花鼠的博客
花鼠的博客
愛民主的人兒們應該做一點功課（圖）
莊冬
愛民主的人兒們應該做一點功課學習美國民主的來龍去脈，希望愛民主的人兒們喜歡看圖，嘿嘿。
啥都有代價，做錯誤的事情有代價，做正確的事情也有代價而且代價更大，正是因為它的正確性造成更大的代價，根本是正確與錯誤都是相對的，錯誤的東西也隻是在一方麵或幾方麵錯誤不可能百分之百錯誤，因為事物都是一分為二的，所謂正確的東西也是一樣。
相對的，正確的東西也隻是在一方麵或幾方麵正確不可能百分之百正確，因為事物都是一分為二的，所謂正確的東西也是有錯誤的地方的。
這就是為什麽人吃上肉了就會想吃蔬菜一樣，冬天時想夏天，夏天時想冬天。人們獨裁時想民主，你信不信，人們民主時也會想獨裁，美國人也時常說獨裁的好話。當然了，大家可以說民主時想獨裁的人們比較傻，因為他們隻是看到了獨裁的好處和民主的壞處而看不到獨裁的更壞的壞處。
但是，人們有工作被雇傭時想創業做自己的老板，你信不信，人們創了業了做了自己的老板了的時候也會想被雇傭。比如說，人們殖民時想獨立，你信不信，人們獨立時也會想殖民。所以，大家可以想象，獨立時想殖民是個什麽智力水平。
比如說老中吧，剛剛從抗日戰爭出來就打了三年內戰，隻不過十年以後，就對大躍進咬牙切齒了，難道大躍進比抗日戰爭和三年內戰還更可怕嗎？難怪劉殖民想殖民，還300年哪！也難怪中共抓劉殖民沒什麽民憤，如果有民憤也是在中國國土以外的憤青和憤不再青了的老憤青有民憤。
關鍵是人們總以為“改革”（不管是什麽改革，不管是經濟改革，還是政治改革）會更好，人們心目中的這個“更好”的意思其實是比“更好”還要多一些：以前的好東西一個不少 + 以前的壞東西少了 + 新的好東西來了 + 沒有新的壞東西！
人們不知道好東西和壞東西是手牽手來和手牽手去滴，陰陽、正負、南北等等等等。
當然了，如果你是領糧的就不必做功課了，因為你有大師提你做過了。
×××××××××××××××
Rude Democracy in America
Can We Overcome It?
By Susan Herbst
It does not take a political scientist like me to point out just how problematic our discourse has become: Much of talk radio and television punditry is highly partisan and hysterical. The thoughtful analysts are still trying their best on Sunday morning, but they are drowned out by cable news and the waves of dysfunction it spreads through the internet and into our lives.
The status quo could not be more depressing. Early media theorists worried that radio, then television, would send us to our couches and dissuade us from political action and strong engagement in the world. This has indeed happened, a sort of “narcotizing dysfunction” that mid-20th century scholars Robert Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld (two Columbia University sociologists) predicted would take hold. But what these men did not predict is that we would become both narcotized and also profoundly disillusioned. We have our moments of stepping up to the challenge of America, with humanity and self-reflection, as in the frightening days after 9/11. But most of the time we maintain a cynical distance from politics and find it does not reflect who we are or how we feel.
It would be inaccurate to say that political dialogue has deteriorated, since we have had other extraordinarily low and worrisome periods where hatred and incivility ruled. One of the worst periods for political discourse was the 1850s, harrowing years before the outbreak of the Civil War, when screaming and even beatings on the floor of the U.S. Congress were commonplace. And let us not forget the raging attacks on FDR or the horrors of the Civil Rights Movement in the southern states. The truth is that we have always witnessed outbreaks of incivility, of venom, and destructive talk and action in politics. There was no true “golden age” of purely constructive discourse in America, and just recognizing this fact makes the set of issues we face even more troubling: There is no idyllic model to return to.
If we are to try and reform our political discourse — the way we treat each other, the tone we use and finding a shared standard for evidence — we must develop a new model. And that new path will need to account for a 24/7 news cycle, as well as a culture addicted to constant stimulation and novelty. To that end, I have a few observations and routes to solutions:
1. Create a Culture of Listening. We have all focused, rightly, on “sins of commission”: what is said by pundits and leaders that seems entirely out of line. But we typically fail to note “sins of omission”: what we fail to do, and what we forget to do, as leaders and citizens. One of the things we seem unable to do is to listen, and truly open ourselves up, with the patience it takes to process information. Everyone wants to talk at once and be heard! Their blog, their post, their soundbite. In this cacophony there is no reward for silence, and seemingly no benefit. We have some ground-breaking projects to be sure — StoryCorps on NPR being the premier example — focused on getting Americans to slow down and listen. But beyond these few brave contributions, listening seems to be a lost art, and one that needs immediate resurrection.
