No More Bin Laden

[Kevin]

Hi,

Politics is an area when many people don't want to think, ...

It's not that these people are stupid.

In fact it can be a good strategy to not apply too much energy to an area ...

This bothers me. I don't believe that people should be forced to pay attention to politics. Indeed, I don't even think some people *could* pay attention to politics even if threatened.

I don't disagree. Just like there are people who couldn't understand a car if they tried, or computer programming. So does it make sense for them to apply a lot of energy towards those things when they are fantastic with food, or physics? It doesn't make them stupid. Most of my post was speaking of specific people when I was talking about stupidity. They aren't people that I would normally call stupid. I gave examples that showed the worst in them too. Sometimes, even with politics, they are savvy and make very coherent arguments. But sometimes they just seem to miss the boat. Perhaps that is stupid of them, perhaps I just don't understand the definition of the word stupid, but it seems more like ignorance, potentially willful ignorance at that.

Indeed, the people who do not pay attention to politics may not be stupid. However, if they don't realize that by not paying attention and still voting, they are being someone's patsies, then they are stupid. Or if they don't realize that if their apathy extends to not voting, they are letting others determine the government under which they live, then they are stupid.

Is being a patsy or follower always stupid? Am I stupid for working for someone else, following their instructions, and not running my own business? Perhaps. But I've run my own business before. I'm happier now that I'm not. Isn't a representative democracy supposed to help people have a voice in government but free them, to an extent, from the energy requirements of having to be an expert. Is it stupid to believe that if someone generally seems to have the same ideals as you that voting for them should get results that you would find favorable? Is it stupid or is it ignorant? Or is it simply lazy? I wasn't trying to be insulting when I called my co-workers rapid republicans or tea party activists. Many of them have relatively sound reasoning for it, they believe in the pro business platform, they think less regulation and freer markets will serve our country better. They feel that retirement should be privatized and not the role of a government. Some of them hold these beliefs but also feel that marriage should be a religious thing only, and that for the purposes of the law there should only be civil unions or something of that like that describes a partnership for strictly legal matters. A marriage is something a church performs and the government doesn't recognize or care about it, they care about the legal stuff. Some of them may also think that abortion should be legal, though regulated. Some are staunch pro-life.

I've said it before, I'll keep it short this time. The vote should be earned. And when used, it should be used correctly -- as a measure of the voter's informed opinion and not as a mindless regurgitation of some group's agenda.

I don't disagree. I really don't. But I also don't assume that just because they mindlessly regurgitate that they aren't serving their own best interests either. They might not be, they probably aren't. But they could be. Or they may just feel it's the lesser of two evils and spreading the propaganda helps them. Perhaps not consciously, but on some level.

The winner take all system can often mean that even if they do pay attention, even if they try to vote for what they want, they might not get it, even if the person they want wins. I've NEVER seen a candidate who matches more than about 60% of what I actually believe in. I watch people try to constantly improve something, because they feel they have to do something. But you don't, you know. Sometimes great leadership is in fact maintaining the status quo. Because sometimes the status quo is pretty spot on. I also understand that if I don't have an answer, and I know I'm smart, that it's very likely they don't either. So sometimes they are just trying something to see what the hell happens. The scary thing is that it's an experiment that affects hundreds, millions, or billions of lives. But that is human nature too. It's wired in us somewhere to tinker, to try to make things better or different, even if that isn't in our best interests.

There needs to be a distinction between those who are willing and able to accept the responsibility of running a country (citizens) and those who only wish to reap the benefits of living there (legal residents). Just how this is to be done is a difficult matter.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either. I think most everyone would be happier in this situation, but the chances for abuse are of course still there. I'm not sure that the best leaders are the ones that want to be leaders. Sometimes they just want power. But I don't know of a good way to identify people that would be good leaders if they don't have the desire to put themselves forward in the first place.

I also wouldn't call the legal non voting residents of a country that people that earned the vote and people that didn't, stupid either. Ignorant, or differently talented from politics and governing, or yes potentially in fact stupid. Of course it is setting up a system that gives a clear power distinction and that can easily lead to abuse, because of another characteristic of our nature. We like to have security, and power brings security. We have some altruistic tendencies, but you can often link that back to security. I know it's not that simple, but I find that it's sometimes better to be simple.

I want people to think. I try to get them to all the time. I want people to think about politics as well, because that has a major impact on my life. But I know I don't always apply critical thinking to everything I do. I get emotional, and sometimes that is about major decisions too. I try not hold others to a higher standard than myself. Perhaps I am stupid and just missing the point. I accept that.

Part of the reason I'm making this reply too is that the word stupid is combative to me. I know you, Pete, are not being intentionally or unintentionally combative. You are behaving as I have always known you to behave, and I'm also interesting in learning you opinion, and insights on this topic.

Part of my gripe is everything has become combative lately. That happens when people are scared. The economy is still unstable, the terror threat isn't fully gone. People feel less secure, that's scary. When people are insecure they become even more self focused, they are more likely to fight to protect themselves to try and claim something to battle for security. It's a survival skill that has served us well as species. But it doesn't always lead to the best decisions. So for my part I've noticed I try to defuse that and get people to apply logic where I can. I don't have the skill or the will to do it on a large scale. But I get worried about the struggles our country is involved in right now because the powerful are much less affected, and heck can even profit and increase their power, in times of instability.

So yes an earned voting privilege system would probably be pretty helpful right now, as I would help the people who could vote would people that could prove to keep a level head when things aren't stable. The defacto system we have now where a minority or a small majority are voting isn't working. It doesn't represent the real desires or best interests of anyone but those who get elected. Two "parties" paint strokes too broadly. People that do pay attention and understand the issues can feel disenfranchised and stop participating. Others simply vote emotionally. An emotional voter isn't a stupid person, they just aren't a wise voter.

And I lost my internet connection while typing this. I hope I'll be able to post it eventually.