society; unfortunately, I think the majority of people are too wrapped up in their own lives, obsessed with details that will prove to be insignificant later on. Part of the problem, I’m sure, owes to the fact that our system of government involves electing officials to take care of the perceived problems, so most people cast their vote for representative, senator and president and then think their political duty is done. People also have the tendency not to really care about problems that don’t directly affect them — they have “better things to do” than worry about other people’s issues. What it comes down to is, you can’t make people care. :\
kill or be killed.