Do our leaders and the middle east's share a common philosophy?

Question

Ever since WWII we have been warned by our politicians against an adversary that was an existential threat to our country. Until recently, it was the Soviet Union. Today that threat is Middle Eastern "terrorist" regimes.

Our politicians are empowered by the notions of fear and patriotism they instill in the populace by continuing the struggle against the enemy. It is no different in the Middle East. People are encouraged to hate the adversary, and lend support to the leaders who continue the fight.

Without an adversary, a government's power is greatly diminished. Just look at the former Soviet Union as evidence.

The current conflict benefits the leaders of each side, since the fight distracts the people from the social ills that plague their own respective homelands. They both retain power so long as they can keep the ignorant masses patriotic and/or devout.

What would the world be like if we stopped allowing our leaders to create adversaries with which to control us?

Answer 1

The government as an entity may soon be a passing phase in humanity, just as religion has been. The most powerful human organizations will be the corporation, which is becoming a more destructive force than even the adversarial governments. In the future, when all of us refuse to follow the leaders that are abusing their powers, we will finally be able to create some yet-to-be-named human organization, such as the open-source and Web 2.0 initiatives has been. It will prove once and for all that we're all trying to contribute to the same good of the world, and make it better for us all.

Answer 2

people who're attempting to hold democratic reforms would be dealing with some very tough waters. The withdraw from Iraq will bring about the Iranian government filling the void this is left, with their form of radicalism poised to brush into different countries.....an identical is going with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama seems to have a naive thought of peace with out circumstances.....extra Chamberlain than Churchill, whilst putting it in an comprehensible historic context.

Answer 3

That is one scary question but a valid one that should be asked. I can't say, complete anarchy possibly? How much further can it go. They do what they want no matter if it is in the best interests of their country. Its getting to be a real mess and I don't see anyone raising their hand in the air to clean it up. All though I think Ron Paul is one that at least has the right idea, wether he is the man for the job or not, he has the right idea.

Answer 4

Good point.

What if we sent all the so-called 'fundamentalist' leaders and their corporate sponsors into a room to work on their hate issues while we, the people of the world, focused on better things?

That'd be great. Where do we start?

Answer 5

Adversaries are necessary to mobilize the masses- when they don't exist we can always create false enemies..
...and a man's ignorance is another man's advantage. ignorance is a bliss.

Answer 6

good poiint !
i guess special interest play a role in this, & by making people feel threatened makes them reach their goals.