Ultraviolent Radiation
05-10-2006, 18:15
Safe for the government that is. My question is, do you think that the government (wherever you happen to live) is trying to put itself in the middle ground of safe non-democracy, i.e. do as little of what people actually want as is possible without pissing the people off enough to make them turn against the government.
Greyenivol Colony
05-10-2006, 19:18
In today's world of leviathan media coverage and instant mass communication, discontent can quickly be amplified and spred. That is why Governments are universally less likely to do something unpopular.
If we were to look back a hundred years and observe the radical reformist governments of that time and compare them with today, we would notice that the biggest trend of 20th century history was for Democracy to become much more moderate.
Mikesburg
05-10-2006, 23:21
Safe for the government that is. My question is, do you think that the government (wherever you happen to live) is trying to put itself in the middle ground of safe non-democracy, i.e. do as little of what people actually want as is possible without pissing the people off enough to make them turn against the government.
That would be giving politicians far more intelligence and foresight than they deserve. Politicians live in the present; they promise one thing to get elected, and then accomplish what they really want before their term limits expire. At best, most will try to appease a middle-ground so they can keep their party in power.
It's not unreasonable to expect that there may be a rare breed of politician who actually represents the views of their electorate and keeps their promises once elected, however, the nature of politics, compromise and the whim of the public can change the best-laid plans.
The best we can do, is try to be media-savvy, pick apart the BS from the truth, and work at reforming democracy and make our politicians more accountable to their campaign slogans.