>people do care, but are currently under too much financial and day-to-day stress to simply drop everything and participate meaningfully in lots of political causes
I used to believe this was the case, but now I wrestle with it. I'm not sure what people think any more, but I find that a core problem is that too many don't tend to think critically or independently and are thus far too easily led.
It's partly implicit in the other points of your comment (e.g. the way the narrative around Mr. Swartz redirected away from the relevant discussion), but the whole of it is difficult to explain. It's very Matrix-like in that they seem to want to be misled, bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that everything is OK.
Maybe this is why people spend an inordinate amount of time on utter distraction, and seem to prefer that to addressing real matters, even when those matters directly affect them.
This has been a tenet of humankind forever, "...many don't tend to think critically or independently and are thus far too easily led.". My grandfather told me that it was the responsibility of those who did think critically and independently to lead others toward a better future.
Not surprisingly this is the core principle behind governing, a few who are willing to spend their time doing the work of leading while the rest just follow along.
The tricky bit though, is that the people need a choice of leaders. So it becomes incumbent on people who do think critically and independently to offer themselves up as leaders so that if they have a constituency that was looking for them, they might be found.
>a few who are willing to spend their time doing the work of leading while the rest just follow along
That's the theory! And, it works, as long as the critical-thinking leaders are well-intentioned, are acting in an environment that allows them to effect change, and are acting in the interest of a better future for all; rather than a narrower set of interests for a few.
>The tricky bit though, is that the people need a choice of leaders. So it becomes incumbent on people who do think critically and independently to offer themselves up as leaders
I think it's trickier than that!
Of course, there are would-be leaders who are eager to capitalize on this human shortcoming for their own gain. Entire systems (including our two-party political system here) are devised and manipulated to leverage the tendency of the masses not to engage in critical-thinking. The current "leaders" aren't so much leading the masses to a better future as promoting an agenda that tends to serve the relatively few constituents who paid their freight.
So, there's a bit of chicken-and-egg here. Those leaders who truly want to implement change rely upon the masses to buck the well-heeled narrower interests and push it through. But, those masses are distracted and not engaged sufficiently in critical-thinking.
In other words, there's a minimum level of thought and engagement required on the part of the masses. Otherwise, they are just as easily led (or misled) by the critical thinking "leaders" who have in mind their own self-interest as by those who want to lead them to a better future.
I used to believe this was the case, but now I wrestle with it. I'm not sure what people think any more, but I find that a core problem is that too many don't tend to think critically or independently and are thus far too easily led.
It's partly implicit in the other points of your comment (e.g. the way the narrative around Mr. Swartz redirected away from the relevant discussion), but the whole of it is difficult to explain. It's very Matrix-like in that they seem to want to be misled, bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that everything is OK.
Maybe this is why people spend an inordinate amount of time on utter distraction, and seem to prefer that to addressing real matters, even when those matters directly affect them.