What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed

[janekat]

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.

In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.


#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.

Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.

THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. I would prefer 20%-25% voter turnout!!!! There are very few...

people on either side of the aisle who understand the issues!

The masses can be so easily mislead that they really should not vote!

[janekat]

4. I know - maybe they should start giving tests to voters

n/t

[pnb]

31. Funny...

Isn't that what whites used to want to do to keep uneducated blacks from voting?

[DemVet]

40. Yes.

Having voter tests would be a modern day "poll tax."

I'm not buying into that.

[HitmanLV]

94. frightening....

...this entire thread is downright kooky.

[Ardee]

137. Thanks Hitman

When I read the opening thread I was fearful that I would scroll past mindless post after mindless post agreeing with this stupidity...The original posters venom and intellectual superiority is rather both overdone and the latter is probably unearned.....

Folks, we simply cannot and must not fall into such sophomoric sillines or we can never hope to gain a majority who will march with us...DUH!

[calm_blue_ocean]

99. Comment and scolding

1. Comment: I have long educated that people shouldn't be unconditionally encouraged to vote. Rather, they should be encouraged to vote if and only if they have a good understanding of the relevant election issues. They should also be encouraged to stay away from the polls if they do not have the time and/or inclination to be politically educated. This decision *must* remain with each potential voter to make for her or himself. However, I think these "everybody has a responsibility to vote" campaigns are bad. The PR message should be "vote responsibly or not at all."

2. Scolding: That remark about DUers being more intelligent is unsupported, probably unsupportable and insulting.

[gate of the sun]

122. bad idea

let's just try and keep our freedoms and not require tests to vote. What would you ask anyway...Did you decide on your candidate from watching a cnn b fox new or c abc.... what could you possibly ask?

Secondly I agree with you post on the count most people are not informing themselves on what is really going on and how to fix that is beyond me. I sincerely wish their was a way. People seems to be fixed on certain ideas even when they are hurting them. what can you do?

[angka]

126. you mean like they did in mississippi back in the day?

you may wish to consider quitting while you're ahead.

[forgethell]

96. Right

n/t

[Maine-i-acs]

2. Britney for President!

Hey that could work ... marketability is everything.

[janekat]

6. Maybe we should have run Jerry Springer

n/t

[Bandit]

9. I thought we were running him for Senator.

:shrug: He doesn't live in California.

[ieoeja]

65. We aren't running him for anything.

He is running himself.

[bearfartinthewoods]

82. he's not running

i would have thought such a well informed group would already know that.

this thread is one of the more arogant pieces of crap i've read here.

clue...take this attitude out into the real world and then wonder why "the masses" don't find our message attractive.

[Fescue4u]

187. Isnt he a Repubican?

[SubliminAL MessaGOREs]

195. Nope

Dem. He said that he would support Bush in "Bush vs. Gore", but that's so he could associate rednecks and transvestites to him. He actually voted Gore.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

20. It's actually one lower than the Groper!

.

[magnolia]

152. Almost what I thought when I read the name of the thread....

...I thought that the only way we could insure a Democratic win is to run Justin Timberlake. That's the mentality of the general public!

Somebody...please...explain to me how he got so popular??? Cameron Diaz!!! what does she see in him????

[TreasonousBastard]

3. misinformed, yes, but...

atupid?

You should hear some of the half-assed political opinions at Mensa meetings.

[RobinA]

64. I Agree

I hear some pretty dumb, illogical political comments from otherwise smart people

[Kimble]

5. Hey, maybe we can get Dean to run on this!

Yea! Boycott Opra and Jay, 80-99% of people are stupid and, let me see, the corupt US shadow goverment is ploting based on the writings and ideology of Hitler. Forget the economy, jobs, national defense terror, mid-east policy and the electricity grid. These others are much better...

[janekat]

8. We have to tell Dean, Clark and the rest of the candidates to "dumb" down

look at what happened to Gore. He was "too smart" according to most 'Mericuns.

[billyskank]

28. Oh.......my.........God!

That is so tragic. (I don't mean Gore). Too smart to be president indeed!

[IrateCitizen]

7. "We're all just so much more enlightened than them"

That's what I read from your post, and it really bothers the hell out of me.

You'd be much better served to focus on the last part of your post, instead of debating the "intelligence" of the average voter. I wouldn't even call it elitist, it's just plain degrading. The inherent message is, "You don't know what's best for you, so just STFU and let us take care of everything."

Yeah, that's a surefire method for success! :eyes:

Let's focus for a moment, instead, on what kind of voter you're talking about here. You're talking about people who are probably working or lower-middle class. They probably have to work at least 45 hours a week each in order to keep their heads above water. Their jobs don't afford them the luxury of surfing the internet and coming to these boards. They come home from work and have to spend time with their families.

