Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The question is obviously initially asked as rhetorical, but in fact, if you turn off emotions, there is room for a couple of observations here.
People in principle want peace after an era of upheaval, this is typical for any society. Moreover, there is nothing negative in the very concept of “stability” if it implies stable development, and not stable stagnation. Everyone wants predictability, confidence in the future, and the ability to plan long-term. This in itself is not a bad thing.
But it is obvious that “stability” is now being used in politics as a kind of antithesis to revolutionary transformations, to the violent change of power. Some opponents of the current government believe that if you remove it by force, then everything will work out by itself, since in their opinion, it cannot be worse than it. People with more extensive historical experience know that anything can happen, including worse, and would like a more clear plan for the development of events.
For example, the concept of “let's just hold fair elections” is pure and positive, but naive and ill-conceived, because the Constitution will still delegate super-powers to the president, and no one even thinks about how to replace them in order to prevent what they were introduced for. In addition, relatively free elections under this Constitution have repeatedly led to a” red Duma “or a total victory of the LDPR, and not at all”forces of good”.
The trouble is that bullying supporters of drastic changes do not want to understand why the majority of society does not accept their ideas, do not enter into any dialogue, but stew in their own juice and come up with explanations that are convenient for them: “These are bad people, they do not understand what freedom is and believe in TV.” In this regard, they doom themselves to a kind of stability: they are consistently unwilling to be taken seriously.
And you yourself would not take seriously an opponent who understands and knows everything about you in advance, and comes up with offensive nicknames for you just because you ask for a little more detail to reveal his great and only Truth and allow yourself to doubt it.