Sharon had an interesting article on her site concerning the essay of Andrew Bacevich, the Boston University professor, who wrote in The Washington Post that his son had died in a war he opposes. I had read Dr Bacevich’s article, and even commented that he was the kinder, gentler Cindy Sheehan, someone the left could more comfortably embrace.
What interested me more, however, was Sharon’s quick update:
This guy thinks you are too ignorant because you supported the war in 2003 (and/or still do). Since you don’t vote the way he thinks is logical, he suggests that certain people who pass tests get extra votes to cancel yours out. Given that this would be entirely unconstitutional — we do have that whole one-man-one-vote thing — it’s a ridiculous suggestion. But I wouldn’t be surprised if someone took it seriously.
Here’s the beginning of the article. You know the deal: copyright laws say I can’t just reproduce the whole thing, so you’ll have to follow the link to read it.
Clueless
By GARY J. BASS
Published: May 27, 2007Of all the people who deserve some blame for the debacle in Iraq, don’t forget the American public. Today, about two-thirds of Americans oppose the war. But back in March 2003, when United States troops stormed into Iraq, nearly three out of four Americans supported the invasion. Doves say that the public was suckered into war by a deceitful White House, and hawks say that the press has since led the public to lose its nerve — but the two sides implicitly agree that the public has been dangerously unsure, or easily propagandized, or ignorant.
The disaster in Iraq has also fed a contradiction in American thinking about democracy. On the one hand, Americans continue to share the triumphalist, post-Soviet conviction that no other system of government has any real legitimacy. On the other hand, there is a deepening despair about whether and how the United States should spread democracy, prompted not just by Iraq but also by the endurance of authoritarianism in booming China and Vietnam and the disheartening Palestinian and Lebanese experiments in democratization.
Now Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has attracted notice for raising a pointed question: Do voters have any idea what they are doing? In his provocative new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,†Caplan argues that “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational — and vote accordingly.†Caplan’s complaint is not that special-interest groups might subvert the will of the people, or that government might ignore the will of the people. He objects to the will of the people itself.
You’ll notice from the book cover, he views the voters as sheep!
I haven’t read Dr Caplan’s book yet, only the review. But the review pretty much comes up with what needs to be known: another educated academic complaining that the voters take poor decisions because the voters are both mostly ignorant of the issues, and because they are so easily led by demagogues.
Winston Churchill said, in 1947, that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Democracy isn’t perfect: sometimes, as in the 2006 elections, the voters take bad decisions. But those are decisions the voters have a right to take, and the consequences of which they will have to accept. If that’s harsh, consider the alternative: democracy is government by the elected representatives of the governed, while every other form is government by those not of the choice of the people.
It doesn’t even matter than much whether the despot has the best interests of the people in mind, or only his own self-agrandizement and power; rule by those who are not elected by the people is despotism.
At this point, Hugo Chavez comes to mind. Yes, he was elected democatically; the guy who became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 was also elected democratically. But Señor Chavez has been not-so-slowly chipping away at democracy in Venezuela: he got his rubber-stamp legislature to eliminate the constitutional provisions limiting his terms in office. He got the rubber-stamp legislature to allow him 18 months in which he can rule by decree. He has closed down the opposition media. Venezuela isn’t a completely authoritarian state yet, but it’s well on the road.
Why? While a lot of people assume that Señor Chavez is just another power-grabbing Latin American thug, he has mouthed the platitudes of socialism and the good of the people — and many people believe him. I have my doubts that our friends on the left who like Señor Chavez’s words are open-minded enough to be convinced that he is doing all of this because he’s a power-hungry tyrant; they’d rather think that this was necessary for socialism, for the greater good.
So, at least for the sake of argument, I’ll give President Chavez the benefit of the doubt: I hereby accept the idea that everything he is doing is for the Greater Good of Venezuela and the common man.
It doesn’t matter. Socialism is inherently at odds with liberty and freedom. It doesn’t matter how benign the motives of the dictator, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. And socialism requires dictators.