Now, where do these people get their news? They don't have time or money to subscribe to any of the political junkie magazines many of us do. They probably get their news from TV, on the occasion they get it. As such, they're only getting one side of the story -- but they don't realize it, simply because they're not AWARE of anything else out there.

They're misinformed. That I'll agree with. But to characterize them as ignorant? I actually find THAT point of view to be far more ignorant than how you imagine these other folks to be.

In short, I think your hypothesis absolutely sucks.

[janekat]

10. How do you explain the group of people who think that Bush is "intelligent

I've heard that from MANY people. How do you explain that? I'm sure that even Dubya is in the upper 25% percentile when it comes to intelligence. Now THAT's scary.

[JHB]

36. How do THEY explain it?

Have you asked these people why they think that?
And if you continue to think the real dividing line here is "intelligence", you're dooming yourself to failure.

[RapidCreek]

73. Yea I have asked them.....

They know he must be smart because he is the president of the most powerful nation on earth. He is certainly smarter than Gore...because Gore is a loser.

That a simple enough explanation for you?

RC

[LeahMira]

78. Bush is not intelligent...

... but he speaks to people in a way that they understand and can relate to.

For whatever reasons, there are people out there who have an absolute distrust and fear of anyone with above average intelligence. Take notice of how they refer to the "liberal elite" and imagine that "liberals" are all college professors who never had to dig in the earth or pound a nail for a living.

They are afraid... Bush thrives on generating fear... and they are afraid of being hornswaggled out of the little they have by some fast talking conman who sounds good but is out to steal their hard-earned money and give it to people who don't want to work.

As I see it, the Bush tax cuts for the rich are taking their hard-earned money and giving it to people who don't want to work, but as long as the average guy gets to keep a few dollars or a few hundred more, he thinks he's making out and doesn't worry about the other guy who gets to keep a few thousand dollars.

So how to get the message out? Humor is good. Fun is not a four-letter word. Neither is patriotism. We don't have to go overboard with it, but we all do love this country and we all do hold values and ideals. And, we can be a lot of fun. So, let it out!

[RobinA]

66. Explain Arnie

I generally agree with you, but ya gotta admit, it's hard to explain Arnie's election and still go to bat for the average, time-pressed voter.

[LeahMira]

77. Bravo!!!

Well said, Irate!

I just wonder how long it will be before all of us are so tired after working long days at low pay that all we have energy for is flopping in front of the TV!

I imagine there are many, many intelligent folks out there who happen to be part of the lower or lower-middle economic class. They way that one earns one's living is absolutely no index to one's intelligence or one's personal worth.

And damn! We'd better stick together and find common cause with those folks because they are the majority in this country today. I feel very sorry for anyone who can't schmooze as easily with a carpenter as with a lawyer.

[BiggJawn]

138. Can't schmooze with the Carpenters....

They all voted for Bush (if they belong to the International, they did) and listen to Rush. They watch FAUX, because it's "Fair and Balanced", and think we Democrats want to take their guns away and teach their kids to be Queers.

Now tell me, HOW am I supposed to "Schmooze" with that bunch and escape getting a 32-Oz. upside the head?

Yeah, I'd hang with them, but things would get VERY uncomfortable about the time somebody brought up "That Commie Grey Davis" or the like....

And their puppet masters warn them that "Liberals" will try to be their friends, but don't trust them! They only want to take your guns and steal your money and give it to "Welfare Queens"...

[demsrule4life]

11. Why we have been losing

"This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them"

These "idiots" understand that the elite of the party has nothing in common with them.

[DealsGapRider]

12. What a smug, self-satisfied post.

Did I mention arrogant and narcissistic?

The notion that liberals think they're better and smarter than average Americans is one of the cudgels that the Repugs use to beat us over the head.

Ever hear the term "liberal elitist" or "limousine liberal?" These terms come from people like you who don't even try to conceal their contempt for the people of this country.

How do you explain the fact that they sometimes vote for Democrats? Are they stupid then, too? Are they just stupid some of the time?

[janekat]

63. I'm not speaking of the people who vote for Reps - just Arnold voters

I have no complaint with those who voted for McLintock or wrote in Uberroth. My complaint is those who voted for Arnold and George Bush.

What I was trying to say is that people who tend to get into political and philosophical discussions (Really Democrats and Republicans) tend to be more intelligent. I will even submit that the Republicans on Free Republic are more intelligent than the average person. At least they are curious and like to discuss something other than "The Bachelor" or "Survivor."

The people on this board are a different breed... I really don't think most of us here really understand where a lot of "Arnold" voters come from.

[billfromwny]

92. C'mon!

Not that hard to figure out. You get a bunch of voters who are mad as hell about Gray Davis's policies; add someone well known who can run as a political outsider and tries to convey himself as a moderate, and Viola....Arnold gets in!

