I do not know if I am using the political science definition of reactionaries, but my definition concerns people who think in the short-run. People who do not bother to take the time to fully think out the consequences of their opinions and decisions. People who over-react to situations and immediately call for collective action. We are all reactionaries at times.
Politics is based on reactionaries. Government is influenced and run by people who suddenly care about something that has been going on for years. Something that will work itself out given time. This country has survived years without universal health care or assisted suicide laws. But something happened, and the reactionaries made them political issues.
I could not watch the State of the Union address. I cringed thinking about it. I got sick to my stomach thinking about hearing Bush discuss Iraq, energy, and health care. I got even more sick thinking about the Democratic Congress' response to the State of the Union.
Most things do not matter. It kills people to admit this fact, but when you take a step back, it is all small stuff. Neither Bush nor Congress can do anything about energy or health care. As it has for the past thousands of years, individuals will act and face the consequences of their action.
These actions and consequences will extinguish the need for reactionaries, but I am afraid they will not go away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree. The best defense though is educating people about public choice economics. Government employees are every bit as self-interested as the CEO of Exxon and the sooner that people realize this the safer we'll all be.
(warning: these thoughts are only semi-organized.)
Often it takes a reactionary to question things that have become de facto. They hold institutions and people accountable because they force them to take positions. They force them to justifiy their actions. They make people nervous because they ask questions for which answers often don't exist but should.
Usually they are associated with nuisance instead of progress because they disrupt the flow. They are given little credit because they are generally in a small minority. Many are made into scapegoats. Some become scapegoats voluntarily to prove a point. Dealing with flash in the pan reactionaries is a delicate issue. Partly because I beleive the public perception of a reactionary's motivation are not always reality. In reality I beleive that often it is the public perception that is the reactionairy's motivation. This is a tactic often used in battles. And this tactic often wins battles.
Many short term decisions inevitably lead to long term achievements. All decisions inevitably affect the long term. However, in the long run, we are all dead. Is it better for the individual to focus on improving the betterment of worldkind, or to focus on the portions of society in which he can actually change or improve?
And for the record, I believe this blog was directed at me.
GGM
GGM,
I think you are talking about contrarians who disagrees with everything just for the sake of disagreement. There is a definite role for contrarians.
Reactionaries are always looking for the collective to impose their will on others, and they are usually a member of the majority. Or, at least the caring majority.
This post was not completley directed at you. I do think you have a tendency to be a little reactionary, but you are more of a contrarian.
I will write a post soon about my grievance with you.
There are but three things that matter in life - money, pussy, and Pete Rose. All the rest is petty bullshit manifested by our inability to understand the power of #14.
Go Big Red Machine go!
Nic
the irony is that leaders are often reactionary. Then what do you do to control them? Aren't coups often reactionary? Sometimes the long-term plan does not need to be identified to understand that the present is not desirable. Not dissimilar to economics such that human intuition is the driving force. I would not expect that many people believe that knee-jerk reaction/action is the best approach to take towards any form of sustainabilty. However, how can you argue against it when in certain situations it appears that human intuition directs you to believe that it is the only means to achieve a rapid an necessary response. I suppose my thoughts are that instead of arguing against such individuals, leadership shoudl continually appease their viewpoint. Instead of ignoring them, leadership should engage them. While engaging them empowers the few, it can also be treated as a means to deflect the few. A final thought is that good leaders encourage followers through accountabilty and other means. Good leaders squelch reactionaries.
I don not require a response for this post.
GGM
Post a Comment