…might it then be appropriate for me to consider you as being too stupid to vote as well?
Well my friends, it would seem that the fate of our Republic now rests, and somewhat firmly I might add, in the hands of a sizable group of people made up primarily of the uniformed, but also included a sizable number of the clueless and yes even, the ignorant. A fact, for me at least, that will most likely be a source of more than a few sleepless nights over the course of the next six days. But, I suppose, it's a fact that I am more than quite conficent will bring a certain amount of joy to the hearts of Democrats everywhere as it causes a certain degree of angst to more folks than just myself. What kinda brought this home for me was a very recent “Letters to the Editor” section of my local paper where there was a letter that sums up my previously mentioned sentiment rather nicely, I think. The writer, whom I’m not sure fits in with the uninformed, the clueless or the ignorant, began his letter by making the “claim” that he is one of those Independents who also just so happens to be a fiscal conservative. He also claims to have voted Republican in 10 of the last 14 mid-term elections but is now having second thoughts about doing so this time around. Now usually when a letter begins with such a disclaimer, I'm immediately made suspicious regarding just what the true political affiliation may be of the person who feels the need to even put that out there in the first place. Anyway, the rationale, on which he bases his supposed dilemma regarding his being conflicted on how to vote this time around, stems from the fact that during the 8 years of “BJ” Clinton’s administration, his investments grew 82.5 percent. During the first 2 years of Bush 43’s administration they fell 21.9 percent. Then he adds that during the first two years of Barry’s administration they have once again grown at 19.7 percent. I guess this moron is one of those stellar individuals who have completely forgotten about 9/11 and the catastrophic effects it had on our economy. I would also like to know how his investments may have performed during the last 6 years of Bush 43’s administration. At any rate, to make such an admission that you're such a complete moron and in your hometown newspaper no less and to then include your name, to say the least, takes a lot of guts. Not much brains, but a lot of guts. Because with all of the other rampant destruction of our country presently going on, to admit he’s basing his decision for whom to vote solely on varying degrees of his return on investments, is pretty idiotic. This is the caliber of intellect that we who are trying to salvage what’s left of our country, now find ourselves up against.
Personally, I am one of those who favors using sound conservative reasoning, not some nonsensical touchy, feely gobble-dee-goop, when it comes to the defending of our individual liberty and free markets. Therefore I fully support the premise that advocates the notion that uniformed, clueless or ignorant people should not be permitted to vote unless they can somehow prove that they possess some semblance of knowledge regarding how our constitutional government is supposed to work. As well, they should at least know the basics about the key issues of the day and where the particular candidates and/or parties may stand on those issues. For those of you who may not be familiar with Sean Hannity’s radio show, every now and again he has this most irritating segment that he calls his “Man in the Street” segment. It’s where he sends one of his folks out onto the street to ask random passers by some pretty basic and generic questions about our Constitution, our government and our current batch of political leaders. More often that not most of these respondents reveal that they’re rather clueless as they are rarely if ever able to intelligently answer any questions regarding even most rudimentary facts regarding what our Constitution actually says or even to recognize the names of our more prominent political leadership. And what’s so sad is the fact that these morons seem to think the fact that they're so clueless is so funny. So can someone please tell me what purpose is really served by the allowing of such people, who so obviously lack even the most basic knowledge on topics that are so important, the privilege of partaking in something as critical as voting? In fact, I think it can be safely said that these people who lack such basic knowledge, and see that fact as somehow being humorous, have an actual duty to the rest of us not to vote. Conversely, it is crucial that those people who do work at staying properly informed about politics and of the key issues of the day, do vote. It goes absolutely without saying that democracy works better when informed people vote. To assist in determining exactly where you are as far as being informed, an excellent place to start would be the website www.dontvote.org. Take the test and see how you fair.
