are people waking up? (long)

[taliv]

since the discussion in the "Awkward Stage" thread is heading south rapidly, I wanted to pursue a tangent here.

Do you think Americans are waking up?

some things to think about:

in '95 congress received 50 million pieces of mail.
In '98 congress received 75 million pieces of mail.
In '01, over about 130 million.
In '04, 200 million.

(combined snail and email and most of the increase was due to email)

voter turnout in '96 was 49%.
voter turnout in '00 was 51%
voter turnout in '04 was 60% which represents 15 million more people and is the highest % since the civil rights dustup in the 60s

The Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics lists results of 14 Gallup surveys from 1959 through 1997. The results were as follows, including the '95 entry from another source. The sampling error of these surveys is generally just 1 or 2 percent (not percent of the percentages).
......................................93 93...........
YEAR 59 65 68 72 75 80 83 85 89 90 91 MAR OCT 95 96 97
%YES 49 48 50 43 44 45 40 44 47 47 46 48 51 35 38 42

The preceding gallup survey of people admitting they have a gun in their house is part of a very interesting article
that goes to some lengths to explain lots of interesting numbers, and estimates roughly 20-25% of people lie about it.

But for this discussion, the relevant data from the article indicates the number of guns manufactured and imported remains relatively constant, and the surveys remain relatively stable, except for some suspicous drops that correlate to gun bans (e.g. the year after the clinton gun ban, the 'yes' responses drop to 35%, but there's nothing to account for 20 million guns suddenly going missing, so people were probably lying).

The NRA-ILA claims gun ownership is at an all-time high though, with a study from the National Academy of Sciences claiming 258 million guns in circulation in 1999, growing at roughly 4.5 million guns per year.

"The fall 2003 survey, conducted by UCLA's Graduate School of Education and Information Studies finds that one-third (39 percent) of students feel that 'keeping up to date with political affairs' is a very important life goal," said a GSEIS news release.

The 38-year-old survey was administered to entering freshmen in 413 different baccalaureate colleges and universities, totalling 276,449 student responses.
(snip)
According to the release, political engagement remains far below the level recorded in the late 1960s. Prior to 2000, however, the study revealed a three-decade trend of students' political interest plummeting to a low of 28.1 percent in 2000.

so basically, interest fell for three decades to a low in 2000, then has risen fairly dramatically (more than 30%) since.



This website claims we are finally seeing critical mass of public interest activism on copyright issues and DMCA (which is fundamentally a property rights question), based on activity between '01 and '04.

we've had big public debates on SCOTUS and federal court cases involving:
buttsex in texas,
the ten commandments in public (thanks alabama),
growing your own dope,
emminent domain,
abortion,
affirmative action,
states rights,
the bush v gore election,
campaign finance,
death penalty, etc, etc, etc



May '05 gallup polling indicates congress' job approval rating (35%) is the lowest in 8 years.

About 4 in 10 Americans say most congressional reps unethical

link for the following stats

four in 10 (41%) U.S. adults nationally, feel the government in Washington can be trusted to do what is right all or most of the time.

47% of all U.S. adults feel (federal) government is almost always wasteful and inefficient

according to Cato.org
76% of respondants "trusted government" at the start of the Great Society.
there was a steep decline from '64 to '84
record low of 21% was hit during clinton admin in '94 (surprise surprise)
back up to 44% by 2000,
down to 38% by 2002


ok, so I'll stop throwing stats at you, and just ask again.... are people waking up?

 

[bogie]

It's a conspiracy, with the USPS as the primary movers.

 

[alan]

The openning question was Are People Waking Up?

I most certainly hope so, but I do wonder.

 

[beerslurpy]

I think the internet has gone a huge way towards fixing our country. And it is only going to get better with time.

It helps expose the naked corruption of our politicians. Little Brother is watching you!

It has allowed people to organize and express their contempt. How many here have written a govt employee to express outrage at something they did? Written a newspaper or TV show to express contempt over a biased story they ran?

It has prevented stories from being whitewashed by the mainstream media. Remember Lewinsky? Drudge ran that after the MSM sat on it for 2 weeks.

It helps to reinforce the worth of voting in every election, even the local ones. There isnt a day goes by that I am not reminded of the damage that elected officials can do if not kept on a tight leash.

 

[lostone1413]

The people are waking up but to bad for years the leaders cared less about what the people want. Seen that more then ever since 911. The gun owners put the Republicans in control of both houses. We put King George in again. Tell me what have we got out of the deal? All I see are allot of freedoms lost and over 4k per day coming across the borders.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The question is too broad.

That said™, the internet has made it much easier for more people to gain quicker access to much more reliable information, and as the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party move further beyond the left end of the American political scale, they inadvertently make it easier for the nation to move back toward the center.

 

[hillbilly]

The internet really helps.

