From Local Elections to the Global Condition...in 7 paragraphs

We held local elections on Tuesday. An appallingly low percentage turned out in the K.C. Metro Area. There was one issue on the ballot in my precinct concerning a tax raise to improve roads. Before going to the polls I took 5min to read through the details of the tax raise and the strategy for road improvements. Not long after leaving my voting location I went to the friendly local pharmacy (read Huge National Mega Chain Pharmacy) and overheard a few people complaining about the very issue at hand, the poor roads in our area of town. I left wondering if they had made it to the polls, we'll assume they did. Well, despite the low turn out our road improvement tax raise passed.

Living in a younger middle to upper-middle class suburb I've found that despite most people voting fiscally conservative on federal issues they tend to be fiscally liberal on local issues. I wonder if this trend is national? If so I've never realized the potential for "Thinking Globally, Acting Locally". Sadly I think my assumptions here are misleading.

Local elections tend to draw little attention compared to federal elections. Instead of gaining the overall consensus of the populace you gain a consensus among those with a deep seeded interest in the issue at hand. I think most people just find themselves to busy to vote and no one tends to use the mandatory time businesses must give to participate in the process.

Is it fair to assume the general population values their role as consumers over their role as citizens? I think so, in fact I think this factor holds true even when considering other variables for people not voting, such as family commitments. Let's think bigger for a second. Imagine the problem of local elections is representative of society at large.

Is it safe and wise to place our happiness in our role as consumers? History actually shows us it might not be that risky for some. In 200+ years we see if people are born to the upper half of society they remain in the upper half and likewise if you're born in the lower half. With only one major and few minor swings the ability of the upper half to consume has been pretty stable.

However our society has a difficult time communicating to the lower class they should find happiness somewhere outside our consumer culture. The majority of domestic problems stem from this difficulty with a small percentage of problems being petty issues of the upper class or a few matters of mere survival in the lower class. If this all stands true, we could probably quite bitching about these problems and realize they are something we'll have to deal with or try one of two solutions. First we could find a way to communicate to the lower class they need to find their happiness somewhere outside our consumer culture or second, we could lower our standards of living to allow a higher degree of comfort for the lower half of society.

If we decide not to change we should probably stop assuming superiority among societies claiming to practice classical liberal principles. After all, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seems rather silly and rhetorical when capitalism is given such an obvious higher priority. Likewise, these principals probably shouldn't be the banner we march under when forcefully trying to change other societies. After all we didn't see the slaves celebrating our Revolution and you'll find few Iraqis willing to give even lip service to liberty. I imagine they would both tell you the face of tyranny looks the same whether it's forced or designed, foreign or domestic, 1 mile away or 3,000 miles away.