Wednesday, March 05, 2008

This Is Just What I Was Sayin'

Not too long ago, I expressed at Casting Pearls Before Swine my belief that there are people who shouldn't vote. This year it seems like there are lots of 'em. They're known as "Obama supporters".

Anyway, Dan took this to mean I support restricting or prohibiting people from voting. This is not the case. Of course every American citizen (legal citizen, that is) has the right to cast a ballot. But this doesn't mean that everyone should vote. The unfortunate fact is that there are so many people that vote without really educating themselves on the candidates and what they represent.

Take those Obama supporters (please). Pick one out of the crowd and ask them why they're voting for Barry and they'll say, "Who?" And when you say, "Barak Obama", they'll give you an answer as vague and meaningless as an Obama speech. They'll recite the "Change" and "Unity" mantras. This leads to the question of which is worse, an Obama supporter who doesn't know what Obama's positions are or one who does?

But I digress. Selwyn Duke, over at AmericanThinker.com, has a great piece on this subject here. Give it a read. He nails it.

21 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

I'm glad we agree that gov't ought not disenfranchise folks. And, of course, we all think sometimes, "Man, that person has no business voting, they're so uninformed!"

But I wonder what that would look like?

Who exactly would we encourage to set aside their vote?

The poor single mom who works 50-60 hours a week to make ends meet and to even more hours a week taking care of her kids who hasn't had time to read all the candidate's positions, but who is of the opinion that the Democrats are generally a better option for the working poor? Ought we encourage her to not vote?

How about the mentally-challenged young man who is adept enough to work and manage his life with some assistance from his parents, but who isn't really able to read up on the topics, but who also knows that his parents support the Republicans because they're opposed to abortion? Ought he choose not to vote?

How about the grandmother who learned her whole life from her various preachers that the Bible was the best source of knowledge and that we can't trust the devil's mainstream media so she doesn't read anything but the Bible and Sunday School literature? Stay home?

How about the college kid who learned from her classmates about the dangers of The Man and that we can't trust the devil's mainstream media and so she gets her news from MoveOn and Mother Jones? Vote or no?

How about that fella who thinks he's informed because he listens exclusively to Limbaugh and FoxNews? Vote or no?

And what if a person THINKS they are well-informed enough to vote but is wrong? How will they know not to vote?

Seems like a tricky path to start down.

BB-Idaho said...

Absolutely correct: only those who
would love another "100 years in Iraq" should be allowed to vote.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely correct: only those who
would love another "100 years in Iraq" should be allowed to vote.>>

If terrorists have their way, you may not be able to tell the difference in whether we are over there or here. Mom2

Dan Trabue said...

FEAR! DESTRUCTION! WAR! RUMORS OF WAR!

Anonymous said...

Dan, That's in the Bible. Mom2

BB-Idaho said...

Hi Mom2,
It's been awhile! Glad your job hasn't been shipped to China or Mexico, so you can concentrate on a couple hundred bandits holed up in Pakistan ....

Anonymous said...

Psalms 2.
God reigns.
Mom2

Dan Trabue said...

mom2, I know. That's why I quoted it.

The phrase wars and rumors of war is in the Bible, that is.

The fear-mongering is from a place a bit lower than heaven, though.

Marshall Art said...

Hello Dan. To answer your question in your original response, the answer of course would be none of the above. But as to who we would encourage to set aside their vote, I would say that we need to encourage them to get educated.

For example, that poor single mom of which you speak, shouldn't vote because she believes the Dems are a better option for those like herself. That has never panned out, so she obviously shouldn't be voting because her opinion proves she is not educated enough. I would explain to her why she's mistaken and encourage her to vote the other way, if she insisted on voting at all.

But the point is that each of the people you've described is exactly what I'm talking about. Of course we can't force them to stay away from the voting booth. But it supports my position that it isn't the system that needs changing, but the attitudes of the people within the system that needs to change. We need everyone to do their duty as citizens to inform themselves to the best of their ability. My point is that so many don't even make the effort and vote anyway. How would changing the system change that?

