Short Memories Are Killing the United States

[iNow]

Huxley seems to have been more prescient than Orwell. We are not being controlled by an overarching and forceful government that decides what and when we think. Instead we are being made complacent by our technology and toys... Distracting and desensitizing ourselves with 24 hour news cycles, self selection and extreme filtering of our sources of information, and ready made context lacking bite sized snippets of gossip and garbage that get fed to us by the latest social media. It's sad that during the Age of Information truth itself has become such a casualty.

 

Short memories in the United States are killing us. Do you agree?

 

 

[Phi for All]

Short memories seem to permeate virtually every problem we have in the US. We forget that the sources that inform us are driven by profit instead of a need to inform us. We forget that putting people who don't believe in a system in charge of that system insures that the system won't work. And we forget that no man is an island, that we need each other to prosper, that those who buy the hammers need to also respect those who wield the hammers in order to build great things.

[iNow]

Wait, what were we talking about again?

[imatfaal]

A lack of anything other than short-term memory is exacerbated by the fact that we (and this is at least a transatlantic problem if not a global one) rely so very little on facts and so much on vague feelings, blind faith, slanted sound-bites, and a manipulated media. My equity and trusts lecturer started the course with the injunction to ask as many questions as we could, but to always self vet the questions and the statements they depend upon; he recommended thinking whether you could append the phrase "Well I reckon that..." . If you can start a statement with "Well I reckon that ..." it is probably more suited to a discussion of last night's game at the pub.

 

So we have a society that don't remember, or choose to pay little attention to, their own experiences from the fairly recent past, and who do not seek out good sources to make up for that lack; not a good comnbination.

[swansont]

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Who are you?

[ydoaPs]

Short memories in the United States are killing us. Do you agree?

 

Since Romney tries to make Obama look bad by asking "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?", you may have a point.

[iNow]

Since Romney tries to make Obama look bad by asking "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?", you may have a point.

This is pretty close to the point that I had in mind when creating the thread. So often we hear that Obama cannot run on his record or that he has no record to run on. It's crazy town, and almost certainly impacts other parts of our lives.

 

Becomes even scarier when you realize that these attitudes are the same ones that leads to the Red Scare with Joe McCarthy and the unfocused rage and horrendous scapegoating that took place in countries like Germany after the depression.

[john5746]

 

Short memories in the United States are killing us. Do you agree?

 

 

I agree. I think the filtering is the worst part, though. The media is so fragmented that nuance gets no audience. More time is spent attacking other media viewpoints than discussing an issue.

 

Even worse, I think they are just openly deceitful. Bill O'rielly loves to make the point that FOX is the most popular, as if that's the only measure that matters(it is business-wise, I know). Gangsta rap is more popular than classical music and the more gangsta it is, the better. Candy is more popular than broccoli, etc. He isn't a moron and I know he would make this argument if he were on the other end. It just has no place in this media circus.

Edited November 5, 2012 by john5746

[Moontanman]

Truth no longer matters all that matters is who can tell the most believable lie. Who can tell the people what they most want to hear, if what they want to hear is not the truth so much the better, lies are always easier to tell than the truth

[Phi for All]

Romney has such a low likeability score, the same score that tanked Gore and Kerry against Bush II, so it's hard for me to believe people are voting for him because they think he'll do a good job. I think they're voting for him because he's a Republican, or because he claims he's against unapproved sex, or because he's going to lower taxes for everybody, or because he's going to automagically and incantaneously give them a job, or because the Bush strategies worked so dang well for eight years, or he's finally going to increase our military to a scarier size, or he's going to stop all those socialists from turning us into the Soviet Union or France.

[Moontanman]

IMHO it still boils down to black and white, a sizable portion of the population is still pissed that a black man was elected President, they were so sure it couldn't happen they didn't even try hard to defeat him, they ran idiots against him almost like it was a cartoon version of the election. Now they are scared and really trying, they have this vision of Obama putting all black people on welfare and taxing whitey until they go bankrupt. I know it makes no sense but insanity seldom does...

[Essay]

Short memories seem to permeate virtually every problem we have in the US. We forget that the sources that inform us are driven by profit instead of a need to inform us. We forget that putting people who don't believe in a system in charge of that system insures that the system won't work. And we forget that no man is an island, that we need each other to prosper, that those who buy the hammers need to also respect those who wield the hammers in order to build great things.