As for the American voter being stupid; I'll agree there is a distrust of intellectualism...mostly fostered by religion; but people I know believe they are so overtaxed here in NY; that they'll buy the tax cuts for the rich because they get $10/week more in their checks. Unfortunately, they don't look at what it does to state and local taxes, and how huge deficits drive up the cost of borrowing for everyone. I don't think it's that easy to quantify either because it usually takes a couple years for this type of tax cut to do its damage.

[piece sine]

106. especially YOU!

A friend at the office just showed me thr Wall Street Journal's daily web column and this thread is being cyber-cast to really bigger audience than DU as an example of how out of touch DU is...this very thread.

It doesn't take a Mensa IQ to realize that leftist anti-populists are extremely vulnerable to political criticism from, obviously the Right, but also from progressives like myself that truly don't put ourselves above others because a human soul is a HUMAN SOUL! It's not Rush -- it's the Wall Street Journal -- amplifying the counter-radical concept of Neo-Leftist "Superiority." And before you cheer about free-publicity, be prepared for what comes with it.

[NoKingGeorge]

13. An effective educational tool.

I posted a simular thred. I have been afraid of putting a bumper sticker (i do have the don't-tread-on-me Gadsen flag on bumper) on my car because

I do not want to offend someone who may have a child serving in the Gulf.

I do not want my vehicle vandilized. (I do put a sign in the back window- IMPEACH THE LIAR) that I can remove.

Now I need to step up. I am putting up signs and bumper stickers.
I aim to educate not offend. Would LIES = War convey that?
How about bUsh lies .

[bearfartinthewoods]

87. do you really think you can 'educate' someone via a bumpersticker?

bumperstickers are identifiers, like a badge that shows which camps you are in but an educational tool?..come on....

[Jon Thompson]

166. Speaking of...

Educational tools, you should learn to spell similar. Then you might spell it correctly, and not be exactly the kind of idiot who talks about the stupidity of others while accidentally showing off their own knee-high IQ. Sheez.

[JI7]

14. RIGHT

i have been saying this for some time. the masses want to feel good. i know some who talked about arnold and thought it would be cool we will have the terminator for governor. the masses that voted for bush did so because they wanted to have a beer with him. hahaha. and these masses are the ones who are undecided until the final moments, the ones who need a debate to make their decision. they like to pride themselves in calling themselves independent but in reality they are morons who have no understanding of the issues and vote based on how a candidate will make them feel .

[Jon Thompson]

167. Well.

That might be because politicians are either insane or they hide their intent in double-speak and BS, or don't talk about the issues at all. We devote literally hundreds of man-years to coverage of elections on our radio waves and in our TV broadcasts, and how many minutes are wasted, by Dems or Reps, on the issues, really? I know people who voted for Arnold because they thought he was the most sincere guy in the arena (believe me, I made the point that he was an actor to them), and Bush voters who did so because they thought that Gore's flavorlessness was even worse than Bush's stupidity. So, if you really think a candidate has something to say, they might do well by saying it. Just a thought.

[angka]

15. even if you're right,

grandstanding like this will never get us a single vote.

[janekat]

18. We don't need to broadcast this - just keep it in mind

I assure you - Karl Rove most certainly does...

Until we find our own Rove - who understands the average American and knows how to cater to them we will keep on losing.

[0rganism]

71. Trust me, the more damaging stuff on this site IS broadcast

Rush Limbaugh, discredited windbag that he is, quoted posts from DU on his show today.

Neal Boortz is also fond of using DU as an example of elitist liberal intolerance.

Seriously, if it's potentially offensive enough, it'll get around.

[angka]

93. now i for one

don't want to overly denigrate what she said here—i had a great polisci professor a couple of semesters ago who referred to studies demonstrating, conclusively, that 95% of people don't have a fucking clue what's going on in this country. also, many who would otherwise be sensitive to real issues are hopelessly co-opted to the republican party over moral purity/christian reformism.

so janekat is actually right, you're just not supposed to be so mean and overgeneralizing about it. a nation of political ignorants is in many ways getting the government they deserve. but people can be educated. it's not hopeless.

[bearfartinthewoods]

132. and this morning the first post of this thread made it into the WSJ

MY HEART JUST SWELLS WITH PRIDE......NOT!!!!!

[piece sine]

109. too late!

you're linked to the Wall Street Journal's own newsblog....the folks at work are talking about it.

your opinion is famous, M'dear. Too bad I disagree with you so profoundly I'm compelled to publicly address this so thousands of new visitors don't think we ALL think like you. And you do have a lot of support here, as well, but that only compounds the problem.

[angka]

121. i hope you're kidding.

that would be unfortunate. <sigh> link?

[angka]

133. yikes.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004149

down towards the bottom. that i'm sure is painting a rosy picture of us—particularly the 'angry left web site' dig.

