Everyone has heard this quote (possibly said by Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, but it doesn't matter):

 

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

 

I normally don't become agitated by these type of cliche talking points, but this one always bother me.

 

In 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote That would indicate we are on the apathy stage.

 

I hate to seem one-sided, but many progressives have no problem allowing extended unemployment benefits, welfare programs, and universal healthcare. All of these things sound great (on a side note, they are likely to be economic disasters), but doesn't it sound like the Dependence stage of the cycle?

Everyone has heard this quote (possibly said by Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, but it doesn't matter):

 

 

 

I normally don't become agitated by these type of cliche talking points, but this one always bother me.

 

In 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote That would indicate we are on the apathy stage.

 

I hate to seem one-sided, but many progressives have no problem allowing extended unemployment benefits, welfare programs, and universal healthcare. All of these things sound great (on a side note, they are likely to be economic disasters), but doesn't it sound like the Dependence stage of the cycle?

Grover Norquist divides Americans into two camps: the "takings coalition" and the "leave us alone coalition." Once the "takings coalition" gains a permanent majority it is hard to see how our country will survive in anything resembling its current form. Obviously, Democrats depend on the takers to keep them in power and Republicans should be depending on the leave us alone crowd to keep them in office. When Republicans raise taxes and spend like drunken sailors, their "brand" is tarnished and Democrats gain seats.

Everyone has heard this quote (possibly said by Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, but it doesn't matter):

 

 

 

I normally don't become agitated by these type of cliche talking points, but this one always bother me.

 

In 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote That would indicate we are on the apathy stage.

 

I hate to seem one-sided, but many progressives have no problem allowing extended unemployment benefits, welfare programs, and universal healthcare. All of these things sound great (on a side note, they are likely to be economic disasters), but doesn't it sound like the Dependence stage of the cycle?

 

I agree here. I am a democrate but I do take issues with these things. We as Americans are at the apathy stage, but I think that the trend can be reversed. I think that the abolishing of the Welfare system, taking the money that we spend in the Iraq war, making all classes pay taxes, would go along way. We could dump that money into education!!! Then we could be a truly progressive nation.

 

I kinda of disagree with the voting numbers, if you look throughout history only certain few had the right to vote which would be far less the 50% of the entire nation.

Grover Norquist divides Americans into two camps: the "takings coalition" and the "leave us alone coalition." Once the "takings coalition" gains a permanent majority it is hard to see how our country will survive in anything resembling its current form. Obviously, Democrats depend on the takers to keep them in power and Republicans should be depending on the leave us alone crowd to keep them in office. When Republicans raise taxes and spend like drunken sailors, their "brand" is tarnished and Democrats gain seats.

 

How did the republicans ever gain control after FDR...

 

I kinda of disagree with the voting numbers, if you look throughout history only certain few had the right to vote which would be far less the 50% of the entire nation.

 

That's true, but the Apathy stage does not have to do with overall population percentages, but instead a percentage of those eligible to vote. As indicated, it is slightly above 50%. Back when only white, land-owning males could vote (for example), I wonder what the percentage was.

Everyone has heard this quote (possibly said by Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, but it doesn't matter):

 

 

 

I normally don't become agitated by these type of cliche talking points, but this one always bother me.

 

In 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote That would indicate we are on the apathy stage.

 

I hate to seem one-sided, but many progressives have no problem allowing extended unemployment benefits, welfare programs, and universal healthcare. All of these things sound great (on a side note, they are likely to be economic disasters), but doesn't it sound like the Dependence stage of the cycle?

I'm not exactly sure how I feel or how to respond to the above yet.

 

 

I do feel that choice (freedom), while being the thing about a democracy that is the most treasured, also is the thing that has the ability to be the most destructive.

That's true, but the Apathy stage does not have to do with overall population percentages, but instead a percentage of those eligible to vote. As indicated, it is slightly above 50%. Back when only white, land-owning males could vote (for example), I wonder what the percentage was.

 

So, we really can not tell if we are in apathy stage because we can not compare the past to now, how about when the great depression hit, can we tell how voter turnout was?

In 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote That would indicate we are on the apathy stage.

 

 

I understand the apathy approach, and I belive that political apathy, especially among younger is a huge problem. However, many people over 30 in this contry did not vote at the rates they do now while under the age of 30. Does that mean today's youth will increase participation? Don't know.

 

Another thing while looking around deals with participation and ethnic groups. In the post Watergate era, African Americans are the only ethnic group that has had a constant increase in participation and registration. Combinig many diffferent sources that I have looked at, African Americans currently vote at a slightly higher rate than White Americans. One could assume that the fight for the right to vote, and continued struggle of civil rights would play into higher voting rates for African Americans, but I was surprised that rates were as high as they were, even in off year elections.

 

I don't want to connect this to the part of the inital post that dealt with dependency of programs, yet. I have to think about it some more.

 

We very may well be in an apathetic age, but I don't think that enough time has gone by to trully define the past 40 or so years in terms of that just yet.

How did the republicans ever gain control after FDR...

 

To most Americans at the time it was an embarrassment to go "on the dole" (ask anyone who lived during the Depression and WWII). So, even though the FDR established the framework for "the Takers", the attitude for using it was not widespread. Very few people felt they were "entitled" to other people's money.

 

Today, there is no embarassment or stigma attached to the Takers.

How did the republicans ever gain control after FDR...

 

Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Everyone has heard this quote (possibly said by Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, but it doesn't matter):

 

 

 

I normally don't become agitated by these type of cliche talking points, but this one always bother me.

 

In 2004, the presidential election turnout was up to 56.70% of all US citizens old enough to vote That would indicate we are on the apathy stage.

 

I hate to seem one-sided, but many progressives have no problem allowing extended unemployment benefits, welfare programs, and universal healthcare. All of these things sound great (on a side note, they are likely to be economic disasters), but doesn't it sound like the Dependence stage of the cycle?

 

Show me a democracy that has these things that is no longer a democracy. France is has a national healthcare system, garunteed employment after college, and some government controlled businesses but still enjoy all the freedoms we have today.

Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Plus the spliting of the New Deal Coalition.

So, we really can not tell if we are in apathy stage because we can not compare the past to now, how about when the great depression hit, can we tell how voter turnout was?

 

Maybe you are right. But you certainly can't argue that the majority of people really care about politics.

Show me a democracy that has these things that is no longer a democracy. France is has a national healthcare system, garunteed employment after college, and some government controlled businesses but still enjoy all the freedoms we have today.

I'm not going to get into problems in France because that is not what this thread is all about.

 

But what I will say is that the change isn't immediate, it is gradual. And I don't like the path that this cycle would say that we are going on. So yes, countries like France, Sweden, etc. aren't like that now, but it would seem that they are heading that way.

I'm not going to get into problems in France because that is not what this thread is all about.

 

But what I will say is that the change isn't immediate, it is gradual. And I don't like the path that this cycle would say that we are going on. So yes, countries like France, Sweden, etc. aren't like that now, but it would seem that they are heading that way.

 

How? This all looks like one big uber-right talking point to me.