People who put down other people’s intelligence always remind me of Bill Bryson’s quip about the sort of stupid people who are delighted when they find someone more stupid than themselves.
It’s an overused word, stupidity and there are different kinds. I don’t see myself as stupid [who does?] and yet when there is one of those logic puzzles with matches or whatever, I can never get the solution before others. Does that make me stupid?
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is to say “ignorant”, certainly in politics. This would seem to reinforce that:
In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.
So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama’s top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest.
“We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker,” explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker’s West Village brownstone.
For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means.
I’m sure the other side does similar, though obviously not as well this time round. And the obvious question is – if a vote is so cheapened that it can depend on a date with Sarah Jessica Parker, then is it time to remove the vote from the thoroughly ignorant who couldn’t be bothered exploring the real issues and the real agenda going on?
Even if it was right to remove it, who would do that? Me? Cameron? Obama? The CFR? A committee of concerned citizens? Who would appoint them? And what of the Magna Carta and the American Constitution?
Truth is, most people with the vote are ignoramuses who are not worthy of having the vote. Ofttimes I’ve put forward meritocracy and despite the rhetoric from the naysayers – it’s very easy to set up and the questions need not be greatly loaded, the mechanisms exist to run it past political scholars and then go to a ………
Well … a vote.
Ah, that’s where it falls down. Like academia which is captured by the left, tainting every child who grows up, like every woman who, each way she turns she’s hit by feminism, like all the deep captcha going on around the world, once they get control, the nasty people, it’s very difficult to prise that control from them and get some objectivity again.
The American electoral college was an attempt to circumvent the two evils of ignorance and self-interest and it has only done that partially. Those Founding Fathers were pretty farthinking and it shows the issues were essentially the same then as now. The problem is the great unwashed out there who have only a rudimentary understanding of what’s going on – obviously they don’t deserve the vote.
To remove it though opens up a nest of vipers. And yet again though – we have to have some way of preserving, as the Founding Fathers did, the essentials of the land. We have to enshrine proper education, respect for heritage and antecedents, respect for and a realization of the necessity of the armed forces, respect for the institutions of society designed to protect people, e.g. the Bill of Rights.
There has to be some sort of resilient, institutionalized mechanism for preventing the evil of political correctness from nibbling at the foundations of the nation, from letting feminists destroy the delicate relationship between men and women, for preventing lowlifes being held up as icons, e.g. Sarah Jessica Parker and for some sort of nobility to return to politics.
We need a new set of Founding Fathers but at the same time, it’s pretty obvious the elite vipers would put themselves forward as those Founding Fathers. It needs some great man [or woman] who seeks no public office or power himself [or herself] who is working full-on for the people until the vipers assassinate him [or her].
Filed under: Politics & economics