How Barack Obama Secured The Most Important Voting Demographic: The Idiots
I’m on the road so probably won’t get to write anything substantive on the election until next week. In the meantime, here is an entertaining analysis from Peter Schiff.
The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism
I’m on the road so probably won’t get to write anything substantive on the election until next week. In the meantime, here is an entertaining analysis from Peter Schiff.
21 Comments to “How Barack Obama Secured The Most Important Voting Demographic: The Idiots”
From the John Cleese video a few Entries ago:
“How many socialists does it take to change a light bulb?”
“Answer: we’re not going to change it, we think it works.”
How illogical — it’s okay to require aspiring American citizens to know basic American history and civics, but somehow not okay to require similar knowledge of aspiring voters. Yet how else will “idiots” ever be filtered out of the process? PS - Peter Schiff is great — hope he’ll be willing to share of his considerable economic expertise with us sometime soon. (But please, Peter, even though I know this was a radio show, couldn’t you just occasionally look up at the camera? Thx, and keep up the impassioned advocacy!)
The root problem is not democracy. It wouldn’t matter that unprincipled (“stupid”) people tip the balance if the government didn’t mess in people’s private business dealings to start with.
The Constitution should be giving us more separation of idiots and state, but it doesn’t. One of the more bizarre tasks is to have to explain to someone that one purpose of the Constitution is to keep elected people from violating rights. Some think that the politicians should be able to do whatever they agree to: like attacks on the separation of church and state, it’s a jaw-dropping experience to hear this.
The thing that Schiff does so well is how the way he makes statist ideology etc. so comically absurd sounding.
I feel that the only people that should have the privilege to vote are the ones that pay taxes not anyone that has a zero tax liability.
You’re right. There used to be a property ownership requirement—similar idea.
The California proposition blatantly violates the very principle whose violation set off our nation’s founding, that there can be no taxation without representation. When only incomes over $250,000 are to be taxed, only those with such incomes should be allowed to vote on the proposition. Anything else is clearly unjust and a recipe for exploitation. Of course in an ideal society each *individual* himself would have to consent to paying taxes.
“People vote to raise other peoples’ taxes: that’s democracy”
Spot on from Schiff
Hi Don,
You’re right that Schiff’s analysis is entertaining, but it’s far from funny. The rhetoric of “taxation as theft”, and labeling as “idiots” people who vote for other candidates and ideas—that’s sad and extreme. Based on your and Yaron’s work, I expect more from you than a smile and nod to such commentary.
Tax is Theft. How else do you define the taking of property by force? As for “idiots”, one definition is - A foolish or stupid person - a perfectly appropriate use in the context of the message. Some of us think that the “noise” of political discourse is good and healthy and those who try to suppress it are “sad and extreme”.
I think Yaron and Don have made it very clear that they agree with the extreme position that taxation is theft.
“Concerned”, i agree. we don’t need anymore rush limbaughs radicalizing the fundamental premises of Rand’s ideas; if objectivists don’t get off their radical rants, and do what Rand did when she spoke/wrote [crystal clear logic - virtually irrefutable analysis], then the rant will still be going on, and on, and on. this election totally repelled the extremists - Rand was not an extremist - she was intellectually “cool”, and a joy to experience; no such claim can be made about the current crop of “so-called objectivist” promoters; not one has sat down with a senator/representative and given them a single practical/real world idea of how, “on the ground”, Rand’s principles can work.
You guys would both do well to read not only more Ayn Rand in general (so you wouldn’t find the claim that taxation is a form of theft “sad and extreme” and wouldn’t be under the delusion that having a sit down chat with a congressman would make any difference in changing the world), and especially Ayn Rand’s essay “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing” in particular.
“Radicalizing the fundamental premises of Rand’s ideas,” huh. Not sure it can get any more *radical* than Rand’s *fundamental* premises already are.
And Schiff did not simply label as idiots people who vote for other candidates and ideas (correct, in this case, though such a characterization may have been). If you watch the video in focus, you’ll notice that he’s calling idiots the people who have no political convictions, do no research, and instead base their votes on things like TV ads. Seems to me for such people the epithet is well-deserved.
http://tribuneofthepeople.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/509bedacdc6e5.jpg
Simply not true. There’s been two straight elections where there has been a strong correlation between education and voting blue.