[forgethell]

127. How do

the Repukes keep finding Karl Roves, and we can't?? How do the Repukes keep getting celebrites to run for office (reagan, arnold, sonny bono, even). what well known celebrity do we have in office? there are plenty that are outspoken, but which ones are laying the asses on the line?

Really, I think that if we could find the right answer to these questions, we might turn things around. besides, I want to know.

[Resistance Is Futile]

105. Strategy verses argument

Nice straw man argument. Designing a campaign strategy around the knowledge that the masses are knuckle-dragging morons is not the same thing as telling the masses that they're stupid and need to vote for an 'educated protector.' The masses are stupid and need educated protectors, but telling them that to their faces would be counterproductive. All it means to accept the masses as stupid is to campaign with an emphasis on soundbites and jingoistic one-liners that the masses can understand.

[kcwayne]

16. This is incredibly condescending, and misses the real point

The Democratic party has long been made up of the working class of America. The KNOWLEDGE of working people in this country is largely influenced by the educational opportunities they have, which is influenced by many factors such as home stability, income levels, generational legacy etc.

The INTELLIGENCE is another matter. If IQ tests that are not based on educational attainment were applied to the population, my guess is that you would find that there is not a large differential between either party on the matter of intelligence.

It is a losing strategy to assume that because people are not responding to events the way that you do, that they are stupid. It is more likely that they don't care about the events.

What Republicans are doing now effectively, that Democrats are not is mobilizing the party followers. Elections are decided by a small perecentage of the population. California has 33 million people. Something around 7 million voted in the election.

The right wing has been very successful at using the Christian coalition to mobilize a block of voters that represent the minority opinion to get to the polls and exert their will on the majority.

If the Democratic party is going to succeed, it simply must find those core issues that mobilize a block of voters and get them to the polls. In my life, I have found that telling people that they are stupid pond scum is not a way to get them on your side.

[no name no slogan]

22. You hit a home run here

That's EXACTLY what's wrong with the Dems for the last ten years. The party heirarchy, hell bent on attracting the uninformed "moderate" vote (not more than 10% of eligible voters, btw), has completely neglected its powerbase-- working people, racial/ethnic minorities, liberals, etc.

In this case, we really COULD learn a lesson from the Repubs: they reached outside their party to their right, and mobilized the religious conservatives to vote for them. So much so that it looks like they are a majority in this country-- which is far from the truth!

The Dems need to do the same thing, but reach out to the LEFT: the greens, anti-globalism activists, workers rights advocates, peace actvisits, GLBTs, etc. Most of these people don't feel represented by the Democrats lately, and have no reason to vote for our candidates. If we start talking about and SUPPORTING their issues, we'll have a true party we can be proud of.

"But we'll lose the so-called "moderates" if we do that!". Fine, you're always going to have that happen when you take a pricinpled stand. We lost the southern racist vote to the Repubs in the 60s, too, when we stood up for equal rights. But we also GAINED a number of racial minorities and white liberal Republicans who didn't like what was happening to the "Party of Lincoln".

[forgethell]

128. Excellent comment

n/t

[no name no slogan]

17. This is dangerous thinking-- like that of Hitler or Stalin

This is the same mentality that leads to "vanguard" movements like fascism and Leninism: the public is "too stupid" to know what's good for them, so we in the "vanguard" are "obligated" to "lead for them" because we KNOW what's best for them.

People are NOT sheep. To infer that they are shows a huge amount of disrespect and pessimism that borders on fatalism.

IGNORANCE IS CURABLE. People instinctively WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. Our job is to INFORM people of the issues, and how they relate to their own lives, and how our cause can help them.

This is the first tactic I use when discussing issues/candidates with people-- give them the information about what's going on, and they will more than likely come to the conclusion we want them to. If not, keep presenting evidence, and keep moving forward. Eventually they will realize it. It may take a while, but people who have "seen the light" after living in ignorance are usually better supporters in the long run.

[Journeyman]

19. This is hilarious!. . .

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve."

Well, duh! Any other gems of wisdom you care to cast down from on high? Whatta "moran"!

[ignatius]

21. More like apathetic and uninformed. Remember, not many cared about the Mo

about war, but were mad as hell when he adked for big bucks to rebuild what we had destroyed.

We do need to appeal to the masses and that,IMHO, is by keeping our focus on the number of lost jobs, the increase in those without insurance, the fiscal fiasco(500 BILLION deficit and growing) and the lies the WH tells.

The CIA outing is a story that I think if told in a way that wakes people to the fact that our National Security has been compromised by the WH will bring them around to the reality of what the BFEE has done.

Maybe we need a flow chart showing Valerie at the top,without naming names obviously, how many other CIA operatives she knew,worked with, taught, whatever, and how their work is destroyed and their lives are now in danger.