If you keep up with current events and the manner in which politicians respond to them, you might still vote for an idiot. That is always a risk with everyone no matter who they are. But by making the effort, the chances of voting for an idiot drop to a level in reaction to the rise in knowledge of these things. I don't claim to know every detail of every candidate that throws his hat in the ring, and not every candidate deserves the time of day from the citizenry. But I don't vote according to the sound of rhetoric like "change", but by documented actions of the candidate and their stated positions on issues.

It's worth saying again and again that each of us is duty-bound to seek as much knowledge of the candidates and their positions as possible.

There have been changes around the country regarding voting procedures with the stated purpose of giving more people the opportunity to vote. This too is a bad idea. Whether it be a primary or a general election, one day, voting day, is all that should be allowed. I can't see worrying about those who won't set the time aside on the day chosen for voting, to get out there and vote. Supposedly, the results of each election will impact us to some degree and in important ways. It is way too important to relax the rules when they should be stringent. It is one's duty and one needs to set aside time to learn and to vote.

Voting is too damned important for people to be cavalier. MAKE time to learn. MAKE time to be informed.

Dan Trabue said...

If you keep up with current events and the manner in which politicians respond to them, you might still vote for an idiot.

Well of course. How else could you explain Bush? I mean the second time around, when everyone could see what kind of horror he was as a president.

As the bumper sticker says: If you aren't outraged, you're not paying attention.

I am all in favor of encouraging people to be as informed as possible. But still, I lean towards the encouraging people to vote based on the best info they have. Very few people are entirely uninformed - even those fools who voted for Bush in 2004.

Besides, given the current conservative distrust of higher education and of reading and science and the media, I am not sure it would be in your best interests as a conservative to encourage uninformed people to stay home...

Dan Trabue said...

In other words, I think I have more faith in people than you do.

Marshall Art said...

Considering we live in a fallen world, faith in people in general seems to me insupportable. There are areas wherein such faith is justified, such as in the realm of charity, as we are possibly the most generous people on earth. But as we are also, particularly those left of center, creatures fixated on self-gratification, it would make far more sense to have faith that folks are likely to do the wrong thing than the right.

But as I've indicated elsewhere, your faith in people is suspect as you have no faith in people once they've risen to positions of power and/or wealth, as if either of those two positions infect all equally, rather than the fallen nature of people being in place before they get there. I live in the real world as opposed to the world of extreme privelege and comfort and have found that less than acceptable behaviors and attitudes are pervasive in society and thus what faith I have in people doesn't deny reality.

In addition to that, there is the unfortunate reality that many simply don't see things clearly. Thus, we get statements such as,

"How else could you explain Bush? I mean the second time around, when everyone could see what kind of horror he was as a president."

Rational people understand that even if Bush can't be considered a great or good president, he simply could not have been considered the lesser of two evils in either 2000 or 2004. The stupidity required to make such a claim would be unprecedented, and likely made by someone who shouldn't vote.

Now, I don't know about those fools to which you refer who voted for Bush in '04, but their choice was a step towards being less foolish. I'm happy to welcome them to the ranks of the vision enhanced.

About this:

"Besides, given the current conservative distrust of higher education and of reading and science and the media, I am not sure it would be in your best interests as a conservative to encourage uninformed people to stay home..."

You throw in reading and science with conservative distrust of higher ed and the media. This is a nice trick, but it is false. For if the people I had in mind did indeed read and included science in their reading, they would then be more informed and an asset for the nation in the voting booth. Thus it would indeed be in the best interest of conservatives for those I have in mind to stay home if they won't inform themselves, but even better for us if they did inform themselves. With that in mind, my encouragement is for them to inform themselves rather than to stay home.

For those who won't inform themselves, and who insist on voting anyway, I encourage them to cast their votes for conservative candidates as a rule of thumb. This will allow them to pose as more enlightened, more in touch people, and not just another goofy wackjob voting Democratic.

Dan Trabue said...

Thus it would indeed be in the best interest of conservatives for those I have in mind to stay home if they won't inform themselves...

In other words, for those you disagree with who you deem "not informed enough," you'd suggest they stay home. But for those you agree with who I deem "not well-informed and rather anti-intellectualism, anti-science and anti-thinking," you'd want them to turn out and vote?

