"Ask not what your country can do for you..."

[Sisyphus]

"...ask what you can do for your country."

 

That famous quote from President Kennedy's inaugural address in 1961 came strongly to mind recently. Specifically, it was in the "Second Amendment" thread, from this quote:

 

the people are split into two halves (general).

one half believes that the government is a foreign harmful entity.

the other half believes that the government is an all-powerful entity (like an owner)' date=' who's duty is to make life better for everyone (or at least that half).[/quote']

 

Though it's obviously not strictly accurate (I don't think in either of those ways), and further I don't even think it's particularly fair (it sounds like how a partisan conservative would characterize the two philosophies), I do wonder how much truth there is to it, seeing as how it is so utterly opposed to Kennedy's words, which in my mind is how we ought to think about government.

 

So, is government really seen as a foreign entity? That's certainly not how it was intended. The United States was supposed to be a government by the people; the two were the same. Hence asking something from the government was asking something from yourself.

 

Modern American liberalism, at least, which I (simplistically) trace to Franklin Roosevelt, certainly has its roots in the opposite sentiment. The New Deal wasn't about the government simply helping people. It was about putting people to work who were eager to work for their country. Has it really been perverted somehow into its opposite, that is, "the government's duty is to help me?" I wouldn't like to think so, and I think the true and original spirit is alive, but perhaps in many it is corrupted as well.

 

So I guess my question is, how would that speach be received today? If differently, then what accounts for the change? For some reason I think the words "Watergate" and "Vietnam" might play a role, not to mention countless other scandals, big and small, that have led us to trust our own elected representatives so little that they almost seem like a foreign and mysterious power. Is this reversible? Thoughts?

[the tree]

I swear, America is the only place where people take national pride so seriously. I just can't imagine the idea of national duty being an incentive to work in any of Europe (except with the jobs that are obvious exceptions).

 

I don't see my goverment as a foriegn entity any more than the people down my street, then again, I don't share any solidarity with my nieghbors anyway.

[iglak]

i wish this thread were continued. i, unfortunately, don't have enough knowledge to debate many arguments i might have toward the idea that the government is seperate from the people in today's culture.

 

as a side note before i get to the main point of my response, i want to say that i completely agree with Sisyphus's asessment of my quote. that is, that it is obviously not stricly accurate, and it's not particularly fair.

it merely points out the two ends of the gradient.

i suggest that the graph of this gradient is approximately the opposite of a bell curve.

 

 

 

because i can't give a good description or list of ways the government is seperate from the people, i'm going to let videos do the work for me.

 

This video (at the bottom of the page) is an interview with the director of the muckraker film America: Freedom to Fascism. this interview focuses on how and why current US money is completely corrupt.

I highly recommend watching this interview in it's entirety, if nothing else.

 

This video is the first half of FoX News' interview with Bill Clinton. this half of the intereview focuses on the trickery of the republican party. or rather, the trickery of the Bush administration. (here is the second half of the interview if anyone's interrested)

the extended conclusion from this interview is the realization that scandals are designed to get the general population to completely disassociate thoughts and ideas of the goverenment from the true actions of the government. this holds true no matter which party is targeted.

as an additional consequence to scandals, the general population tends to disassociate themselves from the opposite party. as a consequence to that disassociation, the general population feels that the opposite party is not a goverenment for them, but for the opposite party.

 

adressing the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act: this is a specific example of how the general population is largely split into two halves. one believing that the government should be a god-like entity protecting it's people, and the other believing that the government should stay out of people's lives.

another example is gun control. in this example, "the government" includes police.

a third example is drug control.

"the war on terror" (or, "the long war") enhances a few other half-half splits like above.

 

college is something that also reinforces the seperation of the people from the government. simply because it [quite forcefully] encourages students to completeely follow a path in life that is considered "appropriate" (meaning: complete obediance to higher powers).

i'll admit, part of the reason i feel that the government is against me is because i feel like college (and highscool) ruined 4 years of my life.

 

 

there are a bunch of ways now that "the government" can cause a new world order.

one involves war and fear. another involves money and economic depression. another involves food and exchange. another involves martial law and control. another involves drugs and forced administration (for example of how this is possible: flouride; mercury-stored vaccines).

 

it's very, very scary how much power the US government currently has over 1) the US population 2) the world.

 

there are even ways the current US government could create a new world order from a largescale civil war.