We'll always need people to fight for freedom. It would be so much better if the masses were half as impressed with him as we are. They don't even care enough to opt-out of airport scanners, though.
In the last week I've read 1984 and Brave New World, and what struck me most about both was the strict segmentation of people groups.
I've heard people say, as you do, that "the masses" will never do such and such, and I agree. But in the past, I haven't really been willing to separate "the masses" into their own group. Instead, I've considered myself, and you, and others on HN, as part of "the masses".
Anyway, I wonder now if I'm wrong. Maybe we should think of the masses as if they are proles (85% of the population in 1984)? Are "the masses" actually just a large group of people who are—literally—no help whatsoever is securing and protecting a just and free society for themselves and others? And worse, completely unaware that they are no help?
Perhaps the masses should be ignored, since their opinions—when they have any—are politically powerless.
I think they don't like the situation but not enough to turn off their TVs? Maybe they feel powerless. Maybe they feel like the government is the good guys and the ends justify the means. Nobody they know personally has been waterboarded.
In my ideal society the majority has more respect for education and rationality and ergo they would have thought, "hm, maybe this PATRIOT Act and increased surveillance is exactly in line with the goals expressed by the terrorists."
Or they'd at least think, "what's going on with these congressional districts, some sort of Uzumaki?"
But what seems to be happening is that nobody is angry enough to even vote differently. So I'll probably move to Canada or something.