Every time any silly leftist so much as hiccups, the word gets out.

Do you think anyone, and I do mean anyone would have ever known the comments Ward Churchill made if everything surrounding his situation had happened in the mid 1980s?

Without the Internet and talk radio like it is, do you think anyone would have ever heard Dick Durbin's comments, if he'd made such comments in the 1980s?

That's the essential reality so many of the leftists just cannot understand.

They are so used to being "the elite" in their ivory towers or in their birkenstocked enclaves that they cannot imagine that any of the silly masses will ever actually hear the contemptuous statements and wacko ideas they spout off when they think that only fellow leftists are listening.

They are so used to their own little echo chambers that they cannot imagine that their words will get out of those echo chambers.

They don't even realize the echo chambers are echo chambers.

And then, when they realize their words do get out, their shrill reactions only serve to repel the "silly masses" even more as the "silly masses" find out what sort of contempt-filled, bitter, wacko commies they are.

hillbilly

 

[hvengel]

One other thing that is in operation here is that people tend to get more politically aware and more conservative as they grow older. We had a huge demographic bluge called the baby boomers that are now getting into that age range when this really starts to kick in.

I would like to add that I know some who claim to be liberials and who consitantly vote Democrat that were very upset with the eminent domain case. Many of these are starting to question what is happening and who is doing it.

So yes I think people are waking up. In part because of the aging population and in part because some of the things that are happening are so over the top that even some reflexive liberials are starting to question their positions.

 

[dolanp]

The Internet does help, but politicians are already moving as fast as they can to regulate speech there as well as other things. It will be a matter of time before sites in the US have to answer to the FCC or something. That is, unless, we really DO wake up.

 

[Flyboy]

beerslurpy hit it on the head, but I'm going to go a bit further with his thoughts:

I think the internet has gone a huge way towards fixing our country. And it is only going to get better with time.

It helps expose the naked corruption of our politicians. Little Brother is watching you!

One of the fundamental assumptions in economics is that the consumer has perfect information. Of course, this isn't true, but assuming it to be so allows us to craft models to describe an ideal market. In the case of politics, we can still use economic theories. There is still a question of scarcity (available positions in government), a supply of willing providers, a demand for their services, and tradoffs to be made for any given choice. The basic idea in economics is to maximize utility from any given choice; with politics, we're trying to maximize the utility we get from a particular position in government.

We do this (nominally) by examining what each candidate (supply) brings with him as far as benefits to us (utility), and choosing which person should fill the (scarce) position. Individuals will act rationally (in their best interest) when they cast their ballots.

In order to determine which candidate best suits his interests, though, a voter needs information. Lots of information. The more, the better. Even bad information can be useful, if information flows freely (thus enabling counterarguments and disproof to reach the voter as easily as the erroneous information itself).

It has prevented stories from being whitewashed by the mainstream media. Remember Lewinsky? Drudge ran that after the MSM sat on it for 2 weeks.

Exactly. The mainstream media, by virtue of its chokehold on the means of information flow, limited information; the voter typically only had that information which the media saw fit to pass along. Needless to say, bias in the media (which is fundamentally unavoidable, regardless of the direction of the slant) colored the choice of what was reported, and how, thus leaving the voter with less-than-perfect information. When the fundamental assumptions are incorrect, the model breaks down, and though the voter tries to act rationally (again, defined as "in his own best interest"), he's thwarted by a lack of information with which to make the judgement as to who best meets that standard.

The internet dramatically improves the flow of information; another fundamental assumption in economics is that there are no barriers to entry. This one is also untrue, but getting less so. With the mainstream media (newspaper, radio, television), the barriers to entry are tremendous: even a used printing press runs several hundred thousand dollars for one of any capacity, and radio and TV run well into the millions, and that's just a local market.

With the internet, I can reach the world for twenty bucks a month. (http://www.edfight.org is running at $19.95/mo right now).

By reducing the barrier to entry--to nearly zero, really--the flow of information is dramatically improved, and consumers--voters--can make much better choices. Perfect information is still a pipe dream, but it's a whole lot closer now than it was. As Dan Rather learned, the best cure for free speech is more free speech; his bad information (the National Guard memos) was countered by the "bloggers," who, with their low barriers to entry, were able to debunk his claims in their spare time, and reach the world, in a matter of days (or perhaps hours). Their sheer numbers also add to their capabilities; while the "blogosphere" (I hate that word) lacks the resources of, say, CBS, it makes up for its shortcomings by throwing a veritable army at the problem. With enough eyes looking at something, or looking out at the world, somebody is bound to discover something; in fact, this distributed model is, in some ways, an advantage over the centralized model because of its wider scope; CBS only has so many reporters, and each can only be in one place at a time.

