|
alas, in our current situation, we see the the quote played out in reality--only it's the reverse of the quote, which is why the quote is appropos. Under Bush, the people have cause for fear, fear both of the government and of what it's doing, and alas, it hasn't the least concern over what it's citizens want or need. Seems that this situation could benefit if the government feared the people, at least enough to listen (and I don't mean listen--in to our phone calls).
Now then, as to the definition of fear. The idea that the government should fear the people should mean that our elected leaders should fear us, and, they should indeed--if that fear is nothing more than the fear that we'll vote them out of office if they aren't responsive. Unfortunately, when it comes to the people fearing the government, the people really do have cause for fear--and of much more serious actions than merely being voted out of office, and there's every reason to think it's going to get worse before it gets better (our one hope being a Democratic win in November, but that may well depend upon forces beyond the mere casting of votes, forces that can make such votes result in any desired outcome).
Fear, at least on the part of the people, is a bad thing for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that in fear, people don't think clearly and are susceptible to the loudest voice (one that is composed of the owners and controllers the mass media, the energy industry and the military-industrial corporations). Another is an aspect of human nature that's been studied in which when people's fears are stimulated even slightly, they tend to separate into groups and worse, they actually tend to become more aggressive in their treatment of people who aren't members of their group--even when there is no provocation. Bush's reliance on fear mongering has certainly ensured that he would, in fact, not be a "uniter" but rather, a very effective "divider".
Alas, in the end, fear is an important and necesary and instinctive emotion that on the individual level tends to help improve one's chances of survival. On a group level, it tends to result in more conflict and eventually often ends up costing individuals their chances for survival. We have a great deal to fear in this world, but living life in fear is, well, not much fun. Still, it helps to identify enemies (both real and imagined). In this case, there can be no doubt, the government we fear is not an construct of our imaginations. It's also true that if we ignore the reasons our government merits our fear, it will only get worse.
So, you're right, it would be a good thing not to have fear of government (and that it should not have to fear it's people) or better yet, not to have to have fear of our government. Indeed, that should be our goal--to eliminate the causes for fear on either side of the equation. In fact, since our government should very meaningfully be of the people, by the people and for the people, there should be no fear between the two--the two should be the same. Instead, our government has become a separate and secretive other, a "they". We must resolve this and restore our government to one that is but an extension of ourselves.
Until then, alas, we will continue to live in a nation in which fear of the government is appropriate, and one in which the people would benefit from being able to project a certain kind and degree of fear within that government--not such that it lashes out in fear, but rather in which it pays closer attention to the will of it's people. In it's most primal sense, though, the government we have actually does fear the people--it may ignore them and not care what they think, but it lives in fear of the day the people do wake from their apathetic slumber and start taking ownership of the government. Such is always the fear of the wealthy; that someone will take their riches (and/or power) from them. Strange that greed is the root cause of all our problems; alas, too few can see beyond their fears to realize it.
|