"People aren't smart enough for democracy to flourish"

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Badger52

If any debate is w/o a teleprompter coaching the marinette - and I'd like to see 'em have nothing but a small table & water between them & talk on their feet without notes - then Little John knocks Robin's ass into the creek with a staff.

Actually, the debates are pretty well structured and organized. The candidates can't have note cards or teleprompters, earphones, etc. The downside is that both candidates must agree on the line of questions, time for responses, rebuttals, etc, so it is a little canned.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Badger52

...then Little John knocks Robin's ass into the creek with a staff.

I'm not sure that analogy is quite what you wanted to say; all the material I've ever read had Robin and Little John becoming friends...with Robin retaining his leadership role over the group.

Just sayin'...

Richard

[MR2]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I haven't seen Romney, or any Republican, "kick the crap" out of ANYthing lately.

Oh, I think former NH Gov. John Sunnu did a pretty good job smacking the lapdog media and its hired pit-bulls around.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

I haven't seen Romney, or any Republican, "kick the crap" out of ANYthing lately.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/21/da...tial-campaign/

Voters shouldn’t expect President Barack Obama to add any more depth or nuance to his attacks on rival Mitt Romney, even though the upcoming election raises fundamental questions about the role of government and the direction of the economy, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks.

On Friday night’s “NewsHour” on PBS, Brooks said the two presidential candidates will probably stick to the basics to avoid confusing voters.

“There is the makings of a serious discussion of what sort of role of government, what sort of society, what sort of capitalism we want to have,” Brooks said. “And I do think there is — that’s implied in a lot of these arguments. Barack Obama’s really attacking Romney on all the things people don`t like about capitalism, the high creative destruction involved, especially in private equity. Will we actually have that discussion? I’m extremely doubtful, in part because what they’re targeting are people who don’t pay attention to politics. Everybody who pays attention has already decided. And so they want a very simple message.”

Brooks cited Obama’s criticism of Romney for allegedly helping send jobs overseas as an example of a classic political attack that plays to voters’ instincts, even though the economic effects of outsourcing are complicated and often misunderstood.

“He’s got a very simple-minded ad attacking Romney for being a guy who ships shops overseas,” Brooks said. “But to actually have a debate about capitalism and about the role of government would require more nuance than I think we’re going to [get] from either side, precisely because they are paying attention to people who don’t pay attention.”

MOO: I think it is a combination of apathy and some voter hopelessness of super-PAC's and the billions of dollars that are pored into politics by special interest groups vs. the lone vote(r).

My .002

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

I'll throw in with Dusty for now.
Not necessarily because I agree with him, but to make a point.

Liberals love to play the "define the middle" game.
It's all about compromise.

Suppose I say: 2+2 = 6
The likely response would be no, it's 4.

Then I say: 2+2 = 5 (a compromise)
The likely response would be no, it's 4.

This game keeps going until I say 2+2 = 4.00001
Most people would still insist that 2+2 = 4

I'VE COME WAY MORE THAN HALF WAY, WHY ARE THEY SO UNREASONABLE!!!!


The game is to get people to give up their core beliefs.
Then it's time to start boiling the frog.

Many people (probably Dusty included) often respond by going far the other direction rhetorically.
This helps expose the "define the middle" game and prevents the "boiling the frog" strategy.

I think this illustration does a very good job of establishing part of the problem...Justice Scalia once used something similar to discuss why Originalism was not as popular as pragmatism with relation to judicial philosophy. i.e. the pragmatists have something to bargain with where as the originalists are simply interpreting the text as accurately as possible.

If I believe that a particular position is correct and that its opposite is incorrect, at what point am I to accept a poor or incorrect compromise?

More and more I see a fundamental shift between the conservative and liberal mindsets which provides for very little common ground.

To suggest that the potential solution to this shift is a series of compromises which ultimately feature a number of zero sum choices where liberal progressive increases incrementally is not a solution to to underlying questions, but a war of attrition where instead of careful evaluation of policy we get a subtle and gradual move toward the left in the name of "compromise".

Effective compromise is possible between people who share a common world view, it is much more difficult to achieve when world views are diametrically opposed.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by USANick7

Effective compromise is possible between people who share a common world view, it is much more difficult to achieve when world views are diametrically opposed.

Especially when the guy from the left's view is so wrong.

I think I'll hold off spouting any more of my hyper-patriotic rhetoric. Until after the presidential election.

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by craigepo

I think that I disagree with the entire theme of this article. To accept the premise, that people are so dumb democracy won't/can't work, we would have to ignore the fact that the United States, a democratic republic which has now been in existence for over 200 years, is one of the world leaders in almost every relevant category possible.

I become cautious when members of the intelligentsia look down their noses at the poor, ignorant paupers that make up society. True, our voters don't always pick the "right" candidate, but the country has done rather well for the duration of its existence. Moreover, it takes quite an assumption to say that the electrician who has made a living for him and his family being an electrician is too stupid to vote for candidates, just because he doesn't have an advanced degree in economics or taxation.