Why? The very definition of socialism is:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Trouble is, even claiming that the means of production are owned collectively still means that some entity (normally the state) has to take decisions on how the means of production will be allocated and used, and how rewards and punishments will be assigned.
But the “state” does not think, and the state does not decide anything; the people who run the organization of the state think and decide and take action. Since socialism is a concept in which the good of society outweighs the liberty of the individual, whatever decisions in support of socialism are taken must be at odds with individual freedom and liberty.
Why? Because dissent cannot be tolerated! If socialism is a system run for the good of the people, dissent is, in effect, the call for a selfish benefit, for some sort of thing that is not for the good of the general public. Indeed, the entire concept of individual liberty goes against the grain of socialism; individuality can only exist outside of the good of the group, and is therefore harmful to it.
Nor can democracy be tolerated. Socialism is held as that system which provides the good for society. The Soviets had the phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” But in a democracy, people may choose to vote for their individual benefit. Obvious example: in the presidential elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004, (six out of the last seven campaigns) the American people elected the candidate who promised lower taxes. When Walter Mondale tried the interesting (and honest) tactic of telling the truth about his intentions, that he intended to raise taxes to reduce the deficit, he carried exactly one state.
Socialism can’t afford that; the notion that people might vote to lower taxes, to seek their own benefit rather than to surrender more of their income to a government that was purporting to help other people, is simply intolerable.
Our friends on the left have been, if somewhat less blunt about it than former Vice President Mondale, honest about their intentions. Senatrix Clinton said:
Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
Of course, that was 2004, when Mrs Clinton wasn’t actually running for anything. In a way, it might have been subtle sabotage of Senator Kerry’s campaign: little noticed among his campaign promises was a middle-class tax cut.
Now, where have I heard that one before? 
It didn’t make much of a splash, in part because the Kerry-Edwards didn’t really push it hard, and in part because no one would have believed him anyway.
Naturally, Democrat politicians don’t (usually) say that they want to raise your taxes; they always want to raise taxes on someone else: the rich, big oil, all of those evil corporations out there, because they have to get socialist programs (the promises are easy; the taxes are hard) passed the electorate.
Which brings me to former Vice President Al Gore. I mentioned previously that I had ordered his book, The Assault on Reason. It came in the mail today, and I have started reading it. My intention is a full book review, and I haven’t completed the book yet.
But I have gotten through the introduction and first chapter, and, in a way, it is of a similar theme to Mr Caplan’s, though approaching it from a different vector. Mr Gore spends the introduction (at 22 pages, a rather long one) setting up his basic premise, that political discourse in this country has ceased being reasonable and has become one based on emotion and fear. To Mr Gore, the greatest culprit is television, which has turned news over from readers to viewers. He spends a lot of time on this, giving numerous examples: the O J Simpson trial (the first 24/7 coverage, by CNN, that told network executives that viewers wanted massive coverage of sensational events), JonBenét Ramsey, Natalee Holloway, the “Runaway Bride,” the Michael Jackson trial, the Robert Blake trial, Chabdra Levy, Laci Peterson and Anna Nicole Smith.
Television news has, to Mr Gore, dumbed down the news — and dumbed down the public. Insofar as it goes, I agree: reading the news rather than watching the news allows the consumer of news the time to take the information at his pace, allows him to go back and reread something if necessary, allows him to set it down for a moment to digest a particular bit of information.
A bit of personal bias here: I’ve spent most of my professional life around noisy concrete plants and revved up trucks, and I have some hearing loss. It is somewhat difficult for me to watch television without the closed captioning. Reading is simply easier for me.
But Mr Gore betrays a peculiar bias here that I doubt he even recognizes.
-
It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where the people held the government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government. The three most impostant characteristics of this marketplace of ideas were the following:
- It was open to every individual, with no barriers to entry save the necessity of literacy. This access, it is crucial to add, applied not only to the receipt of information but also to the ability to contribute information directly into the flow of ideas that was available to all.