Then connect to the billions spent on the CIA and said network. Remember Perot's charts, we need pictures. They are dramatic and capture people's attention.

[DrGonzoLives]

23. Nice. Very elitist. This is obviously the way to get people on our side.

Tell them that they're idiots, and they'll come running! Why didn't I think of this before?

I will agree about misinformed, but whose fault is that? Most people don't have the time nor inclination to browse online for news 14 hours a day like some people here seem to think they should. They have been conditioned to trust the TV/print news, after once having the reputation of actually persuing hard news and going after the truth.

The corporations that own the media now, however, want the status quo to stay in place. This means propaganda to keep the masses calm. And it works.

And how exactly are we "more intelligent"? Have you performed IQ tests? Got any results? This claim is just as idiotic as Limbaugh claiming that his listeners are smarter than everyone else.

Most people don't read the newspaper? Watch the news? Where in hell do you get this from? Every day I see people reading the paper on their lunch break, or discussing the report they saw on CNN or the evening news last night.

But, please, go on posting about how much better YOU are than the rest of the barbarian hordes. It's very entertaining :eyes:

[Bluzmann57]

24. Message from a "stupid" American

I don't know if you have a higher I.Q. than me or not, but I do know that I can do things that you can't, and you can do things that I can't. In my case, I am a blue collar worker, belong to a Union, have(grown) children, have a J.C. education, and just simply don't have time to watch news or hang out at D.U. and related sites 24/7. I do not condone flag burning, but support a persons right to do it. I refuse to listen to Limbaugh and his ilk, because all they do is piss me off. I am an emotional individual and often times have a knee jerk reaction to things. IMO, an attitude such as yours is why a lot of people feel disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. Not too many people appreciate an elitist, holier than thou attitude such as yours. Perhaps you should get off your high horse and go out and enjoy life. You might actually be surprised by us "commoners".

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mreilly]

26. Janekat is right... knock off the "elitist" accusations

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. History has proven once again that as Janekat said the majority of people in this country aren't that bright. This factor is how the GOP gets into office again and again, despite their string of proven failures in the past.

Note that she isn't calling for Democrats to running around telling the masses how stupid they are, what she is advocating is a strategy that takes into consideration the fact that the majority just doesn't focus on the issues and isn't intelligent enough to grasp complex subjects. Look at the 2000 election and you'll see the proof of her remarks - voters thought Al Gore was a know-it-all and Bush was "likeable." They couldn't understand what the discussion was about; they just liked Bush because they "wanted to have a beer with him" or some such silly shit. The talk about Bush's tax cuts going to benefit the wealthy went right over the heads of these people, who heard the phrase "tax cut" and began slobbering like dogs: "Tax cut? Tax cut? Did someone say tax cut! I want my tax cut!"

You all can refer to this as "elitist" and complain it will alienate voters, but the current strategy of trying to explain the issues to the mental midgets out there isn't working. The GOP has benefited from dumbing down their platform so that the lowest common denominator stupidly thinks the Repubs are "just like me." Unless we want to keep losing elections, we'd better adjust to the fact the majority of the voters can't handle anything more complex than the political equivalent of a Happy Meal - enticing package, predictable contents, and fun toys.

[toddzilla]

27. its not elitist, it's simply the truth..

i would caution making a distinction between ignorance and stupidity.

explaining something and getting a point across to a wide variety of people is a very difficult thing. if you go the low road, many people would be able to finish your entire speech before you finish the first sentence. if you go the high road.. well there's always the next channel that has survivor on.

it's not elitist to realize that not everyone is as politically aware or wants to be as politically aware as people who are involved in politics.

it IS elitist to think you are better or more intelligent because you are involved or informed.

[lostnfound]

32. The masses do 'suck the surface'

A 'happy meal' approach sums it up well, mreilly.

Whether we call it stupid or uninformed or misinformed is merely a finer distinction to the concept that Janekat pointed out -- we are minor voices at a pep rally where the crowd is content to shout 'GoTeam' at whoever happens to be winning.

I heard a poem yesterday on 'Writer's Almanac' entitled 'One Reason I Like Opera', which referred to the movie camera as 'stupid' because 'it sucks surfaces'. I thought it was a great analogy for politics in America. Give me a candidate that 'sounds good', 'makes a good impression', 'woos the voters'. Give me personality, give me an image, give me a fantasy -- don't give me issues, voting records, reality, complexity.

*******************

The poem is worth a read http://www.writersalmanac.org/docs/03_10_06.htm -- an excerpt:

Only the flawless in face and body
win. That is why I treat
movies as less interesting
than comic books. The camera
is stupid. It sucks surfaces.