2. Advocate for Rules of Evidence. The single most problematic aspect of the internet, and our ability to be heard without gatekeepers, is the lack of argumentation rules. It seems that anyone can say anything, and have that picked up and repeated over and over, without critical oversight. I suppose our founders would lean on the populace: Educated people can separate the wheat from the chaff. That is easier said than done, however, because it has become very difficult to separate the two in a flood of information, or have the time to try. I keep hoping that one of our leading news organizations or pundits will call for a summit: How can broadcast professionals come together and agree on standards, to define what constitutes evidence? So many professional organizations do this, daily. Why can’t our media, who should be public servants while making their profits, locate their professional standard and moral center?
3. The Answer is in P-16 Education. In many ways, the generations of citizens older than 25 have lost their way, with regard to political talk. Perhaps we can change, but it is far more likely that the high school and college students of today will navigate the new waters and develop the sort of discourse that might make America seem the humane, lively democracy envisioned so long ago. We cannot rely on standard, even if excellent, civics courses or Introduction to Political Science. We need to teach young people how to argue with vigor, intelligence and panache. We must train an educated populace, as always, but just as important, we need to create a culture of argument. And we need to do this on a mass scale thorough our public and private schools. If we cannot teach our children how to reason and articulate their ideas, they will find themselves in the same dysfunctional bind their parents live in.
4. We Need Courage. It feels old-fashioned to write, and you likely find it ridiculously 19th century to read, but being a citizen in a democracy has always demanded a sort of courage that few of us ever come to know. Soldiers know it, and they prove it daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the rest of us don’t call on any sort of internal cognitive or emotional strength when it comes to politics. We want it to be easy, which is why social scientists find that most people hang out with those who share their beliefs. Few people argue or seek others who might disagree. Somehow, we think that democracy itself — rule by the people — would just involve occasional voting, when it always called for much more. Democratic theorists have written about this in so many ways, over hundreds of years now: Self-rule is impossible without the bravery it takes to express opinions and do so civilly. The abilities to argue, to listen and create the nation together, are both foundational and non-negotiable.
These are only a few observations and ideas, but in any case, the need to address our political discourse is now urgent. We cannot blame the Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, or any unusual act of violence, on a particular pundit or party. Violence against our people and leaders is a reflection of mental instability by lone individuals. But that said, we have created an environment so toxic that the notion of political violence is no longer shocking. In the aftermath of this deadly event, for example, many reacted with horror but not with surprise. Perhaps violence — as in the dark days before the Civil War — is the next step in a culture that has lost its way and lost its ability to reason.
We can never stop a lone gunman or violent mob if they are intent on harm. But we can create an environment of civility, where these actions are not expected at all, and are in fact entirely counter to our national cultural mores. It is this daunting and complex responsibility we place on our young people — to change American politics itself — and my time as a college professor tells me it is possible. Democracy makes sense, and people can be made to understand their role in it. Yet, all educators are needed on deck if we are to be the international model for political freedom and peace that America claimed it has been, and will be.
Susan Herbst, author of Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics (Temple University Press, 2010), is executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer for the University System of Georgia. She will take office as the 15th president of the University of Connecticut in July. This article was published in the spring 2011 issue of The Key Reporter.
Image above:“Southern Chivalry — Argument Versus Clubs” by John L. Magee expresses the outrage over Preston Brooks’ attack on fellow U.S. Congressman Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber, May 22, 1856. This lithograph is used as the cover illustration for Herbst’s new book, Rude Democracy.
Can We Overcome It?
By Susan Herbst
It does not take a political scientist like me to point out just how problematic our discourse has become: Much of talk radio and television punditry is highly partisan and hysterical. The thoughtful analysts are still trying their best on Sunday morning, but they are drowned out by cable news and the waves of dysfunction it spreads through the internet and into our lives.
The status quo could not be more depressing. Early media theorists worried that radio, then television, would send us to our couches and dissuade us from political action and strong engagement in the world. This has indeed happened, a sort of “narcotizing dysfunction” that mid-20th century scholars Robert Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld (two Columbia University sociologists) predicted would take hold. But what these men did not predict is that we would become both narcotized and also profoundly disillusioned. We have our moments of stepping up to the challenge of America, with humanity and self-reflection, as in the frightening days after 9/11. But most of the time we maintain a cynical distance from politics and find it does not reflect who we are or how we feel.
It would be inaccurate to say that political dialogue has deteriorated, since we have had other extraordinarily low and worrisome periods where hatred and incivility ruled. One of the worst periods for political discourse was the 1850s, harrowing years before the outbreak of the Civil War, when screaming and even beatings on the floor of the U.S. Congress were commonplace. And let us not forget the raging attacks on FDR or the horrors of the Civil Rights Movement in the southern states. The truth is that we have always witnessed outbreaks of incivility, of venom, and destructive talk and action in politics. There was no true “golden age” of purely constructive discourse in America, and just recognizing this fact makes the set of issues we face even more troubling: There is no idyllic model to return to.
