Political Issue Complacency:
Tacit Approval for Ruin
Last Update: 24 October, 2023
What is this Issue Concerning?
This is about a majority of citizens wanting the right to vote but not accepting responsibilty: to thorougly understand political issues before voting on them, to immediately object to any wrong political initiatives between elections, or even to vote at all.
For example, in the provincial election of Ontario, Canada of 2022, even though this is the level of Govenment which controled the years of COVID-19 social restrictions we literally just came out of, meaning obviously major issues were being decided, and even though candidates with diverse views were offered, the majority of registered voters didn't even vote: not for anyone at all. The minority of voters re-elected the same Premier, seemingly in public approval for some of the most severe COVID-19 restrictions in North America (perpetrated by this leader over the previous years). This was the only voting opportunity Ontarians had since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were pro-freedom candidates, and if the majority of voters had bothered to vote for this, there could have been a righteous government elected and a clear message not to lock Ontarians down again. Instead, due to complacency, the message sent was strong approval by the People for their own oppression.
Such people typically view their lives in a false isolation from the society and world around them, and remain focused on only those issues which clearly directly affect them and their family, preferring to turn to entertainment afterwards than broaders issues in need. In fact, it is quite fashionable to refuse to discuss politics in social gatherings, while equally fashionable to focus discussion on things of no possible impact, such as: sports match scores and movies.
Political complacency also includes passive acceptance of fundamental flaws in the political system, such that we can include a passing mention of some of them as relevant.
What's the Threat?
In a system where Government works on the majority approval of the People, whether that approval is express, implied, or tacit, if the Majority doesn't care about political issues or even voting, the Government can effectively do whatever it wants on any issue it wants to unlimited harm. It becomes worse than dictatorship because, like dictatorship, the Government effectively guides the country at its own discretion, but worse than dictatorship, no matter how bad it is it's done with the demonstratable approval of the People, which on a moral level, can be much worse than if decisions were forced upon us. For example, it would have been to much less moral responsibilty of the German people if Hitler has been born into political power than that he was elected by the majority.
Worse, once a precedent of any evil legally perpetrated on the Public has been set once, it's considered permanently acceptable as a legal precedent, and it is therefore legally much easier to repeat it again later. For example, when the COVID-19 crisis began, politicians at first asked the Public to allow a 2-week lockdown, after which later extension and repeats of lockdowns were simply Government-ordered and not Government-asked any more.
Parts to the Problem:
Apathy to Bigger Issues than Their Life: Some voters don't care about any issues but their own, meaning what clearly and directly affects them. Tacit Option Preference: Even when an issue will clearly, directly, and greatly affect the lives of voters, the Majority has shown a preference to let harmful consequences of complacency fall on them, even if that will require effort in survival or obedience, than make a much easier but not obligatory objection to stop it at the planning stage. For example, regarding the COVID-19 social restrictions, few could be bothered to object to them at the proposal stage, even though failing to do so meant years of bother to obediently comply with them. The Complacent don't seem to mind any effort required in obedience, but hate making effort which isn't required of them: not even if it would prevent much greater effort in obedience. Fear Priority: Even for issues which do directly and immediately impact the Majority, if they are induced to be afraid, the Majoirty has shown a willingness to approve options against their inccentive, on any promise of safetly (no matter how nonsensical). For example, during the COVID-19 crisis, the Majority accepted and promoted non-medical mask mandaetes for everyone, even though it was physically impossible for non-medical masks to provide any significant safety agasint an admittedly airborne virus. Rather those who tried to point this out were vilified, because it is much easier to go along with the narrative, and persecute those who don't, than question it. Questioning requires thinking. Wrong Side: Even they are motivated to lift a finger to vote or lend any political support to any side of an issue, in the modern world of competing narratives, if the Majority don't make an effort to hear both sides of the issue fairly, they can easily be drawn in to supporting the morally wrong side, and have been. This is, for example, the basic idea of 'false flag' operations (an atrocious but standard military tactic in our society): where an event happens, the wrong side is blamed, and then the Public is induced to support reprisals against that side. Political Betrayal Indifference: Politicians in Western democracies aren't typically obligated to keep even their most clear election promises, and it's not uncommon for them to do the exact opposite fo what they promised, which the Public typically has tacitly accepted and thereby legitimized. Unfortunately it makes the whole process of voting on political promises, although morally valuable, practically meaningless.