Let's go to the opera instead.
The heroine is fifty and weighs
as much as a '65 Chevy with fins.
She could crack your jaw in her fist.
She can hit high C lying down.
<...>
Their voices twine, golden serpents.
Their voices rise like the best
fireworks and hang and hang
then drift slowly down descending
in brilliant and still fiery sparks.
<...>
What you see is work like digging a ditch,
hard physical labor. What you hear
is magic as tricky as knife throwing.
What you see is strength like any
great athlete's. What you hear

is still rendered precisely as the best
Swiss watchmaker. The body is
resonance. The body is the cello case.
The body just is. The voice loud
as hunger remagnetizes your bones.

[Jon Thompson]

168. Wow.

That is stupid horseshit man. Good GOD. You claim to understand the issues and that Americans don't, et all, but you clearly don't, in that Gore WON THE POPULAR VOTE. Forget to read the paper that day? Or are the majority only stupid when they vote Republican? God, this is not only pathetic, it is disturbing. And, frankly, all Gore and Bush gave the voters were the political equivalent of a Happy Meal, ie, "I'm pro-education." No shit?!? You mean, you don't want to drag our students out of school by the short hair and blow their brains out? Maybe you are also anti-violence and pro-happiness, and other incredibly cutting edge stuff. God. If Gore had treated the American people as adults and talked to them in that manner, providing his point, and then backing it up with information, he probably would have won an even greater number of votes. Also, I know some dumb voters, and they said they thought Gore's blandness was simply worse than Bush's stupidity. That's all.

[pnb]

29. What a friggin joke...

Before putting yourself into that 1-20% of the top (why does that remind of me people who were for eugenics?), proclaiming your vast intelligence over the rest of the idiots, perhaps you should learn a little about the bell curve.

Hopefully, you are rare.

What else makes you so much more intelligent than the great, unwashed masses? For those who say it is not elitist if it is the truth, well, this is not the truth.

[MISSDem]

83. why do you think they started out calling the emergency # 911

nine eleven and then changed it to 9 1 1? - because so many people couldn't fine the eleven on their phones.

[ewagner]

30. I take exception with your characterization

However, I will repost this little tirade because it is more to the point.

I have been out of active politics (office holder, campaign manager etc.,) for a lot of years now and have allowed myself to pursue only the idealogical side of my beliefs and not the dirty, down in the trenches, dirt-under-the-fingernails campaigning I used to do. But I still remember some of the basics of practical politics. I'll share some of guiding principles with my friends at DU.

Rule number one: The first mission of any political entity is SURVIVAL. No matter how good your intentions are or how many good works you have done or will do, you cannot achieve any of them unless you politically SURVIVE. Survive, of course, means getting elected and staying there.

Rule number two: A half a loaf is better than starvation. No matter what your beliefs are, there will be opposition to them. It's better to compromise and take SOME of your GOALS as opposed to remaining obstinate and, in the end, achieving NOTHING.

Rule number three: Absolutely, positively, there are NO ABSOLUTES.(sic)One size does not fit all, even Apple pie and Motherhood can be nitpicked by your opponents and detractors.

Rule number four: The only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Look for the "low-hanging fruit" first and work up from there. Pick your opponents weaknesses and go after them one-by-one. Remember, Ronny Reagan took this country on a hard right turn and it will take several small left turns to bring it back.

Rule number five: The masses are asses. Don't ever underestimate the power of the electorate to be stampeded by simple slogans and flashy advertising gimmicks. (e.g. California and I rest my case) Always make sure that you and your campaign are either in front of such stampedes or, even better, the source of the stampede.

Rule number six: KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid! Nuances in policy are
a death sentence.

Sorry for the long rant, but I did want to share some of these things with my friends here at DU. As always, your comments/flames are welcomed.

[eleny]

33. You ought to start a thread with this posting....

please!!!!!!!!

[ignatius]

37. Better yet, send it to the DNC.

[Booberdawg]

97. Saving that for future reference!

[Jon Thompson]

169. God.

Well, see, the above post is exactly why people aren't voting democrat. In 2000, we were lying and simplifying our message better than the Reps, and we won the popular vote and power in Congress, and only lost the White House because Reps cheat better than we do. In 2002, the Reps learned to lie better, so now the challenge is, can we close our lying-gap with the Reps? GOD! Has it ever occured to any of you that actually presenting a message the way you would to an adult and not a retarded monkey might be such a refreshing blast of clean air that we could take back every iota of control we've lost over our government, considering that we are, supposedly at least, correct?

[Capn Sunshine]

34. Deny all you like, SHE's RIGHT

The elements in Janes post were contained in my post-election analysis to the State committee.

We screwed up by running a thoughtful , logical campaign against the recall.

All the logic and demonstrative facts did not counter the awesome force of the emotional environment created by the RWingers.

What I gathered was that this emotion was so strong and had such a pull that the voters we contacted for out overnight polls actually felt compelled to lie to us about their intentions. This skewed our expectations markedly.