- The fate of ideas contributed by individuals depended, for the most part, on an emergent meritocracy of ideas. Those judged by the market to be good rose to the top, regardless of the wealth or class of the individual responsible for them.
- The accepted rules of discourse presumed that the participants were all governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement. That is what a “conversation of democracy” is all about.¹
Mr Gore was wrong on all three points. The “marketplace of ideas” was open in one direction only, from the elites down to the masses. Editors and publishers controlled everything, and while people could attempt to contribute, their ideas and prose had to first pass muster with the “gatekeepers.” The “emergent meritocracy of ideas” was not judged by the marketplace, but by the gatekeepers of publication.
And as for his third point, eventually the “conversation of democracy” led to elections, in which it was not general agreement which was sought (and secured), but the political victory of one group over another. Some countries, which employ proportional representation, may come closer to such, because coalitions and compromise are virtually required for government. But the United States employs what is known as the “single member district,” in which the person who wins the most votes in a given district wins the seat, and the people who voted for his opponents have simply lost, and must wait for the subsequent election.
The oddest thing about this is that Mr Gore seems rather unaware of the freedom of the internet that he invented! This site, and millions of others, contribute to exactly the first two points that Mr Gore mentioned, because the gatekeeping function of editors and publishers has been circumvented. He is committed to democracy, but does not seem to understand what the “marketplace of ideas” actually means; at least in his introduction and first chapter, he decries the presence of information that does not satisfy his concepts of reason versus emotion. I agree with Mr Gore that our televiewing society is far too concerned with the fluff information on Entertainment Tonight and the like, and not enough on what I think is real, important news, but unlike the former Vice President, I recognize that the rise of such is the result of the choices that millions of free people have freely taken.
That, too, is part of democracy.
In the end, both Dr Caplan, who would give additional political power to those elites he sees as possessed of more information and better judgement, and Mr Gore, who trusts democracy, but only if the people have the “right” information and take their decisions properly, seem to have a real problem with the choices people take in democracy; those choices simply don’t fall in line with what those gentlemen think they should be.
And thus the problem that socialism has with democracy. By its (theoretical) nature, socialism is supposed to be creating a society that is good for all of society, regardless of the protests of individuals. In socialized medicine schemes, as an example, participation must be mandatory, at least in payments into the system; individuals cannot opt out in a way which takes their mandatory payments into the system out of the system. But, in a democracy, people tired of higher taxes could do something radical like vote for politicians who promise to lower them — and that is something that socialism cannot tolerate. Dr Caplan would grant heavier political power to those who are just so much smarter than the rest of us (Plato’s philosopher kings?), while Mr Gore would restrict the information voters have in manners controlled by the elites, so the voters could only choose to vote for the common good. (He certainly didn’t say that, explicitly, but that is the direction in which he has headed.)
___________________________
¹ – Al Gore, The Assault on Reason (New York: The Penguin Press) © 2007, page 13.
___________________________
Cross posted on Red State and Iowa Voice.
Very good post, Dana.
It seems like Mr. Rushing agrees with Mr. Gore and Dr. Caplan, as well, given his disagreement with the way the news business is conducted these days.
Of course, I agree with them to the extent we are talking about the quality of news. I just disagree with what news is missing.
Well, just to say, Germany circa 1933 was supposedly a democracy. So was the Athens that executed Socrates.
Democracy, despite being the best we imperfect animals have to offer in the realm of government, is still imperfect and unjust. Arguing that there are worse ways to govern things is ignoring the main issue: education. People in democracies are, for the most part, ignorant and unintelligent. I don’t think that this particular solution is good, of course. I’m just saying that it isn’t particularly worse than the current status quo, though it is not egalitarian.