As long as you just pull stuff out of your ass, no one will take you seriously.
Yes. that is EXACTLY it! simple. and I LIVE California, so I am fully aware. I am surrounded by morons. . .The mindless populace is expanding rapidly.So when I hear commentary on the news in regards to “what went wrong with the GOP campaign, or what did Romney do wrong” I think to myself: STOP! it has NOTHING, or little to do with current events, or how “charismatic” Romney seems to women (for heaven’s sake!)Or, what popele’s ideology is, It doesn’t matter because most Obama voters don’t even KNOW what the issues are. they vote mindlessly, and don’t CARE about relevant issues.So yes,the IDIOT vote is what he got. and what WE got.Sad.
I’m not an idiot Mr. Schiff, I just don’t care to be your neighbor regardless of my income. Gentrify this!
I strongly agree that this rant is not worthy of an Objectivist web site. That is not because it is a rant, or that it is “extreme”. It is because it is not a fundamental argument.
It is true that much of $6 billion (the most reliable number I’ve seen) spent on this campaign was targeted toward those without political (never mind philosophical) conviction or knowledge. But, so what? Those voters are not fundamentally what determines the outcome of elections. They will always be there, and they will always be a relatively small portion of those that vote.
The fact is that many tens of millions of Americans, likely more than 50% of the electorate (including some that voted for Romney), accept collectivism/altruism at their philosophical core, and therefore are not offended by the fundamental direction taken by the Obama administration. As Objectivists well know, this includes wealthy and poor, men, women, racial minorities, immigrants, etc. When these people get in the voting booth, they are moved by morality, not by “issues”. They truly believe it is good for the government to redistribute wealth, to force people to save for retirement, to sacrifice soldiers in pointless nation building operations, to regulate their fellow man who has yet to do anything wrong. They no longer have the American sense of life.
Were the American sense of life still held by a majority of the electorate, there is no way that we would have had this result, independent of what the directionless small minority thought. The fact that modern campaigns are fought over this segment of the populace is an accident of the current roughly 50/50 split in “philosophy”. Were the sense-of-life division in America more lopsided, you would not see this kind of spending. There is direct evidence of this in the local campaigns where the electorate is in fact lopsided, and the spending levels are greatly reduced.
Now, if Schiff were arguing that the opinions of electorate should not matter when it comes to individual rights, that would of course be laudable. I doubt he could do as good a job at this argument as could Dr. Brook or Mr. Watkins. But, perhaps he would have some particular insight which would be worth seeing here. But, this is not the focus of his argument.
Schiff’s rant is beside the point. I strongly suggest that it be taken down.
Totally agree that this should be taken down. It misses so many important points and is simply not accurate in millions of cases. These men need to grow up and learn how to turn enemies into friends, instead of fanatics.
The idiot problem is easily resolved. Give them free birth control and access to unlimited abortions. In time, their species will die out. Lose a battle to win the war.
This is a Republic not a Democracy! Raise my taxes, and property taxes I raise your rents you fools! Yes, it is the idiots but they are educated idiots that the candidates are fighting to win over! It is the public schools who are grooming the educated idiots to give government more money to waste!
I am disappointed with this whole line of comment. I expect better from an ARI site. Calling a whole class of voters, the majority, Idiots? It’s hard to know where to begin. Let me start with this is the same majority you/we are going to have to win over in the next or any election. Second, these working class people you look down your nose at have a very low tolerance for snobs. They could reject you/me and our philosophy just on that basis. I have said before the requirements of working people is consistent with Objectivism. However, we need to be ready to explain it and answer objections. There are many complaints here about voters. We are all very fond the right to pursue happiness. Remember it also says we have the right to vote, strangely four times. We are all indoctrinated for 12 of our first 18 years in the ways of socialism. It’s hard to toss any habit that old. We are going to have to figure out new ways to convey ideas. What’s important to an individual? We need to figure that out and sell Objectivism on that basis.