A review of the 25% 'defection" rate of the democrats shows that they were susceptible to the headlines and memes. We never put a "sound bite " message out there. This tells me in light of this failure we had damn well better recognize what we fear:

the public means well, but they are uninformed, reactive, fearful and the part of the brain they are voting with now is reptilian.

I could go into the zillions of factors behind this but bottom line is the educational level of 75% of the voter base is approximately 7th grade, beyond this point they have closed off.

Lesson for 2004, you guys, no matter who we run.

[forgethell]

120. Here's where we make our mistake.

Here's the quote form your post, "All the logic and demonstrative facts did not counter the awesome force of the emotional environment created by the RWingers". The logic and facts obviously DID NOT address the issues that the California voters were "emotional" about. It's no good being smarter, better educated, better informed, and a kinder, gentler border collie if you don't know how to herd the sheeple. Obviously, our leaders have lost the herding instinct. We need new blood.

[Jon Thompson]

170. Or.

It could have been that Gray Davis is a complete moron. I worked with him in the 70's, the guy is a major twit. He's a bad bureaucrat, why did anyone think he'd make a good leader of a state larger than all but four countries? He failed to make California competitive for businesses, and presided over some truly awful failures, and every single time his administration had to deal with anything, they always took more time and money than expected, because he just sucks as a leader, negotiator, anything. Frankly, I like the Anyone But Bush in 2004 stickers, and I wanted to make a sticker, Gary Coleman Before Davis. We shouldn't support bad leaders, no matter their party. Also, we could have won in the state if we'd run a dem other than one directly linked to the administration that presided over all of these problems.

[tlb]

35. Limbaugh would love to direct people to this thread to discredit DU.

Such open contempt and hatred for the majority of the electorate would make his point pretty well for him.

[IrateCitizen]

39. He already did today...

I actually put on my tyvek suit and ventured over to a link to FreeRepublic, and one of the posters said how Rush mentioned this very thread.

Way to go, guys! Sure doing what we can to convert people through insult and condescension! In my best Dr. Phil voice, "How's that workin' for ya?"

:eyes:

[mreilly]

45. If you're going to base your entire strategy on what the GOP thinks..

... then you're going to waste all your time haunting FR forums wondering if you're being talked about by idiots whose minds are already made up, rather than actually working on a plan of action to get your agenda promoted.

Rush and his followers can point to any number of threads on this forum and whine "See? Told you so!" Pick a thread, any thread. Want to claim DUers are a bunch of dope-smoking dipshits? Pick a thread advocating the legalization of marijuana and start pointing fingers.

Want to claim DUers are a bunch of fags? Pick a thread advocating gay marriage or civil unions.

Want to claim DUers are a bunch of church-hating atheists? Pick a thread discussing Christian intolerance.

In short, anything and everything remarked on around here is seized and twisted by the obsessed little right-wing stalkers on the web to justify their own positions. Like I said, if you're going to waste time worrying about "what they might say" or "how they'll react," you'll be basing your entire operational strategy on the opinion of the opposition.

I, for one, don't care to chain my goals or aspirations to such a ridiculous anchor.

[IrateCitizen]

47. I could give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what Rush thinks about us!

My entire objection to the basic premise of this thread is that it is elitist, smug and condescending. It confirms every single negative stereotype of "liberalism" thrown out there by the right wing. It basically tells anyone "not in the top 20% of the bell curve" that they are too fucking stupid to participate in political discourse.

THAT is my objection to this thread. Imagine if you were an interested lurker to this site, and that was the first thread you saw? I'd be so turned off I would consider never coming here again.

[mreilly]

56. Well, take comfort in the fact FR threads are always worse

I'll put this frank thread up against any given thread from FR, containing the usual "Hitlery is a man-hating lesbian" or "anyone who opposes the war should be killed" bullshit, and let the undecided lurking swing voter pick which ideology suits them better.

[piece sine]

111. you don't have to IMAGINE anything...

right now thousands of Wall Street Journal readers who are online are reading this thread. I'm re-reading parts of this thread completely slack-jawwed as I realize what outside readers must be thinking!

[Jon Thompson]

171. Except.

This thread is exactly about what Rush said it was. That way too many liberals see themselves as better than the electorate, for no other reason than that they are liberals. So, in this case, Rush is exactly right because way too many people on this forum are disgustingly stupid, and they would be stupid, and I'd yell at them, whether Rush was pointing it our or not. I'm just yelling louder now that I know this kind of crap is helping fuel fires of anti-liberal thought.

[AP]

38. This is true. I don't know how much you can blame the public. The RW

has been angling for a public this dumb and submissive for years.

The Democrats need to learn more effective campaign techniques, like, if you say something over and over, it becomes accepted as fact.

Also, they need to think more like Carville, who can reduce a complicated sentiment down to an easy-to comprehend, often humorous phrase.

