The assigned theme of this talk is participation, which is the biggest single indicator of democracy, in my opinion. One can be denied the opportunity to participate when she wants to, or forced to participate when she doesn't. Participation usually involves some form of activity. People are becoming fed up with the sham of current political structures and are refusing to participate, even though they often voice their refusal in terms of dislike of politicians or policies, rather than in terms of the inadequacies of the available modes of participation, so blinded are they by the myth of democracy. Though bullshit walks, money talks.
Money is far more important than votes.
It is clearly and everywhere far more effective to buy a politician than to vote for one. Much is heard these days about the role of television in political discourse, participation, and policy making. Indeed, of the four, I will go with Pericles on the one hand and Goldman on the other and suggest that, at least as far as participation is concerned, you should just forget the other two antique gentlemen ever existed. On the other hand, there is a National Endowment, and a Hawaii Committee, for the Humanities, which funds, if meagerly, meetings like this, and there is none whatsoever for the future. Perhaps because the various powers that be would much rather keep you befuddled by thinking about the glories of the past rather than addressing the problems of the present and anticipating the challenges of the future.