Necessary to the understanding of this situation is, however, that this man’s freedoms are not being protected by the wars our government has decided are adequate to be fought. One can believe that they are, but that is mostly a pacifier, in that most people who need such feel that killing any Muslim people is actually killing terrorist infrastructure, a bigoted and illogical ideology. This man’s son did not die to keep his freedoms safe, he died to provide a semblance of safety, which is belied from the fact that we create a population of people with legitimate grievances against our government by bombing and killing as we have in a foreign country. Or are the infants and the old persons we have killed been ridding the world of terrorists? Again, if we want to structure our international policy aroung indiscrimate killing, we shouldn’t act like we’re being altruistic. It’s hypocritical.
And thus the problem that socialism has with democracy. By its (theoretical) nature, socialism is supposed to be creating a society that is good for all of society, regardless of the protests of individuals.
Nope. That’s the theoretical limit of socialism, just like the theoretical limit of democracy is voting on who gets the death penalty or not.
In socialized medicine schemes, as an example, participation must be mandatory, at least in payments into the system; individuals cannot opt out in a way which takes their mandatory payments into the system out of the system. But, in a democracy, people tired of higher taxes could do something radical like vote for politicians who promise to lower them — and that is something that socialism cannot tolerate.
You really have no clue, do you?
In countries with socialised medical systems, people can vote for politicians promising to privatise the system, reduce funding to the system, or increase funding to the system. Indeed, these map onto ACT, National and Labour policies here in NZ quite well.
Let me play the strawman game:
The fundamental conflict between liberty and capitalism:
Corporatism is a form of capitalism. But Mussolini stated that fascism was just corporatism. Since fascism invaded other countries, threw people into jail without benefit of law, and tortured people, it is incompatible with liberty. Therefore capitalism is incompatible with liberty.
This conclusion can be supported simply by pointing at the most capitalist country in the world, which has very recently invaded two other countries, still has people in jail without benefit of law, and is now outsourcing the torture of people.
Looks like Sharon (as usual) got completely confused. Nowhere does Gary Bass suggest that the system of “One person, one vote” should be changed.
Predictably, however, she picks a man who’s still mourning his son to attack, and predictably, for all your claims that conservatives are more decent, you say nothing against her vile slandering of a man in mourning.
In countries with socialised medical systems, people can vote for politicians promising to privatise the system, reduce funding to the system, or increase funding to the system. Indeed, these map onto ACT, National and Labour policies here in NZ quite well.
I think the point Dana was making was that participation in socialized medicine, i.e., paying into the system, is not voluntary.
Looks like Sharon (as usual) got completely confused. Nowhere does Gary Bass suggest that the system of “One person, one vote†should be changed.
Try reading for a change.
What part of that statement doesn’t mean the rule of one-man-one-vote would be changed.
And as for the “picking on” someone, that’s just more of your disingenuous bullshit.
I think the point Dana was making was that participation in socialized medicine, i.e., paying into the system, is not voluntary.
I think you missed that Dana sidestepped the point that all taxation is not voluntary by excusing this for “democracy” on the grounds that government policy was responsive to voters.
Which is precisely the way socialised systems work in those democracies that have them.
J wrote:
If by that you mean Andrew Bacevich, he thrust himself into the public eye by writing an article for The Washington Post in which he used the death of his son as a political point.
To put it more precisely, as systems become more socialized (and the people could, at one point, decide democratically that they wanted socialized medicine), a government system is created which does not really allow the state to turn back from the socialized systems.
Dana: If by that you mean Andrew Bacevich, he thrust himself into the public eye by writing an article for The Washington Post in which he used the death of his son as a political point.
Tell me: would you have objected to that if the “political point” he’d made had been to support President Bush?
Sharon: What part of that statement doesn’t mean the rule of one-man-one-vote would be changed.
Show me exactly where Gary Bell is advocating this change?
Dr. Caplan is the person who advocates giving extra votes to people who think the way he thinks they should.
Did I object to his political point? I simply noted that he made it.