I would humbly submit that the authors of this article should come hang out with me at a coffee shop once in a while, and engage in conversation with some "normal" folks. While there is no doubt that these authors are well-read, I wonder if they could frame a house, fix a tractor, operate a tugboat, or tailor a dress.

As was mentioned above, I would argue that the problem today is not the relative intelligence of voters. Rather, the important issue is whether the voter has any "skin in the game" when he/she votes. There was a good reason why the founders of this nation limited who voted---they wanted persons exercising that power to be persons who voted, not just for their own best interests, but for the country's as well. Question: why should we allow a person to vote whose sole intent is to better his own position with his ballot?

Another point that I would argue is relevant: "Bad government" is a relative term. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other type of government ever devised. This government, full of "dumb" voters, has in one way or another, defeated monarchies, dictatorships, fascists, communists, and totalitarian regimes. Remember the 80's, when people were worried that Japan would own the U.S.? How about the Cold War, when the world feared that the Warsaw Pact would roll through the Fulda Gap, stomp Europe, and start communist domination of the world?

Is there some other type of government under which these writers would like to live and work?

Our dumb voters have access to healthcare, education, interstate highways, free speech and religion. Other countries' poor people are malnourished---our poor people are overweight. We are the lone military superpower in the world. When natural disasters strike, anywhere in the world, U.S. charities respond. Hungry North Koreans eat rice packaged in bags that says "Made in the U.S.A."

Is our government imperfect? Yep. Could we have a better administration than what we presently have? I would argue yes. But, to say that our people are too dumb to govern themselves is a statement that, in my opinion, ignores too many obvious facts to be tenable.

I think you are dead right about the USA and other places where democracy works. However, in my country, we have a situation where we can see a recent example of this concept actually taking place. 18 years ago, we changed from a system where only 10% of the population could vote, and the government was , because of this, made up of the voting group. This group, being of European extraction, had an average IQ of 100. The system changed, peacefully, into a majority rule one, where the entire population could vote. The average IQ of those newly allowed to vote is 72.
This has changed the government into 100% of the new voter group.
What happened is a very rapid change from a well functioning national and regional government, to a dysfunctional state. Delivery of services has ceased in many areas and declined very badly in all other areas. Corruption is rife in every government department and infrastructure has collapsed across the board. In one province, school books have not been delivered to schools although half the school year has gone and the Minister of Education says she is doing a good job in spite of this. I suggest that this proves that there are electorates who are too dumb to make democracy work and in fact, so dumb that countries can go into a downward spiral which can never be stopped because ineptitude breeds more, and worse ineptitude , as in the education decline I mentioned earlier.

[JimP]

Guy - well said!!

We're seeing it here. When the goblins figured out they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, the inevitable slide started. Hence...we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a pure democracy. We need to get back to our roots and educate the mouth-breathers. Unfortunately, the left dominates in the "mouth-breathing education expertise" arena.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm not sure that analogy is quite what you wanted to say; all the material I've ever read had Robin and Little John becoming friends...with Robin retaining his leadership role over the group.

Just sayin'...

Richard

You're quite correct in the historic sense, I was just thinking of that particular moment when they "measure."

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

What happened is a very rapid change from a well functioning national and regional government, to a dysfunctional state.

Well functioning for whom?

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Well functioning for whom?

Everyone.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Well functioning for whom?

Your question suggest that there is no such thing as 'well functioning' for everybody.

Originally Posted by Guymullins

Everyone.

That word has never meant as much to me before seeing it in this context.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Hand

Your question suggest that there is no such thing as 'well functioning' for everybody.

That word has never meant as much to me before seeing it in this context.

I don't think he was necessarily referring to what you suggest in a general sense, but I'll let Sigaba answer for himself.

My thinking is this: IF the government of the 100 IQs had spent a little bit more time and money during all they years they were in power in the UofSA (as opposed to the USofA), educating those with the eventual 70 IQs, perhaps when the shift in power took place the 70 IQs might have had higher IQs. Just a thought.

As to your second remark, I am not even sure what you are saying, so I can offer no comment other than, "huh?"

Brevity is not always the soul of wit.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

Everyone.

If it worked for everyone, then why was there widespread civil unrest?

If it worked well for everyone, then why was there the "need" for the state to exercise a very high level of control over certain segments of the population? Was it for their "own good"?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

What happened is a very rapid change from a well functioning national and regional government, to a dysfunctional state.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Well functioning for whom?

Originally Posted by Guymullins

Everyone.

Everyone? The attached pdf ("Implementation Of Apartheid") is what I've always read of that 'well functioning government' you're talking about.

http://www.apartheidmuseum.org/node/48

I was born in 1950 and am certainly glad I was not raised a 'Bantu' under the laws of such a "well functioning" government.

Richard