Samuel Huntington notes in his book 'Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity' the emergence of "denationalized elites" in this and other countries—highly educated people who feel a loyalty more to secular liberal principles than to their own country
emphasis is mine - I think this is a big part of the problem.
There were a lot of interesting things in this report, I might have to buy the book... anyway I don't really agree with this presupposition, in that this ISN'T emergent and it isn't all about seeing beyond your own country, IMHO. It has always been so... that well edumacated types can think beyond the box. Some of them will see the right or correctness of the government or society and try to improve from within, and some will see the government or society as broken and requiring change from without. I think the balance of the two is what keeps us moving foreward [big surprise there eh?] IFF [if and only if] they are willing to think about each other's ideas.
Therin lies the rub. When everyone is polarized, and reactions are strident, the ability to see the good parts of your opposition's thought is shut down. This is part and parcel of the divisions in our country today, IMHO. Some of the points in the article about what is or isn't working for the dems might be taken together for this: They are not defining themselves in their own terms on their own strengths. Instead they are defining themselves as "NOT conservatives or NOT Republicans". That is a foolish thing when you are trying to get into office, because then you don't get to define your own ideas, you don't draw everyone toward you. Rather you draw people falling away from them, and people with the same POV as you already.
This isn't to say that the GOP doesn't have this problem. Sometimes they REALLY DO. The thing that they have going for them in that case, is that they already have a head start in size, so they can afford to loose a few. Personally I wish they wouldn't. IMHO the current extremities are based on the idea that they can afford to loose a few in the march to be more conservative. It's probably true. Then you go to the place where you govern those who agree and rule those who do not. While that is always true, ideally you want to keep the ruled group small and the governed group big. I think that problem happens to both parties at times, because the forget that the Laws of the US must apply to everyone EQUALLY, regardless of differences in belief, in education, orientation and so forth.
At least that's the way I look at it, in my naive way ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2005-10-13 06:25 am (UTC)emphasis is mine - I think this is a big part of the problem.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-13 06:58 pm (UTC)Therin lies the rub. When everyone is polarized, and reactions are strident, the ability to see the good parts of your opposition's thought is shut down. This is part and parcel of the divisions in our country today, IMHO. Some of the points in the article about what is or isn't working for the dems might be taken together for this: They are not defining themselves in their own terms on their own strengths. Instead they are defining themselves as "NOT conservatives or NOT Republicans". That is a foolish thing when you are trying to get into office, because then you don't get to define your own ideas, you don't draw everyone toward you. Rather you draw people falling away from them, and people with the same POV as you already.
This isn't to say that the GOP doesn't have this problem. Sometimes they REALLY DO. The thing that they have going for them in that case, is that they already have a head start in size, so they can afford to loose a few. Personally I wish they wouldn't. IMHO the current extremities are based on the idea that they can afford to loose a few in the march to be more conservative. It's probably true. Then you go to the place where you govern those who agree and rule those who do not. While that is always true, ideally you want to keep the ruled group small and the governed group big. I think that problem happens to both parties at times, because the forget that the Laws of the US must apply to everyone EQUALLY, regardless of differences in belief, in education, orientation and so forth.
At least that's the way I look at it, in my naive way ;)