JG, Arguing that there are worse ways to govern things is ignoring the main issue: education. People in democracies are, for the most part, ignorant and unintelligent. I don’t think that this particular solution is good, of course. I’m just saying that it isn’t particularly worse than the current status quo, though it is not egalitarian.
Nonsense. Who says “people in democracies are, for the most part, ignorant and unintelligent”? By what measure to you make this unsubstantiated assertion?
…but that is mostly a pacifier, in that most people who need such feel that killing any Muslim people is actually killing terrorist infrastructure, a bigoted and illogical ideology. This man’s son did not die to keep his freedoms safe, he died to provide a semblance of safety, which is belied from the fact that we create a population of people with legitimate grievances against our government by bombing and killing as we have in a foreign country. Or are the infants and the old persons we have killed been ridding the world of terrorists? Again, if we want to structure our international policy aroung indiscrimate killing, we shouldn’t act like we’re being altruistic. It’s hypocritical.
More nonsense attached to a straw man attached to more rhetorical nonsense. Our “international policy” is structured around “indiscriminate killing”? Since when? Do you have the slightest understanding of how our military does its job?
Who is it, exactly, who argues that killing “any Muslim people” is “actually killing terrorist infrastructure”, or that killing “infants and old persons” is somehow our policy to “rid the world of terrorists”?
Jes, Predictably, however, she picks a man who’s still mourning his son to attack, and predictably, for all your claims that conservatives are more decent, you say nothing against her vile slandering of a man in mourning.
“Vile slandering of a man in mourning”? Maybe I missed that part of the thread. Of course, as you know, having posted there, her comments did no such thing other than to suggest that this “man in mourning” who wrote an article for publication in the Washington Post should understand that his son was an adult, made an adult decision, and should be honored for his service to his country. It is not “vile slander” to simply disagree with someone nor is it an “attack”.
Who says “people in democracies are, for the most part, ignorant and unintelligent�
People in general are ignorant and unintelligent. Being in a democracy doesn’t somehow negate this.
Our “international policy†is structured around “indiscriminate killing�
Maybe I’m being too harsh, but “shock and awe” was our policy at the start of the Iraqi War, correct? If you mean to tell me that innocent people were not killed during that endeavor, that they are still being killed, then I think your deluding yourself. Yes yes, wars do end up killing innocent people, but that doesn’t negate the fact that innocent people are killed, nor does it change the fact that those people have friends and family, who, if they are still alive, now have legitimate and valid claims against us.
Killing infants and old people and innocent people may not be our established policy, but to the victims of such killing, it hardly matters whether we stated outright that we wanted to kill them, now does it? They’re still dead, and we are still at fault.
Let me play the strawman game:
The fundamental conflict between liberty and capitalism:
Corporatism is a form of capitalism. But Mussolini stated that fascism was just corporatism. Since fascism invaded other countries, threw people into jail without benefit of law, and tortured people, it is incompatible with liberty. Therefore capitalism is incompatible with liberty.
How about calling it the “logical falacy” game. That would be more accurate.
People in general are ignorant and unintelligent. Being in a democracy doesn’t somehow negate this.
And your assertion that it is so doesn’t somehow make it so.
I’m curious. Does that include you?
I’ll ask again: says who? By what measure? Because you say so? Nonsense.
Followed by more naive and uninformed nonsense. Although I do see that you’ve backed away from your assertion that it is our “international policy” to kill indiscriminantly. The fact is that our military, aided by modern technology, does everything humanly possible, even to the point of placing our own soldiers at risk, to minimize civilian casualties. You might spend some time educating yourself on the history of warfare and our current “smart weapons” capabilities before posting more of this sort of nonsense.
Do innocents die in wars? Of course. Do we as a country or as a military take that lightly? No. Do we do everything we can to minimize casualties. Absolutely.