If we are to try and reform our political discourse — the way we treat each other, the tone we use and finding a shared standard for evidence — we must develop a new model. And that new path will need to account for a 24/7 news cycle, as well as a culture addicted to constant stimulation and novelty. To that end, I have a few observations and routes to solutions:
1. Create a Culture of Listening. We have all focused, rightly, on “sins of commission”: what is said by pundits and leaders that seems entirely out of line. But we typically fail to note “sins of omission”: what we fail to do, and what we forget to do, as leaders and citizens. One of the things we seem unable to do is to listen, and truly open ourselves up, with the patience it takes to process information. Everyone wants to talk at once and be heard! Their blog, their post, their soundbite. In this cacophony there is no reward for silence, and seemingly no benefit. We have some ground-breaking projects to be sure — StoryCorps on NPR being the premier example — focused on getting Americans to slow down and listen. But beyond these few brave contributions, listening seems to be a lost art, and one that needs immediate resurrection.
2. Advocate for Rules of Evidence. The single most problematic aspect of the internet, and our ability to be heard without gatekeepers, is the lack of argumentation rules. It seems that anyone can say anything, and have that picked up and repeated over and over, without critical oversight. I suppose our founders would lean on the populace: Educated people can separate the wheat from the chaff. That is easier said than done, however, because it has become very difficult to separate the two in a flood of information, or have the time to try. I keep hoping that one of our leading news organizations or pundits will call for a summit: How can broadcast professionals come together and agree on standards, to define what constitutes evidence? So many professional organizations do this, daily. Why can’t our media, who should be public servants while making their profits, locate their professional standard and moral center?
3. The Answer is in P-16 Education. In many ways, the generations of citizens older than 25 have lost their way, with regard to political talk. Perhaps we can change, but it is far more likely that the high school and college students of today will navigate the new waters and develop the sort of discourse that might make America seem the humane, lively democracy envisioned so long ago. We cannot rely on standard, even if excellent, civics courses or Introduction to Political Science. We need to teach young people how to argue with vigor, intelligence and panache. We must train an educated populace, as always, but just as important, we need to create a culture of argument. And we need to do this on a mass scale thorough our public and private schools. If we cannot teach our children how to reason and articulate their ideas, they will find themselves in the same dysfunctional bind their parents live in.
4. We Need Courage. It feels old-fashioned to write, and you likely find it ridiculously 19th century to read, but being a citizen in a democracy has always demanded a sort of courage that few of us ever come to know. Soldiers know it, and they prove it daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the rest of us don’t call on any sort of internal cognitive or emotional strength when it comes to politics. We want it to be easy, which is why social scientists find that most people hang out with those who share their beliefs. Few people argue or seek others who might disagree. Somehow, we think that democracy itself — rule by the people — would just involve occasional voting, when it always called for much more. Democratic theorists have written about this in so many ways, over hundreds of years now: Self-rule is impossible without the bravery it takes to express opinions and do so civilly. The abilities to argue, to listen and create the nation together, are both foundational and non-negotiable.
These are only a few observations and ideas, but in any case, the need to address our political discourse is now urgent. We cannot blame the Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, or any unusual act of violence, on a particular pundit or party. Violence against our people and leaders is a reflection of mental instability by lone individuals. But that said, we have created an environment so toxic that the notion of political violence is no longer shocking. In the aftermath of this deadly event, for example, many reacted with horror but not with surprise. Perhaps violence — as in the dark days before the Civil War — is the next step in a culture that has lost its way and lost its ability to reason.
We can never stop a lone gunman or violent mob if they are intent on harm. But we can create an environment of civility, where these actions are not expected at all, and are in fact entirely counter to our national cultural mores. It is this daunting and complex responsibility we place on our young people — to change American politics itself — and my time as a college professor tells me it is possible. Democracy makes sense, and people can be made to understand their role in it. Yet, all educators are needed on deck if we are to be the international model for political freedom and peace that America claimed it has been, and will be.
Susan Herbst, author of Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics (Temple University Press, 2010), is executive vice chancellor and chief academic officer for the University System of Georgia. She will take office as the 15th president of the University of Connecticut in July. This article was published in the spring 2011 issue of The Key Reporter.
Image above:“Southern Chivalry — Argument Versus Clubs” by John L. Magee expresses the outrage over Preston Brooks’ attack on fellow U.S. Congressman Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber, May 22, 1856. This lithograph is used as the cover illustration for Herbst’s new book, Rude Democracy.