Further, the internet also reduces the barrier to entry for the consumer; previously, doing research on issues or candidates required him to make significant effort to visit the library, buy and read a paper, watch (or listen to) the news at a scheduled time, visit with other people in a real-time manner to discuss things, and so forth. The internet removes the temporal quality from information; anybody, from a news anchor to your neighbor, can say something, and it becomes relatively permanent. Discussions can be held at our convenience; schedules disappear, and all can participate freely when they have the time to do so. This allows a lot more people to participate a lot more often. The resultant breadth of the participants, coupled with the ease with which they publish their observations, thoughts, opinions, and so forth, gives us all access to a staggering corpus of information. I've remarked more than once that, as an Okie, I can get up in the morning and get the news from Ohio, where my family lives, before I even get my pants on. And frequently do.

It has allowed people to organize and express their contempt. How many here have written a govt employee to express outrage at something they did? Written a newspaper or TV show to express contempt over a biased story they ran?

Again, this is a result of the reduced barrier to entry. How many of us are willing to drag out a pen and paper, compose our thoughts, hand-write a letter, address it, stamp it, and mail it, just because we don't like what the editor said?

Now, how many are willing to click the link--often provided in the story, if you're reading the news online--dash out a quick note, and click "send?" You never have to leave your chair. Of course, this has its drawbacks as well; the reader will also know how easy it was for you to send him that e-mail, and will likely consider that when he decides how much weight to give your opinion. Nonetheless, he still gets feedback that he might otherwise not have received; if he said something that was offensive or contemptuous to some, but didn't reach the threshold of writing a dead-tree letter for any of them, their silence would be interpreted as acceptance. With e-mail, they are silent no more, and he knows that somebody out there disagreed with him.

It helps to reinforce the worth of voting in every election, even the local ones. There isnt a day goes by that I am not reminded of the damage that elected officials can do if not kept on a tight leash.

Amen. Remember that it's the city of New London bothering Susette Kelo, not the state or federal government.

 

[Waitone]

I think we are waking up. Then I realize it is to belch and roll back over.

People are better informed than the past. Internet and AM talk radio takes all the credit. I do not see any improvement in the populace's ability to reason. What I see happening is the development of channels of propaganda. Those who like their days events served up by a news reader still follow the Legacy Media. The alternative media seems to be split into a number of distinct functions. One function is that of accessing raw information (original documents of the country, legislation, court decisions). Another is distribution of opinion (THR, Freepers, DU, Townhall, blogs, etc). Third is entertainment (talk radio). What is now different is a large segment of disaffected citizens can now choose their preferred channel of propaganda. In the past they could simply tune and drop out of the political process. Now they can easily contact their elected vermin and express an opinion that is better formed than in the past.

I am not convinced the ability of people to reason their way through a controversy has improved. If that was the case I would expect more people engaging in equal opportunity bashing of both // all political parties. Instead I see both sides improving their positions on a polarized battlefield.

 

[RealGun]

I think they are waking up to at least a sort of Supreme Court rebellion, tired of seeing their most respected judges on the losing side of too many rulings. It will be an interesting summer with more to come.

One of the most interesting aspects is seeing people try to pin down exactly what it is they expect and why. If they know what they don't want, they probably know pretty much what they do want. I believe it is mostly just a plea for some semblance of common sense and for the Constitution as it reads, no more no less, to be legally binding.

 

[Marshall]

Yes, I believe the country is slowly awakening, the Clinton years did a lot of damage to this country. I guess what I have little faith in is the countries ability to stay focused on issues that will determine this countries future. I see the left going more left daily and the right not going far enough in cases.

To me, many issues are important but terrorism is at the summit of the mountain. I believe it is THE issue that will truly define how we as a people live in the future. The left will just continue the Clinton agenda, sit and do nothing, and Bush isn't doing enough, IMO. We better get control of our borders and start finding out who is whom inside this nation. The attack in London is beginning to show that native born British citizens of Islamic faith are directly involved in carrying out the recent bombings. I fear the same will happen here by US born citizens of Islamic faith. It's a genuine concern and not meant as a jab at Islam but yet the terrorist that claim it as their faith. I'm a Bush supporter but this border thing is rediculous and the Iraq issue could be done much faster, with more resolve and much more emphasis.

But yes, I think the country is awakening. I just wish many politicians would awaken as fast the country is.

 

[grampster]

It is said that the fax machine contributed mightily to the downfall of the Russian Empire because information began to become available to anyone with a fax machine.

I believe the internet is contributing to the info flow in the USA. Counterpoint: BS gets a wider dissemination as well.

 

[fourays2]

yes people are waking up, although not fast enough. it is no longer possible for crooked pols or the MSM to BS the public as easily as say 10 years ago.

 

[RealGun]

CSPAN is an important part of that awakening, even though congresscritters play to the cameras.

 

[rhubarb]

Do you think Americans are waking up?

I am.