You can legitimately question whether this is a “just war” or whether we should have invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. Those are valid points for debate about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. However, what you cannot logically or reasonably assert is that we kill indiscriminantly. If that were the case we could have had far fewer military casualties by simply carpet bombing any areas from which enemy activity originated as was done routinely by both sides in WWII. And, I might add, Shock and Awe was not in any way indiscriminant nor was it directed at civilian targets.
But Mussolini stated that fascism was just corporatism. I guess that makes it so, then!
Saddam claimed to have 99% of the vote. I guess Iraq was a democracy before we got there!
The whole idea that people in democracies are stupid is, well, stupid. People are obviously more informed in a democracy than, say, a closed dictatorship or a restrictive theocracy, etc. Just because people “choose” to watch things like the OJ trial, rather than what Keith Olberman has to say on a subject, doesn’t mean they are “dumb.” It means they don’t want to watch the same garbage you do. So what?
This whole “people are sheep” meme is just liberals making excuses. The further to the left you are, the less credibility you have in the eyes of the American pulbic. Yet, as a product of the 60′s and 70′s political movement, we are stuck with a whole bunch of super lefties sitting in academic positions of power who consider themselves to be uber intelligent. “Hey, I’ve been at this university for 30 years!” Their arrogance leads them to believe their marginalization is not because of their crappy ideas, but rather because the “other” 95% of society is just dumber and less enlightened than me.
This is also why Al Gore is telling us that “political discourse” is no longer reasonable and rational. It’s just a way to explain his embarrassing defeat in 2000 and the fact that only one Democrat has been put in the White House between 1980 and 2008. Liberal intellectuals are so arrogant that they can’t comprehend why no one takes them seriously or follows their lead.
Maybe it’s not the American public that has become unreasonable and irrational. Maybe it’s the left in this country?
I’m curious. Does that include you?
I’m not so pompous as to assume that I am not ignorant about a great many things, nor do I think I am particularly intelligent.
I suppose, as to my assertion that people in general are ignorant, that one can argue that the gauge by which this is measured is nonstandard, and by that fact, the assertion is meaningless beyond opinion. I find that merely looking at the things that receive the most attention in news and television programs to be indicative of an ignorant and unintelligent culture, and that is not the only gauge. Believe what you will.
And again, I recognize that “indiscriminate” was a bit harsh, though good intentions are not enough when it comes to ethical reasoning. There is always the principle of dual effect to consider, of course, and I feel the “good effects” created by this war are far outweighed by the negative effects.
The problem is, good effects could take a long time to blossom.
I find that merely looking at the things that receive the most attention in news and television programs to be indicative of an ignorant and unintelligent culture.
So if a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, a “learned” professor, Albert Einstein, etc. were to wish to watch the OJ trial rather than “the important news according to you,” you’d say that person is ignorant and unintelligent? Because you deem their television viewing choices as inferior to your own?
For most people, television, first and foremost, is a medium of entertainment. Therefore, the majority of programs entertain, rather than inform. It doesn’t mean people are unintelligent. It means they value their entertainment. Since the dawn of time people have found ways to entertain themselves. In every historical society, from the “most enlightened” to the most repressed, people go out of their way to find entertainment – whether it’s illegally playing cards in Iran, illegally listening to music in Afghanistan under the Taliban, or illegally drinking alcohol during Prohibition. The need for entertainment is an entirely human condition. And, because TV is so accessible these days, people get the majority of their entertainment from the TV. Therefore, the majority of television programs aim to entertain.
People are not unintellgient because they prioritize their entertainment differently than you or I.
Mr Goff wrote:
Assuming you actually believe this to be true, what do you believe should come of it? Ought we to have intelligence tests or current events quizzes before we allow people to vote? Should we require at least a Bachelor’s degree to register to vote?
(I do admit to being partial to the wisdom of the the time of the Constitution, when the franchise was restricted to white, male property owners!
)
Dana, you should know better. It’s an indisputable fact that we males do not think with our brains.
Seriously, there are a multitude of problems with the suggestion for “testing” prior to voting.
Who writes the test?
What do we test?