 

 

 

http://www.democracy..._ken#transcript

 

Mike Burke spoke with a prominent supporter of the new voter IDs laws, Ken Blackwell, vice chair of the Republican National Committee's platform committee and the former Republican secretary of state in Ohio. In 2008, Blackwell oversaw the election process for Ohio while serving as state co-chair of the committee to re-elect George W. Bush. His role in the Ohio election, which saw George W. Bush narrowly beat John Kerry, remains controversial to this day, making him the target of over a dozen lawsuits.

 

KEN BLACKWELL: "The past 40 years, we've concentrated on making sure that the franchise was not impeded by onerous regulations and unfair processes. In the last six years, we've looked at the other voting right, and that is the right to make sure that legal ballots are not negated by fraudulent ballots. And as a consequence, I think there's a good balance that we've been able to strike between those two voting rights."

 

===>

 

SMARTech is featured prominently in Craig Unger's new book, Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power.

Unger talked about Blackwell and SMARTech last week on Democracy Now!

 

CRAIG UNGER: "And somehow or other, in 2004, in the state of Ohio, which was the single most crucial state in the Electoral College, when it came to the actual voting, the secretary of state of Ohio, a guy named Ken Blackwell—and the secretary of state's job is to—part of it is to ensure fair, nonpartisan elections—happened to be co-chair of the Bush campaign. Now, there's no conflict there. And he gave a contract to host the fail oversight for the Republican—rather, for the votes in 2004, to none other than SMARTech."

....

 

"The exit polls had shown Kerry winning Ohio, and therefore the election. And it looked like he had won the presidential election. I remember that day vividly because I was getting reports from the exit polls, and I went around telling people it looked like Kerry had won.

But there was a 6.7 percent difference between the exit polls and the actual results. And as a result, the election ended up going to Bush."

 

~Rove:2004 &c.

 

See also Greg Palast: http://www.gregpalas.../ballotbandits/

 

Vote Suppressors, the Election Trolls and the Democracy Demons that are trying to steal this election.

 

Read how Greg Palast uncovers the scandal to end all scandals: The buying of the U.S. Government, lock, stock and antiballistic missile. Why? Because they can. What can you do about it?

 

Start by reading THIS. And if you're afraid of getting hassled at the polls...

7 WAYS TO BEAT THE BALLOT BANDITS

Edited November 5, 2012 by Essay

[proximity1]

RE: "Short memories in the United States are killing us. Do you agree?"

 

In a way, I agree, yes. But it's a very conditioned agreement. There are many, too many, whose (political, esp.) memories are woefully short and, yes, that is a serious problem for the nation.

 

But, as big or, I'd argue, an even bigger and much more serious problem is that there are many more people who cannot "forget" --since they never bothered to learn or become aware in the first place. Some would say that this is in effect another way of saying the same thing. I disagree. Those who used to "know" something are different from those who never learned that something. And the social and political consequences are quite different, too.

 

Some time ago--decades, in fact--the forgetfulness was a serious and growing problem. But today, to characterize the matter, one should say rather that among what's going wrong is that so many have never taken the time and trouble to learn, and thus have little or nothing to "forget".

 

To those who read this site, I wonder:

 

what text (I mean by that an entire published book--and, mainly, I mean a bound and printed book) did you last read with, as your explicit purpose to better understand one or more issues, matters, topics of political interest and importance? When (how long ago) was this? And, before that one, when did you previously read an entire text on a political topic, and, again, which one?

 

In this context, "political" means a book primarily concerned with an issue or issues of domestic or international public policy---but, beyond that, it may be of an economic or social topic, education, environment, etc. The point is, it should be a work that you chose, that you were moved to read, because you decided that the topic was of sufficient political importance and you needed a better grasp of it for that reason.

 

------------------------------

 

for my responses to these:

 

May, June, 2012 : Jacob Burkhardt; Force and freedom; reflections on history [by] Jacob Burckhardt. Edited by James Hastings Nichols

 

Feb. - April 2012 : Georges Corm ; " Le nouveau gouvernement du monde : Idéologies, structures, contre-pouvoirs" (2011)

 

(and numerous others, partially, in first-time or re-reading of texts read entirely previously)

 

 

 

[iNow]

But, as big or, I'd argue, an even bigger and much more serious problem is that there are many more people who cannot "forget" --since they never bothered to learn or become aware in the first place.

<...>

But today, to characterize the matter, one should say rather that among what's going wrong is that so many have never taken the time and trouble to learn, and thus have little or nothing to "forget".

That's a really solid point. Nicely stated.

 

 

To those who read this site, I wonder:

 

what text (I mean by that an entire published book--and, mainly, I mean a bound and printed book) did you last read with, as your explicit purpose to better understand one or more issues, matters, topics of political interest and importance? When (how long ago) was this? And, before that one, when did you previously read an entire text on a political topic, and, again, which one?

