4 ms·

This is precisely it: its not economically beneficial to be involved in politics, unless you basically make it your absolute sole concern. That is to say, there

This is precisely it: its not economically beneficial to be involved in politics, unless you basically make it your absolute sole concern. That is to say, there are clear benefits to becoming a politician, or a lobbyist, or interest group. However, just becoming "informed" generally has a lot of negatives (depression), with no real positives (as you said, its not like you can do much about it other than complain). So unless your goal is to make a living in politics in one way or another, it is completely rational to be apathetic towards politics and put your focus somewhere else.

coldtea 13y ago
>This is precisely it: its not economically beneficial to be involved in politics That was the case at other times and places too. And their solution to that, was to shame citizens that only cared for what's economically beneficial. The solution is to make active participation in politics (= active citizenship) a virtue that people want to be identified with in the same way being "in fashion", "in shape" or "rich" is one. Of course we have the contrary. Active participation is actually discouraged -- except if you are a career politician.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  A huge, enormous part of this is having a vigilant press. It's impossible for everyone to individually do investigative reporting on every relevant issue. You may be able to shame people into reading good investigative reporting but first somebody has to write it. That is really where we've failed today: People get their news from outlets that run stories about Obama's birth certificate and what color Phil Zimmerman's lawyer's tie is and what a shame it is that the cops have dirty shotguns (never mind that the dirt is the blood of innocent civilians' innocent puppies) so now we had better give them a trillion more dollars for additional military surplus equipment or the terrorists will win. Job One should really be to solve the problem that the most popular news network is also the most factually inaccurate.
  - swordswinger12 13y ago
    >Phil Zimmerman Did you maybe mean George Zimmerman? That would be a more topical example of media stupidity.

coldtea 13y ago

>This is precisely it: its not economically beneficial to be involved in politics That was the case at other times and places too. And their solution to that, was to shame citizens that only cared for what's economically beneficial. The solution is to make active participation in politics (= active citizenship) a virtue that people want to be identified with in the same way being "in fashion", "in shape" or "rich" is one. Of course we have the contrary. Active participation is actually discouraged -- except if you are a career politician.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
A huge, enormous part of this is having a vigilant press. It's impossible for everyone to individually do investigative reporting on every relevant issue. You may be able to shame people into reading good investigative reporting but first somebody has to write it. That is really where we've failed today: People get their news from outlets that run stories about Obama's birth certificate and what color Phil Zimmerman's lawyer's tie is and what a shame it is that the cops have dirty shotguns (never mind that the dirt is the blood of innocent civilians' innocent puppies) so now we had better give them a trillion more dollars for additional military surplus equipment or the terrorists will win. Job One should really be to solve the problem that the most popular news network is also the most factually inaccurate.
- swordswinger12 13y ago
  >Phil Zimmerman Did you maybe mean George Zimmerman? That would be a more topical example of media stupidity.