Multiple choice, true-false or essay?
Does a test tell us anything other than the individual can take a test?
How do we test wisdom and common sense? I would argue those are far more important than any measure of “intelligence”.
Does a high school education provide the requisite level of intelligence? Public school or private?
How about an undergraduate degree? Anyone care to suggest a list of acceptable majors? History majors OK, but physics majors Nah?
Same question except substitute postgraduate degree.
And the number one reason this is a bone-headed idea suggested by someone with far more than their share of arrogance is … we’ve already done this. Anyone care to revisit the old South when, after being given the right to vote, black people had to pass a test to exercise the right?
Left one out: do we really want the folks who designed the “butterfly ballot” designing our test to determine whether we’re smart enough to vote?
To put it more precisely, as systems become more socialized (and the people could, at one point, decide democratically that they wanted socialized medicine), a government system is created which does not really allow the state to turn back from the socialized systems.
New Zealand Rail.
Since the real world disagrees with your statements, I assume you intend to retract?
Also seriously, I’d rather spend our public resources and effort on designing a secure voting system that ensures that everyone’s vote is properly counted and registered and that only legal voters vote. If we can get that done in the next decade perhaps we can then work on “testing”.
[...] If you’re interested in seeing a good working example of how right-wingers misperceive economics look no further than one of Dana’s characteristic ramblings where as usual: [...]
Harry: Anyone care to revisit the old South when, after being given the right to vote, black people had to pass a test to exercise the right?
Whaddyamean, old South?
Discounting ballots from black people was the main means by which Jeb Bush worked to get his brother appointed President.
Also seriously, I’d rather spend our public resources and effort on designing a secure voting system that ensures that everyone’s vote is properly counted and registered and that only legal voters vote.
The Republican Party will – and have – opposed that ferociously. Making sure that votes from people demographically more likely to vote Republican are more likely to be counted, and making sure that votes from Republicans are more likely to be registered, is a big part of their election technique. As is making sure many legal voters aren’t allowed to vote.
The only reason this is partisan is because for three national elections, the Republican Party successfully rigged votes against the Democratic Party, and in 2006, the Republican vote-rigging turned a Democratic landslide into a narrow win. Nothing succeeds like success, and Republicans who will even admit that in Florida 2000 Gore won and Bush lost are few and far between (even though, once all the ballots were counted, that’s exactly what was established). Republicans won’t admit that the exit polls in 2004 and 2006 show that the voting machines were being rigged. Few Republicans will even admit that the US is now, in many states, using voting machines that can be untraceably rigged – a few seconds work, not like the effort of “losing” registration forms or jamming phone banks or dumping ballot votes.
It shouldn’t be a partisan issue. It should be important to everyone that, in 2000 and 2004, the US got a President who didn’t win the election – regardless of whether you support that Presidential candidate. When elections are successfully rigged, democracy loses.
I do not believe tests for citizenship are necessary or ethical, and no one should ever be disenfranchised, regardless of their intellect, of course. I would also wholeheartedly support a fair and just system for voting that made sure every vote is counted, though I would not support a computer based system, as it is far too vulnerable to fraud.
I do not think that there is anything really to be done about the general ignorance pervading our culture, at least not in the legal sense, beyond attempting to fund adequate education programs. Then again, as we are deploring socialism around here, providing for said education, even the very nature of said education, is not something we are going to agree upon. This is probably why our education system is so terrible, though I suspect others will disagree.
As to not using the current state of television as an indicator, that may be, though I never said that by watching TV, you are necessarily proving your ignorance. Television, is however, another democratic endeavor. You choose to watch what you will, because you wish to be entertained. But then, that means that even informative television is structured so that it must entertain, even to where news programs must have catchy slogans, in-your-face graphics, dramatic music and cults of personality. News programs that run the shoutfests and have the most bombastic hosts tend to do the best.
Bottom line is, you vote when you watch TV, and by what TV seems to think we’re voting for, I’m not so sure discounting it as a touchstone is wise.
