First person plural

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I was reading my new John Stossel book when I realized something.

Starchild and I (and others) have debated a bit about using "we" and "us"
to talk about the United States and its government. I believe that I have
partial responsibility for things the US government does, even if I oppose
those things, while Starchild emphasizes that he did not give them
permission to act in his name. I think we both have good moral and
philosophical arguments on our sides.

In _Give Me a Break_, Stossel criticizes the media many times (and in his
talk on Friday). When he does, he says things like, "We in the
media...". I was thinking about why he did it and why I found it so disarming.

I think it makes his criticism much more effective. He's admitting to
being part of the problem, and therefore has more cachet in pointing it
out. His criticism becomes more valid. He also gets credit for trying to
help solve the problem, for doing his part, rather than for just
criticizing others.

And that, I think, is a good reason to continue to use first-person plural
to talk about the US. Second-person is out: haranguing a crowd about
*their* problems is unlikely to be effective. But by saying "we," you put
yourself the speaker and the audience into one boat, folks with a common
problem that we can all work together to fix. Saying "the government" or
"they" means that someone else has a problem, and trying to fix someone
else's problems is unpleasant at best and impossible at worst. But if we -
the electorate and citizenship - are partly responsible, then it's a lot
easier for *us* to fix the problem. We - the voters to whom you're
speaking included - can make a change, just by changing how *we* vote and
think about *our* representatives and their actions. It's easy for folks
to dismiss what goes on in Sacramento and Washington as Somebody Else's
Problem. If you make it their problem, they'll want to invest in the solution.

~Chris
- --
"Reality is a pie of which I do not require another slice."
    ~ Shelley Winters, "Scary Go Round" by John Allison
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

Dear Chris;

The point you are making was first originated here some 225 years ago in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution. When the Founding Fathers wrote; " When it becomes necessary for one People " and " We the People in order to ". Or as Abraham Lincoln succinctly put it; " A Government of the People, by the People and for the People".

We are the Government and We the People have met the enemy and it is Us. It is Our lack of collective will to accept the fact We are responsible for what happens to Us the People. We let Our legislators make Our decisions for Us. We do not forcefully and vocally tell Our legislators where they can go jump. Especially, when they start dreaming up ways to spend Our money after they have taken it from Us through legislative piracy.

Unfortunately, over the last two centuries accepting personal responsibility has fallen by the wayside. We the People, has become let the Government do it for Us by doing it to Us. In a way it is the mentality of " there oughta be a law ". Then some nitwit legislator makes the law. Or worse yet, enacts a law but leaves it up to nameless bureaucrats who accept the authority but do not accept the responsibility to write the law and how it supposed to work. And of course, the nameless bureacrats make certain that one size fits all, no matter what the circumstances.

Yes, you are very correct. We should be saying, " We the People ....."

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I was reading my new John Stossel book when I realized something.

Starchild and I (and others) have debated a bit about using "we" and "us"
to talk about the United States and its government. I believe that I have
partial responsibility for things the US government does, even if I oppose
those things, while Starchild emphasizes that he did not give them
permission to act in his name. I think we both have good moral and
philosophical arguments on our sides.

In _Give Me a Break_, Stossel criticizes the media many times (and in his
talk on Friday). When he does, he says things like, "We in the
media...". I was thinking about why he did it and why I found it so disarming.

I think it makes his criticism much more effective. He's admitting to
being part of the problem, and therefore has more cachet in pointing it
out. His criticism becomes more valid. He also gets credit for trying to
help solve the problem, for doing his part, rather than for just
criticizing others.

And that, I think, is a good reason to continue to use first-person plural
to talk about the US. Second-person is out: haranguing a crowd about
*their* problems is unlikely to be effective. But by saying "we," you put
yourself the speaker and the audience into one boat, folks with a common
problem that we can all work together to fix. Saying "the government" or
"they" means that someone else has a problem, and trying to fix someone
else's problems is unpleasant at best and impossible at worst. But if we -
the electorate and citizenship - are partly responsible, then it's a lot
easier for *us* to fix the problem. We - the voters to whom you're
speaking included - can make a change, just by changing how *we* vote and
think about *our* representatives and their actions. It's easy for folks
to dismiss what goes on in Sacramento and Washington as Somebody Else's
Problem. If you make it their problem, they'll want to invest in the solution.

~Chris
- --
"Reality is a pie of which I do not require another slice."
    ~ Shelley Winters, "Scary Go Round" by John Allison
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA

Chris,

  I agree that when John Stossel says things like "we in the media," it is very disarming. He is a tremendously effective communicator all the way around. However I see some important differences between his speaking style and the habit of people living in a particular country to use words like "we" and "our" to refer to the governments of the countries they live in and the actions of those governments.

(1) The nationalism fueled by people around the world identifying with their countries and national governments contributes to things like racism, emigration controls, restrictions on trade, the bombing of civilians, etc. I see no comparable problems fueled by members of the press identifying with their profession.

(2) It is more appropriate for Stossel to speak about the actions of the media in personal terms, because by his own admission, he was formerly an active part of the problem -- even one of its leading practitioners. He was directly engaged in producing the very type of journalism that he now rightly criticizes.

(3) When Stossel addresses the public, whether in person or via his programs or his book, he is generally speaking to people who are *not* part of the media. Thus by personally owning part of the problem, he is not simultaneously implicating his listeners. But when Americans say things like "our embassy" or "we decided to require foreign airlines to have armed marshals on board certain flights," to other Americans, they are not only assuming responsibility for these things themselves, but implying ownership and often guilt in their audience as well.

(4) I think that the assumption of a national frame of reference is often unconscious, whereas Stossel's use of the possessive to refer to his colleagues in the media seems more deliberate. I often see a nationalist perspective being assumed without any apparent consideration for whether it is the most appropriate frame of reference for the topic at hand, such as when discussing problems like poverty or environmental degradation that are global in scope and much more serious outside the United States.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>