Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Activism is action on behalf of a cause, action that goes beyond the norm.
Activism has played a major role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment, promoting equality for women, and many other important issues. Yes, absolutely true.
Activists are typically challengers to policies and practices, trying to achieve a social goal, not to obtain power themselves. Much activism operates behind the scenes. [COLOR="red"][COLOR="red"] Do not forget the activism that got the USA out of Vietnam, where we never belonged to begin with.
This is what has changed over the last years. The activism is NOT behind the scenes. It is devoted to achieve power.
And it has become intertwined with politics which is where it should never ever be. Au Contrair. It belongs directly WITH politics.
Our systems are a result of activism. If they were perfect systems there would never again be activism but we all know that is not going to happen.
NOBODY disputes activism but when it becomes part of the political process instead of being parallel to that process, you are looking at the normal political process becoming very radical and we see that happening today.
When the very core of our government has activists sitting at their right hand (see Sharpton as chief advisor to our President as one example No, Sharpton IS NOT THE CHIEF ADVISOR to the President!!) you are asking for big time problems and we have had them in that area and in my opinion taken so many steps backward.
Saul Alinsky wanted radical activists at the very seat of government. I, personally do not want that.
Understand, you are merging politics with activism and it should not or ever be that way. Yes, it should!
|
Well, we surely differ don't we.
First and foremost Sharpton is, in fact, the President's main advisor on anything racial. I NEVER said or certainly never meant he advised the President on
anything else. Valerie Jarret would get very angry. She is number one and I find it interesting about her being born in Iran although not much to hang a conspiracy tag on that. But Sharpton is truly his number one guy on race issues and that is a poor choice.
You feel that activism should be seated at the center of our GOVERNMENT.
IF that were the case, allow me to ask....WHO would do the actual governing. An activist is interested only in their own individual social cause and not in the day to day boring routine of governing, negotiating, etc.
To me, that is the big problem we have now. Our President and there have been many stories on this. THAT is how I see it, but I do not profess to be omnipotent, just read a lot. His entire life has been activism, and that is not necessarily bad but for me having an activist type person in the center is very very non stable.
If you read much, and there are a few authors who do write about activism, it is best served running parallel with the governing bodies.
Will be interesting to hear others opinions since we obviously disagree. I hope they can separate their political party from any opinions but I would love to hear how a President can govern while also being an activist for social programs. That does not allow much time for foreign affairs, legislative matters and I might add those two alone are real weakness of this administration, again in my opinion.
You gave no reasons for your opinions and I would love to hear your reasons, I do not want an activist President, Republican or Democrat....I want someone who can govern, administer handle foreign relations and use the office for compromise.
PLEASE...would be interesting to hear your reasoning