Jes, Discounting ballots from black people was the main means by which Jeb Bush worked to get his brother appointed President.
Nonsense, horse hockey and poppycock. You’re free to believe these myths if you like but it doesn’t make you any less wrong or otherwise less misinformed. Your assertions otherwise belong right up there with the “we attacked ourselves on 9/11″ pathology, both of which we’ve discussed at length in other threads and neither of which are any more true today than they were in 2000, 2004 or 2006.
JG, I do not think that there is anything really to be done about the general ignorance pervading our culture, at least not in the legal sense, beyond attempting to fund adequate education programs. Then again, as we are deploring socialism around here, providing for said education, even the very nature of said education, is not something we are going to agree upon. This is probably why our education system is so terrible, though I suspect others will disagree.
First, you continue to assert that there is a “general ignorance pervading our culture”. I have yet to see a logically sustainable argument that this is anything other than your opinion. Care to make a logical argument that this assumption is true? At least provide us with the basis for your assumption other than what it is we seem to be interested in watching on TV.
Second, our education system, to the extent that it is terrible, is demonstrably not so due to underfunding. That’s simply another myth. There are many reasons our public education system has not gotten the job done in many respects but the demonstrably true facts of the matter are that we have thrown literally billions of dollars at the problem with little improvement. And in case we’re tempted to blame this on Mr. Bush, check the last five federal budgets for the ever increasing funding for education.
That, unfortunately, is probably a topic for another thread. Perhaps Dana can open up the subject.
News programs that run the shoutfests and have the most bombastic hosts tend to do the best.
Not really so different, except the medium, than we have seen on any number of blogs at least with respect to the internet equivalent of “shoutfests”.
[...] Harry Arthur wrote: (O)ur education system, to the extent that it is terrible, is demonstrably not so due to underfunding. That’s simply another myth. There are many reasons our public education system has not gotten the job done in many respects but the demonstrably true facts of the matter are that we have thrown literally billions of dollars at the problem with little improvement. And in case we’re tempted to blame this on Mr. Bush, check the last five federal budgets for the ever increasing funding for education. [...]
Discounting ballots from black people was the main means by which Jeb Bush worked to get his brother appointed President.
I thought the liberal meme was that all those Jewish ladies voted for Pat Buchanan. You need to go back to your master and get your story straight.
The Republican Party will – and have – opposed that ferociously. Making sure that votes from people demographically more likely to vote Republican are more likely to be counted, and making sure that votes from Republicans are more likely to be registered, is a big part of their election technique. As is making sure many legal voters aren’t allowed to vote.
Conversely, Democrats want as many illegals to vote as possible because statistically, they are more likely to vote Democrat. This is why Democrats support every sort of measure to increase the voter pool, whether we can assure that the people voting are supposed to or not.
Not really so different, except the medium, than we have seen on any number of blogs at least with respect to the internet equivalent of “shoutfestsâ€.
This is why The View’s ratings went up with Rosie O’Donnell on it.
Lance Corporal Pigg wrote:
Entirely.
I still haven’t finished our former Vice President’s book, but the trend is along those lines: too many people don’t agree with the conclusions of liberalism, which indicates that they are uneducated, have been “stimulated” through the fear and emotion centers of the brain rather than through the reasoning areas, (Chapter one), and are thus not considering the things our friends on the left think they should consider. At least thus far, it is an attempt to persuade people that they should not even listen to the arguments of conservatives.
[...] I caught wind of it at Common Sense Political Thought, followed it up at Gold Plated Witch on Wheels, and finally got to the source at the New York Times. At first, it appeared simply that an academic out at George Mason University was suggesting we give people who know more about economics more votes: If the public doesn’t know how to think, is there a solution? Caplan has some radical medicine in mind. To encourage greater economic literacy, he suggests tests of voter competence, or “giving extra votes to individuals or groups with greater economic literacy.†[...]