For many of us, it concerns us that people who actually think the world was created in ~6000 years and who are otherwise anti-science are out there voting and making decisions. Nonetheless, I fully support and encourage their voting, my concerns notwithstanding, because I believe in the process and the people. Even those with whom I disagree.

But by all means, encourage your brethren not to vote if they're not informed.

Just don't be hypocritical and limit those you think are uninformed to ALSO those who disagree with you.

Believe it or not, many of us are well-read, intelligent and STILL somehow we disagree with you...

Anonymous said...

Is it painful to pat oneself on the back? Mom2

Marshall Art said...

Well, Dan, "well read and intelligent" doesn't equate to "always right". I know well read and intelligent people who vote Democrat, so this supports my statement. Or perhaps it's just that such people aren't as intelligent as they believe themselves to be and they need to read better material. I could go even farther and say that if they DO disagree with me, that puts their intelligence in question, at least as far as the point upon which they disagree goes.

Now for one who claims such a devotion to the Bible (such as your interpretations are) to be concerned about those who believe the Genesis story as presented, that just flies in the face of your statement regarding faith in the people. Even more troubling is your suggestion that such a belief would impare their ability to negotiate the here and now and have a good handle on the political landscape. The former simply has no bearing on the latter. In addition, it's rather contradictory to find such people troubling on the one hand, but still believe in them regarding the casting of important votes. Kinda puts your thought processes in question.

Now to clarify, which I find tedious for one I'm assuming includes himself as well read and intelligent, my point didn't take into account which way the uninformed voted, but that they were uninformed. However, most of the uninformed vote Dem. But again, for all concerned, including the uninformed, it would be better that the uninformed vote for the conservative candidate (who is almost always Republican) if they insist upon voting.

I'm sure I sound arrogant, conceited and/or like an asshole speaking in this manner, but it's simply a fact that the best for our nation does not come out of the Democratic Party, or the Green Party, or the Peace Party. The GOP leaves much to be desired these days, this is true. But as we can see this is their bad day, they are still the better choice for America. Informed voters understand this clearly.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm sure I sound arrogant, conceited and/or like an asshole speaking in this manner...

Yep, yep and oh, yeah. For once, three comments in a row with which I can agree wholeheartedly.

However, most of the uninformed vote Dem.

Yeah, I saw that highly scientific study that verified that claim. But it also stated the facts that most Republicans are fascists at heart and that nearly all "conservatives" who vote Republican actually don't know what "conservative" means and that, in fact, they have brown matter in their skull instead of gray.

Dan Trabue said...

Now you're just being silly, Marshall.

Peace.

Marshall Art said...

Nyaa nyaa you started it.

Marshall Art said...

At the same time, the evidence of my silly claims is in the numbers of people supporting either of the two Dem candidates that hope to enact the same failed policies of previous lefty administrations. How bright can they be to cast votes for those who would raise taxes and hurt the economy they claim is hurting now? Sure, we're upset our guy has joined in the spending spree, but there's no doubt it will get worse under either of these two completely unqualified buffoons. Our culture will sink further into the toilet as they accomodate those enthralled with deviant sexual behavior. Our security will be compromised even more by worthless peace talks with the most vile and ruthless dictators in the world and lame immigration/border policies. No. There's nothing intelligent about voting for those who step up and actually say they will seek to enact such policies and being well read doesn't include the writings of people like them. Thus, the proof of my silly statements is found in that tasteless pudding.

Les said...

"...it's simply a fact that the best for our nation does not come out of the Democratic Party, or the Green Party, or the Peace Party."

God bless you and your opinions.

I've learned that talking to you about social issues is like talking to a brick wall, and that's a fact.

Marshall Art said...

"I've learned that talking to you about social issues is like talking to a brick wall, and that's a fact."

That's because on the social issues we've discussed, there's a little matter of principle and right and wrong in which I firmly believe and will not compromise, and for which I've not heard a compelling argument to change my mind. However, I have been and will remain totally open to any new attempts to do so. Blessings back at ya, my friend.

In fact, blessings to all who battle here.