Lame excuses abound and have as their source the defenders of those pathetic individuals who care so little about their country that they just can’t seem to bring themselves to be bothered with making even the weakest of attempts to get and to stay informed. There are many who take personal offense with my advocating such a thing as ensuring voters possess a certain amount of intelligence and informational awareness in order for them to then be permitted to enjoy the privilege of voting. There are those who attempt to make the case that the importance of an informed voting public is really over exaggerated. The point they continually try to make is that the desire to have a public that remains informed is impossible, as well as being unrealistic, because the keeping of an informed voting public breaks down when we consider the difficulties of being well-informed about all of the political options available. In economic terms, voters would need to evaluate alternatives for public policies and programs. Strictly speaking, they say, a rational voter would need to first estimate the overall effects of altering or abolishing specific public policies and programs. In addition, for each federal program or policy there are a range of reforms that may have either positive or negative effect on its functioning. A fully informed and rational voter would then be required to ascertain the best options for governmental reform. It is, however, very difficult to ascertain the effects of reforming even one policy or program. Changing one program or policy typically produces unintended consequences. Given the complexity of the United States, and the world for that matter, a significant change in public policy will cause a series of reactions from the people who feel the effects of these changes. So it is argued, that no one person can accurately predict these unintended consequences. Maybe not, but in today’s world with such things as the Internet, as well as the "new" media, it is not all that difficult to form enough of an understanding of the truly important issues that can then assist one in deciding for which candidate or for which party to vote. I will admit, however, that what does add a certain degree of difficulty to this whole process is when you have someone who is as secretive as Barry, who likes to keep things as far out of the public view as possible and has many surrogates more than willing to do his bidding in that endeavor.
Another excuse frequently provided by those who can’t quite bring themselves to support my premise, is their claim that because of the sheer volume of federal policies and programs that currently exist, it’s simply impossible to expect voters to remain sufficiently knowledgeable on all of them. I’m not saying that one has to get down into the minutia of every single piece of legislation or policy, but one should at least be aware of the basics of what is being proposed. It simply makes no sense to me for us to blindly trust those in power for no other reason than because we’re being told that various policies are just too complicated or beyond the comprehension of the general public, policies that the people would simply fail to possess even the slightest understanding of. Come on folks, that whole concept can only lead to one thing. Can anyone say “Obamacare?” As time has gone by since this horrible piece of legislation was signed into law by Barry, we’ve slowly been finding out just what a catastrophe this supposed "healthcare/insurance" reform has turned out to be. While there is no way that the average voter would have ever been able to make him or herself sufficiently knowledgeable regarding all 2000 pages of this disastrous legislation, by design, warning bells were being loudly sounded all around us. And yet it still become law. Even though there was at the time, with many still being available, several sources in the “new media” where one could go to locate the important facts about this horrendous piece of legislation. And yet, many didn’t, choosing instead to believe what it was they were being told by Barry, Nancy and Harry. Also, those who oppose my premise continue to whine about the fact that the U.S. government has dozens of agencies that implement thousands of policies. No one person can possibly achieve a sufficient level of understanding of all of these programs and policies. The federal government has a level of complexity far beyond anyone's wild imagination. So what's the answer, to simply choose to remain ignorant of all the goings on emanating for our rapidly expanding government? I think not! That’s the problem here, folks, government shouldn't be that complex. We’ve strayed so far from the original concept of limited government that our ballooning government is now wildly out of control. While that may be true in the strictest sense, we should not allow ourselves to be intimidated to the point where we become afraid to complain. Knowledge is power. And it is our primary ammunition in our ongoing battle against those whom we must confront on a daily basis and who will try to bully us into keeping quite. But the sad truth of the matter is that more often than not, people are either too lazy, or are simply unwilling, to use the tools that they have at their disposal to go in search of information that could prove crucial to their decision making process.
All these complaints or excuses are nothing more than half-hearted and lackluster blather, which is just simply another way of trying to explain away my claim that if voters were so inclined they could quite easily locate the requisite information that would keep them at least minimally “informed,” regarding the more important issues of the day. The fact is that while voters could defer to experts in such things as antitrust policy, fiscal or healthcare reform policy, where these experts could then advise voters on various policies, it is argued there are several problems with this potential solution. The problem with experts, or so the other side claims, is two fold. First of all they say that experts offer their “opinions" rather than facts. Since different experts disagree as to how policies should change, voters would then have to determine which experts are correct. This problem negates much of the purpose of having experts in the first place. While there is some basis for this argument, I think that by using this excuse, you’re saying that most people are simply too stupid to identify what makes sense and what doesn’t. Second, experts provide opinions on the overall effects of reforming public policies. Rational voters are concerned more with the effects on themselves and those close to them than with the overall effects on the entire electorate. To assume the changes that benefit the group also benefit any member of that group entails the fallacy of division. All that is honestly required is the requisite motivation to go in search of opposing viewpoints regarding any certain policy, and to then judge which one sounds the more realistic and capable of actually being able to provide the benefits that it claims it will produce. All this is, is a denial of where the real problem lies. Which is in the fact that far too many people just do not see the necessity to search out any kind of usable information. Look, we all know that there are any number of highly suspect sources of information out there, both in the state-run media as well as on the web that make the claim of providing reliable information. Which does make it all the more important that multiple sources be utilized in our search for usable, as well as verifiable, information. Granted that does make the process a bit more difficult. But how important is it to ensure that when walking into the voting booth one is armed with the best information possible. We should all be familiar with the caliber of "news" that is spewed on a regular basis by organizations like CNN, The AP, Reuters, the New York Times or any major network, to name just a few, and that it is nothing more than pure Democrat propaganda. I think that most intelligent people recognize that more often than not, the more liberal the policy the more fanciful are the claims being made regarding any potential benefits. The old adage that, “If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is,” is usually a pretty good rule of thumb to follow.
