I am not sure exactly what the image above is meant to convey. It headed up an article in
The Atlantic titled, "
Why Everyone Thinks Their Government Has Failed." To be clear, the article is discussing a phenomenon that is worldwide and general. The "everyone" named is not just "everyone in the United States." We are, though, included!
The subtitle on the article, which is by
Moisés Naím, reads this way: "People all over the world—with all kinds of leaders—seem to think their incumbent is the problem." Naím's thesis is that "political instability is inevitable when people’s expectations rise beyond their government’s capacity to meet them." This is not a new idea, he notes, but he then suggests that the fact that most people are now getting their information about government through "social media" makes it particularly difficult for governments to retain the faith and allegiance of the citizens.
I don't really disagree with what Naím is saying, but my own thought is a little bit different.
Most people, I think (in every country, all around the world), are usually content to be "ruled." By this I mean that most people, most of the time, focus on their own, individual existence, and really only start focusing in on "the government" when their individual circumstances start deteriorating (from their point of view). Most people, in other words, just take whatever exists "for granted." Whatever exists is simply assumed to be "the way it is," and so not too many people are thinking, at least not very much, about how to change the overall realities with which "governments" typically deal.
Most people are focused on their own lives, and problems, and dreams and hopes. The "collective" reality that exists is something to be "accepted" and "recognized" for whatever it may be. Most people aren't thinking about changing it, or about whether it could or should be changed. This makes most people among the "ruled."
I am just being what I think is "realistic." Most people don't spend very much time (or any time) thinking about how the collective realities in which they are living can, or should, or must be changed. If they do, even fewer then try to do something about those collective realities.
Of course, that's not true for everyone. Rich people, for instance, tend to think that the realities they confront can be changed, because if you have money, you can, in fact, change your reality a lot easier than those who don't (the vast majority). If your car is a clunker, and you're rich, you can buy a new one. If you come up with the idea that your children should have a better life than you have had, you will make sure they get to college (and a good college, too). Of course, it is not only the "rich" who have such thoughts and ambitions, but it is easier to realize those ambitions when you're rich. The more personal resources you have, the more likely it is that you will not be satisfied to accept whatever exists. You'll want to be among the "rulers," not the "ruled." Even so, even "the rich" generally focus their attention on their individual lives, and don't spend much time thinking about how to change overall conditions - i.e., to be among the "rulers."
The United States, as a nation, has attempted, since its beginning, to inspire the idea that ordinary citizens can and should expect the government to promote the general health, safety, and well-being of everyone. "Self-government," which most people call "democracy," has inspired the idea that the government should be working for the general advancement of all. Still, even in a nation devoted to "self-government," most people have, traditionally, seen the government as something that is basically to be "accepted," not something that each one of us, individually, ought to be working on, on an ongoing basis.
The reason that social media may have somewhat changed the "normal" situation, worldwide, is that social media puts individuals in contact with others who are vastly dissatisfied with the state of our collective existence, and have an easy way to let others (whom they don't even know, personally) understand just why they, too, should be outraged and dissatisfied, and therefore why "the government" should be reviled and despised. I am suggesting that the spread of what is sometimes called the "MAGA mentality," through online media, reflects what that Atlantic article is talking about - and I am further suggesting that online media are one of the main reasons that "MAGA" has been such an apparent success.
Of course, IF people are dissatisfied - and there is a lot to be dissatisfied about - the only real response should be for those who are dissatisfied to get involved in "government" themselves, to be among the "rulers," rather than the "ruled." But.... given that most people don't have any experience at all in the actual process of "self-government," which requires a lot of effort and work, the recourse of those who are dissatisfied is to find some person who will promise to make things a whole lot better. In our country, we have a living, breathing, example, our current president, DONALD J. TRUMP.
I am using that all-caps style in recognition of the political style embodied by Mr. Trump, who assures all of the dissatisfied persons who have been "ruled" (and ruled poorly) that they don't, themselves, have to become "rulers" in the form of any personal engagement in the process of "self-government." You know what our current president says: "I, alone, can fix it," and "I am your RETRIBUTION."
I think that's where we are today, in a nutshell. If that rings a bell with you (dear reader), then let me tell you this: It is true now, and has always been true, that you will either "rule or be ruled."
If social media, or your personal circumstances, now convince you that you are being badly ruled, there is no other satisfactory and effective way to deal with the problem than to do what I am always recommending. If you want to be among the "rulers," in our system of "self-government," you will need to get involved in government yourself.
No one else can do it for you - specifically including the president of the United States. If you don't have any clue on what it might mean for you to become one of the "rulers," instead of one of the "ruled," you might try to hook up with a local "Indivisible" group (one group that is working on the issue; there are many others).
Click right here and get engaged!