Root Causes of the Problem of Political Issue Complacency
Narrowminded Religions or Religious Interpretations: Although many religions encourage doing good for others and society, few, if any, teach that as a real obligation, and fewer teach about obligations of voters in democratic systems. This might be because democracy did not exist in the societies from which these religions or their primary texts originalted. Regardless of couse, if your obligations as a voter are nowhere in your belief system, you're not likely to actually see them as obligations: not on any issue. Stress: Modern social systems are not designed to relieve citizen burdens with increasing technology so much as use technology to threaten citizens with less jobs, more surveillance, and more complex forms of taxation. Typically both parents work outside the home, and there is not much time to relax, nevermind get pollitical. Maybe this is by design? Overwhelming Number of Issues: With national governments having potential impact on every issue in the world (direct control over domestic affairs and ability to at least criticize international ones), voters in democratic society are ultimately expected to make decisions on everything happennig in the world, and that's not reasonable. No one human has time to understand every issue in the world adequately, no matter how much they care. Obligatory over Non-Obligatory Support: The Complacent tacitly accept their forced support for any initiatives which Government directs public funding or public obedience towards, but are reluctant to voluntarily support initiatives aimed at the good of all. To them, forced supports are a fixed cost and the political costs only build to add voluntary support on top of that. So their approach to minimizing costs is to support only what they are forced to support, even if it is evil. Selfishness: The most obvious cause is people not wanting to involve themselves in issues where their work might benefit others for free. Rather they much prefer to keep focus on maximizing their own life while also reaping the common benefits of social activists working on everyone's behalf. Unfortunately, in many cases those social activists cannot succeed without widespread support. Positivity: It's popular for people to refuse to hear individuals speak about important albeit unpleasant issues because they are 'negative'. This obstructs both knowledge and action on them. For example, few people want to even hear about how many missing children there are, preferring to talk about professional sports matches or movies. Spectating: Our world tends to present political events as things which can be witnessed by the average person, but not changed by them. Most of the channels we resevie this information from are 1-way only, and even if we attend an in-person meeting with politicians, they typically don't allow questions until the end of their prepared speech, and then questions are often scripted, limited, or curtailed altogether. Fultility: When you're one person in billions, it's easy to feel insignificant. In fact, the first hurdle in encouraging activism is trying to convince people that they can actually have an influence on world events. Instead, a prevailing attitude has become that one person connot make a difference, which beleif by extension means no one can. So rather than try they turn focus to issues under their direct control, ie. 'own life', only. Fatalism: Some people believe that the future is set and cannot be changed so there is no point in trying. For example, it is popular to believe in prophecies of the decline of the world so strongly that they refuse to try to slow, stop, or reverse that decline, on the thinking that it would be opposing the prophecy and therefore fighting against God, at worst, or at best cannot succeed because God has seemingly ordained it. Representative Deafness: Even when people do care passionately on an issue, elected political 'representatives' typically aren't obligated to offer constituents a direct voting opportunity (referendum) on any issue, and rarely do so. This leaves activists to writing letters and sending petitions to political representatives, which they are similarly free to completely ignore (not even a reply). With no mechianism in place to compel the Government to even acknowledge the voice of any number of voters on any issue, it's easy to be effectively politically silenced. Knowing that, or having exhausted every political option provided you, it's easy to become disinterested. No Political Abiltiy to Raise Issues in the Legislature: Voters in representative democracies by definition depend on their representatives to raise their issues in the legislature on their behalf, but the System doesn't require that. Candidates decide the issues offered for legislature discussion. Of the ones that are offered, voters might not be interested in them. This system of only discussing issues which candidates are interested in, rather than what voters are interested in, causes voter disinterest. For example, political canvassers might contact you to ask you which issues are most important to you: taxation, housing, the economy? When you reply that the war we're involved with overseas, or abortion, are more important to you, they simply don't have anywhere on their computer screen to enter that, and they press you to try to pick from one of the provided options. It's easy to lose interest in a system like this. Temporary Immigration: Many immigrants come to stay, but those who intend to return to their origin country eventually don't have as much incentive to care at all about what happens to this one. Unfortunately for the common good, their vote counts just as much as those who do care. Tribalism: Many people have committed themselves unconditionally to one political party, which means they support regardless of that party's position on any issue. In fact, their tribalism is often so thorough, that whatever seems wanted or good for their tribe is their very definittion of right and wrong. In this mentality, they don't really care about the issues except as tools to show support for their tribe. For example, in the October 2023 Israel-Gaza