Opponents of premise of "The Secret" claim that such a concept is not a mentality or emotionally healthy approach because if something bad happens to someone, or rather something that is interpreted as "bad" happens, this could cause the individual to blame themselves. This self-blaming fertilizes a downward spiral rather than the intended upward momentum that "The Secret" was designed to engender to its audience.
Let's assume that that the Law of Attraction is real, valid, and in force all around us. How does this law affect our political environment? When Obama came into office, there was an obvious majority that wanted Obama to succeed. They had hope in him to be the change they wanted to see in politics. If the law of attraction is real, then Obama would be awesome, he would be the greatest president ever based on that reception into office! However, over time the opposite seems to be true in a growing number of Americans. More and more Obama is not fulfilling that positive hope. One could argue that the "negative" vibes, or the dark side of the Law of Attraction were coming to reality. The negativism of the republicans was also out there in the universe and ruining Obama's successes. But why would the "dark" be beating out the "hope" side of this law?
Lets continue assuming that the republicans are at fault with respect to the law of attraction and the current condition of Obama's presidency. In fact, Obama on several occasions has blamed republicans, and especially George W. Bush, for the downfalls of our country. Okay, fine. If in fact, that is the case. Would that not mean that, according to the law of attraction, George W. Bush's failings were because of the Democrats trashing on him and his policies? If that is the case, then this economy is not George W. Bush's fault, but really the democrats who crapped on his presidency that caused us to be where we are at.... right?
Does terrorism increase because we spend so much effort fighting it? Does the debt continue to rise because we keep talking about it? Would the government be so much better if we simply put out the vibes into the universe that we want it better?
I tend to think that in all things political there are going to be disagreements. This means that two opposing "vibes" will be out in the universe, and both will need to be obeyed according to this law. So is this law the reason to blame for all the back and forth in the world? Is that why economy is cyclical? Who knows. I tend to think that the Law of Attraction is a nice idea packaged to sell a list of self-help and motivation products to people that crave or need an extra push to make something of their lives. I think that who we are and the circumstances that we find ourselves in is the product of how we were raised, what we want in the world, and how willing we are to go get it - we are the product of our choices, not what the universe makes happen for us.
Wow! I actually agree with you here. The political stagnation in this country isn't caused by some law of nature, it is a normal by-product of our political and economic system.
ReplyDeleteObama has "failed" in the eyes of many voters, not because of the awful policies of the Bush Administration, or the obstructionist tactics of the Republicans in Congress, but because he never intended to carry out the kind of change voters wanted. That was obvious to Chicago insiders from the beginning (look up the Black Agenda Report for some of the most strident early opposition to Obama directly from the African-American community in Chicago). The rest of those who were paying attention should have realized they had been lied to once he started naming his advisors and staff after the election.
The political system is owned by those who pay for it " That is, whatever it says about itself, the Democratic Party in fact functions to prevent the development of an American political party that can represent the real interests of working people — from auto workers, teachers, bus drivers, steelworkers and clerical workers to nurses, freelancers, home health care workers and computer programmers.
That’s why the Republican Party isn’t sufficient for the corporations to run the country. The American ruling class needs two parties. The Republican Party keeps the small business people and corporate managers in line. The Democratic Party exists to keep the working class majority under control. " Q&A on the Democratic Party – An Interview with Dan La Botz
It is nice to see we can agree on certain things.... however....
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how I am able to reconcile, the idea that socialists think that a socialism is a system that will be free of political stagnation, or that dirty politics doesn't have room in a socialist program?
Did he say that? The problem isn't socialism, it's democracy - or the lack thereof. If we had two socialist parties we would have the same kind of stagnation we get with two corporate parties, only with different policies. What we need is a system where informed voters have real choices and where the representatives they elect have a real opportunity to enact the policy changes the people want.
ReplyDeleteDan LaBotz is an open Socialist, and in the first two responses on the linked interview he criticizes the democrats for being a corporate owned party. I just assumed that the criticism was articulated because he feels that the socialists, the party he is from, is not under the same opportunity for being "bought".
ReplyDeleteNo, I think the point was that the socialist party today is not the recipient of corporate funds and is not owned by corporate interests. IMHO, corporate funding of politicians and political groups should be absolutely banned and I bet LaBotz agrees. Can socialists be corrupted? Absolutely - any political party can be corrupted. That's why we need a range of parties that are beholden to the people, not special interests, so that when one gets too corrupt, we can replace it with a less corrupt party. Currently we don't have that option.
ReplyDelete