I should preface that I read 6 different high-end economic blogs daily, coupled with two strong aggregater sites that bring perspectives from experts in international policy and process (Global Public Square and Wonkblog). Those tend to inform me on a vast number of issues.

 

That said, I most recently read:

 

- The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature (in September)

- American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the Whitehouse (in July)

- The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity, and the Men Who Invented Modern America (in March)

- The Federalist Papers (I re-read them over the last winter holiday)

- Cleopatra: A Life (last fall, covering similar political issues during her reign with Caesar)

- Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How it Can Renew America (last summer)

 

 

I'm forgetting a few that I know I read and are sitting on my bookshelf, but those should give a sense. I also plan to re-read Machiavelli's The Prince this holiday season, and (while they are fictional) I am currently working my way through F.Scott Fitzgerald's early writings to look for parallels between what took place during the Great Depression socially and what's happening in our world today. Often period fiction gives the best insights into what it's really like for people "on the ground," IMO. Just finished his first novel "This Side of Paradise," and about to start his collection of short stories "Tales of the Jazz Age."

 

Most of my information comes through my RSS feeds that touch on these topics daily, though.

 

 

 

[EDIT] I knew I forgot something... "Unlikely Allies: How a Merchant, a Playwright, and a Spy Saved the American Revolution." Read that last fall.[/EDIT]

Edited November 7, 2012 by iNow

[proximity1]

That's a really solid point. Nicely stated.

 

 

 

I should preface that I read 6 different high-end economic blogs daily, coupled with two strong aggregater sites that bring perspectives from experts in international policy and process (Global Public Square and Wonkblog). Those tend to inform me on a vast number of issues.

 

That said, I most recently read:

 

- The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature (in September)

- American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the Whitehouse (in July)

- The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity, and the Men Who Invented Modern America (in March)

- The Federalist Papers (I re-read them over the last winter holiday)

- Cleopatra: A Life (last fall, covering similar political issues during her reign with Caesar)

- Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How it Can Renew America (last summer)

 

 

I'm forgetting a few that I know I read and are sitting on my bookshelf, but those should give a sense. I also plan to re-read Machiavelli's The Prince this holiday season, and (while they are fictional) I am currently working my way through F.Scott Fitzgerald's early writings to look for parallels between what took place during the Great Depression socially and what's happening in our world today. Often period fiction gives the best insights into what it's really like for people "on the ground," IMO. Just finished his first novel "This Side of Paradise," and about to start his collection of short stories "Tales of the Jazz Age."

 

Most of my information comes through my RSS feeds that touch on these topics daily, though.

 

 

Then, if American, this reading selection puts you in a very select minority. You read both much more (in book form, which, for me, means "reading" as opposed to surfing the internet (including, even, "reading" such sites as this one, which I don't qualify as what I mean by reading) and much more widely than the average person does--since the average American doesn't read any books at all, of any kind, ever in a single year.

 

Thanks for your answer.

[Jens]

An outside view (I am living in Germany) on the USA and short memories about the US foreign politics:

 

The short memories are very dangerous from my point of view, because they make it easier to follow an "against" (or fight US enemies) politics of foreign affairs instead of a "for" politics. Since people in other countries are more used to a long term view this can quickly lead to bad opinions about the US:

 

To fight against the soviets US gave money to the taliban in Afghanistan (the very same which protected Osama Bin Laden). ...and there was a "surprise" that the educated Kabul did not wanted to be "liberated" by the taliban. And now the US are fighting against them. I have even seen a film proudly showing the Afghanistan Liberation from the Soviets after September 11, without the slightest comment on who actually defeated the soviets.

 

To fight against Iran US supported Sadam Hussein in Irak. Only to fight against Saddam Hussein a few years later.

 

To fight against communism (or to protect US oil companies) the US invested to throw over a (nearly) democratic system in Iran to introduce the Shah. Same years later people were so unhappy with the Shah, that Khomeni could make a revolution.

 

Just imagine you are living in one of those countries above (and are not able to leave)....

 

I think especially in foreign affairs of the biggest power in the world it is important to have long memories. Leading also means creating trust (and the leading country is always regarded very close by all others). Creating trust is only possible with long term strategies.

 

For example:

The long term US help strategy and engagement in Germany in the years directly after the second world war was never forgotton in the generation of my parents and still holds for me and partially in my generation (I know quite different stories from the American zone and the Soviet zone from my parents). However, it will have no effects on the generation of my kids.