爱民主的人儿们应该做一点功课（图）
庄冬
爱民主的人儿们应该做一点功课学习美国民主的来龙去脉，希望爱民主的人儿们喜欢看图，嘿嘿。
啥都有代价，做错误的事情有代价，做正确的事情也有代价而且代价更大，正是因为它的正确性造成更大的代价，根本是正确与错误都是相对的，错误的东西也只是在一方面或几方面错误不可能百分之百错误，因为事物都是一分为二的，所谓正确的东西也是一样。
相对的，正确的东西也只是在一方面或几方面正确不可能百分之百正确，因为事物都是一分为二的，所谓正确的东西也是有错误的地方的。
这就是为什么人吃上肉了就会想吃蔬菜一样，冬天时想夏天，夏天时想冬天。人们独裁时想民主，你信不信，人们民主时也会想独裁，美国人也时常说独裁的好话。当然了，大家可以说民主时想独裁的人们比较傻，因为他们只是看到了独裁的好处和民主的坏处而看不到独裁的更坏的坏处。
但是，人们有工作被雇佣时想创业做自己的老板，你信不信，人们创了业了做了自己的老板了的时候也会想被雇佣。比如说，人们殖民时想独立，你信不信，人们独立时也会想殖民。所以，大家可以想象，独立时想殖民是个什么智力水平。
比如说老中吧，刚刚从抗日战争出来就打了三年内战，只不过十年以后，就对大跃进咬牙切齿了，难道大跃进比抗日战争和三年内战还更可怕吗？难怪刘殖民想殖民，还300年哪！也难怪中共抓刘殖民没什么民愤，如果有民愤也是在中国国土以外的愤青和愤不再青了的老愤青有民愤。
关键是人们总以为“改革”（不管是什么改革，不管是经济改革，还是政治改革）会更好，人们心目中的这个“更好”的意思其实是比“更好”还要多一些：以前的好东西一个不少 + 以前的坏东西少了 + 新的好东西来了 + 没有新的坏东西！
人们不知道好东西和坏东西是手牵手来和手牵手去滴，阴阳、正负、南北等等等等。
当然了，如果你是领粮的就不必做功课了，因为你有大师提你做过了。
×××××××××××××××
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.