So the bottom line here is that to be a well-informed voter requires nothing more than the making of a conscious decision to do so and to then actually follow through with that decision. Easy, right? But as we all know, you can’t just go out and hold a gun to someone’s head and force them to become actively involved in the process or to be a concerned and informed citizen. A voter must first determine the importance, to them personally, of “working” toward the uncovering of necessary information all in an effort to discover which policies are seen as being able to actually deliver the best results. Each individual voter must evaluate how it is that the overall objectives of any potential policy will equate into the actual achieving of any individual payoffs against any realistic payoffs for the entire country. And then they ascertain the probability of those particular payoffs actually becoming a reality. Having done all this, a voter is now close to making a rational political choice to either vote for those who support such policies or for those who do not. I think to make the claim that voters cannot comprehend the impact that voting has on their own lives is simply a cop out. It does nothing more than to justify the act of being too lazy to go in search of the information in the first place. And ya know, maybe if we had a decent public school system that was more concerned with educating than with indoctrination we would, in all likelihood, be miles ahead of where we are now. But the sad reality of the situation is that we have a pathetically inept public education system which produces, after 13 years of being exposed to it, a net result which equates to nothing more than a population consisting of mind-numbed little socialist robots. It remains focused entirely on the implanting in the minds of our youth, and to an extraordinary level, a sense of anti-Americanism and anti-Capitalism that is advanced by any number of leftist zealots disguised as teachers. And it is then further compounded by the attending of nearly any major institution of so-called higher learning where the steady onslaught of anti-American rhetoric is continued and built upon by radical ideologues disguised as college professors. What ends up being instilled in people is a mentality, of sorts, that is then exacerbated by a criminally dishonest and heavily biased state-run media conglomerate. But look, that's another issue entirely and a topic for another discussion altogether. There are those who make the claim that casting a single vote, among over 100 million, is an act of futility. I beg to differ. One could argue that while voting is much more complicated than most people realize, we have no alternative, no other way of changing the world for the better. The idea that there is no alternative to political participation is false.
So, in 6 days we the voters will once again be provided with that same opportunity we have every two years to throw the bums out. However, more than likely, many of us will once again fail to do what’s necessary for the good of the country and simply choose to reward those very same politicians who have repeatedly deceived us while at the same time assuring us that, yes, they really do care about our problems. We are told that our democracy works best with an informed electorate, a concept that I very firmly support but that appears to be lost on nearly a majority of voters. Today's voters largely operate from a point as basic as a "gut feel." They cast their ballots based on nothing more than "group think," better known as the "straight ticket." They vote according to strict party affiliation, Republican or Democrat, and they are easily manipulated by those very same extreme, negative ads that have already begun to overwhelm us. Sadly, if not for this bad information coming in the form of negative ads and spin propaganda, most voters would enter the polls with absolutely no information whatsoever. Then, they wonder why once in office those for whom they voted behave so differently than what was promised. Look, if a working democracy is founded on an enlightened electorate, we are most assuredly in very deep trouble. Early on, this election was reduced to being a simple venting of rage by a frustrated electorate and egged on, to a certain degree, by a blatantly biased media. And for those whose conscience is somehow bothered by the lure of lower taxes and not so sure about the economic reasoning behind such a gesture, anger conquers the last inhibitions. Here we are, entering a century in which this country will be severely challenged to maintain some semblance of the living standard achieved at great cost over the past two or three lifetimes, and an election that very well could be decided by those, many of whom, have no clue regarding the true role of government. And what’s worse, they have no interest in discovering what the responsibilities are of their government. And at a time when we have a president talking about having "enemies" and wishing to seat the opposition, soon to be majority, party in the "back seat," I think very safe to say that what we have here is a rabid narcissist who is quite possibly the angriest individual that we have yet had the misfortune to have in the White House. It all just goes to show the urgency in ensuring we all vote!
No comments:
Post a Comment