war, traditional supporters of Israel tended to continue to support Israel at the complete ignorance of the facts that: Israel must have permitted the 7 October Hamas attack (inside of Israel against unarmed civilians for 7 hours without an IDF response), that Hamas was establisehd by the Israel government as a strategy to divide power away from the PLO and prevent the formation of a Palestinian state, that Hamas is not the same thing as Palestinians, and that it's a war crime to cut off any of food, water, electricity, or fuel to any civilians, nevermind all four at once, as Israel has done for over two weeks, as of this writing, to Gaza civilians. Effort: Obviously, activism requires doing something, and many people seem to find this intolerable. They would rather accept whatever comes, even if it means the loss of everything. For example, there are probably many Ukranians who didn't care about politics before the war forced them out of their home, and many Palestinians who didn't care about politics before their homes were bombed out of existence. Getting bombed dosn't require effort and therefore remains more appealing to many than objecting to wrongs in advance. In fact, dying requires the least effort and would explain the risk in popularity of assisted suicide. False Automation: Many people seem to think that the Governance of the nation takes care of itself without needing our input, so that we can and should turn our focus to our own lives. The reality is that special interest groups have frequently been testing the political system for ways to advance their agendas against the common good, and if those initiatives aren't objected to, they can become established, in not only public funding but permanent law, to the great abuse of the society. Distance: Many people don't see how issues far away should concern them. In a global society, of great interdependence, and where a hypersonic missile can be upon you from half a world away in 15 minutes or less, there is no such thing as too far away to care. For example, there were probably many youth who didn't care about the Vietnam War until they received a letter to demand they report for duty to fight in it.
How Far this Threat Has Gone Already:
Many horrors have become law and Government policy already which should never have been permitted, including but not limited to:
Deliberate Abortion: in the West, to kill your own child this way is not only legal but often Government-funded, even while many vital medical services are not. There are plenty of people tho disagree with it, but very few of them will protest it, write their elected official, or refuse to vote for political candidates who allow it to continue. Only for this complacency does it continue. COVID-19 Lockdowns for the People and Dictatorial Emergency Powers for Government: this medical tyranny should never have been accepted, but the People found it easier to not object and stay locked down indefinitely than to express any kind of disapproval to their elected officials. Now a precedent has been set for Government to award itself 'emergency' powers or lock us all down again, at any time, at its sole discretion. Criminality of Silent Prayer in the UK: this should not have been allowed, but since objecting would have required effort, it was. Human Rights Protections of Groups defined by Behaviour instead of Inborn Characteristics: when behaviours become legally protected from criticism, that is an unequal and immoral society. Runaway government debt: since this debt is not tied to any one individual specifically, few bother to object to it, no matter how huge it becomes. In fact, they will often vote for proposals to spend more deficits, and enlarge this debt, thinking there is a benefit to them in 'stimulating' the economy this way at the burden of future generations. Typically there is no government plan to ever pay this off. Sending weapons (instead of peace negotiators) into the Ukraine-Russia War.
Even now, at the time of this writing (24 October 2023) in the face of a potential three-front or four-front nuclear world war 3 seemingly unfolding (based on: Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Gaza, China-Taiwain), and no sign of political will of western Leadership to stop it, there seems to be majority indifference in the People of the West to stop the escalation towards world war.
Political complacency has become so thorough and so fashionable now, at least in the West, that even if the Government were to propose legislation to 'Kill Everyone' it's difficult to imagine the Majority bothering themselves to object to it.
How Far this Issue Might Still Go:
With a mult-front World War 3 seemingly upon us, with tacit public consent, it doesn't seem much further until the world is largely destroyed.
It would seem that citizen complacency was underestimated in giving democratoc power to all citizens equally. Certainly people who don't care shouldn't be make the decisions but that's what our forefathers did, presumably because our they saw the ideal (that everyone should care about broader issues) than the reality (that most people don't care about any issues beyond their own lives). Perhaps this mistake has doomed our world.
What you can do about it:
Complacent people don't usually like people telling them they need or have a responsibilty to get involved, and don't want their rights taken away, even if they're not fulfilling their responsibilities (such as to vote at all in some cases).
Perhaps in future design of governments, we can find a way to exclude complacent people from the decision-making process on those issues they are complacent about. We don't need to have a dictatorship, but invoking your right to choose not to care about certain issues should also mean your exclusion from voting on them and you should accept that. Therefore perhaps a new kind of democracy could be developed where each issue is voted separately, only by those who care about them, and especially those most affected by them.
Humanity will also need a revision of religion, or religious interpretation, to include clear and compelling teachings on moral obligations concerning modern political duties and voting.
|