[Jon Thompson]

172. I suppose...

That the RW was doing this when the schools started going to shit and the Republicans were out of power in the latter 70's, right? Christ. That alone marks you as the lowest 1-20% of the electorate.

[ElementaryPenguin]

41. Bingo! (sorry to say)

And we must factor this into our every move!

[Beacho]

42. I Don't think it's about stupidity

At least not the 'natural' variety. I remember something that Lewis Black said on the Daily Show, "The American people want to lose weight eating ice cream.". I think 'spoiled and lazy' would explain the phenomena that other posters are expressing their frustrations about the electorate. A phenomena that the corporate meme factories, that pass for media in this country, are more than willing to exploit.

As for claims of people here being in the top percent of intelligence, I don't feel that's what it's about either. People on all levels of the curve, either by innate will or other factors, have a resistance to the obvious contradiction of 'losing wieght by eating ice cream'.


Just some thoughts.

BTW, the frustrations I feel from the attitudes in this country have just put me another step forward to just wanting to get the hell out and let the Devil take the hindmost.

[indigo32]

44. Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

again not something you want to say to someones face to make friends... but MUCH more accurate than the first.

[IrateCitizen]

55. It just doesn't get much closer to truth than Lewis Black!

And your analogy is an extremely apt one. Americans are not citizens anymore -- they are consumers.

And I include myself in that. I watch more TV than I should, spend time and money on worthless junk (although not nearly as much as others), and live a life disconnected from my neighbors. Of course, at least I REALIZE all of this and am taking steps to change it.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

43. We Don't Need No Stinkin Statistics

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve."

That is a truly funny statement.

[janekat]

46. I don't mean to be so condescending but I live in an all-Republican

area. When I worked on Bush vs. Gore I ran across many people who claimed that Bush was intelligent. That Arnold is intelligent. That Sean Hannity is intelligent. HOW do you explain this phenomenon? Either these people are unintelligent, poorly-educated OR they have very poor verbal skills.

Also many of these people stated that Gore was "just too smart" - and that was part of the reason they didn't like him.

I admit it is very maddening to me. I worked on the Gore campaign and I'm still smarting about it and this Ahrnold thing has just served to further "rile" me up. Sorry if I sound "elitist."

[KFC]

48. Elitist? You are a Freaking Genius!

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve."

You must be a Statistics professor.

[jpgray]

51. The Media, of course--not the intelligence of the voter

Who belittled Gore for being intelligent? Who set up the "brilliant manager" aura around Bush? As for Arnold and Hannity, you've likely seen the media spin on them for yourself. Always the media is working to make even the most desirable social services, corporate regulations and worker's rights seem unnecessary and even a major detriment to American life. That's why Americans knee-jerk against us--the 9 o'clock news is conditioning them to just that.

[IrateCitizen]

52. It's because these people give them a scapegoat

How are things going for most of the people in your district? If it's a "mostly Republican" one, I'm betting that it's probably rural. And if it's rural, then things probably aren't going too well.

The reason that people like the ones you mentioned have appeal is that they talk in extremely simplistic terms. Although they aren't willing to do anything to help people actually improve their standing in life, they give them a scapegoat to blame. Liberals. Unions. Ethnic minorities. Homosexuals.

If people buy into this, it isn't necessarily because they are stupid. It's more often because of the fact that the airwaves are literally saturated with such voices. When it comes to newspapers, ditto there as well. Additionally, most people just aren't that enthralled with politics and policy as we are, and their idea of a fun time isn't researching minute details of political affairs in their spare time.

Apathetic? Yes. Misinformed? Yes. Disconnected? Yes. But stupid? No. Definitely not.

[janekat]

61. Actually, it's Naples, Fl - a bunch of wealty retirees from the midwest

You would think that these people would be better informed than they are. Many of them are college-educated.

[Jon Thompson]

174. Uhh....

And Democrats don't do that? I'm sorry, I just finished listening to another three hours of Democratic presidential debates, and was amazed, AMAZED I say, to hear them avoid saying anything definitive as if it meant they'd be infected with AIDs, and the only thing they were actually clear on, was that everything, up, down, left and right, was Bush's fault. So don't feed me a line about Democratic politicians being more honest than Republicans, or really talking about the issues.

[Jon Thompson]

173. You are dumb. Screw complicated subject titles.

I guess the fact that Gore won the popular vote doesn't bug you, huh? The American people are dumb because some Americans are dumb? They are dumb because Reps are better at cheating than Dems, and a Rep is in the White House? No sir! You are dumb.

[jpgray]

49. Nonsense!!

Americans on the whole are no stupider than you or I. You and I, however, go to many sources for news and know how to distinguish truth from spin. Those are the skills the average American lacks. If we ran a "for dumb people" campaign it would be ridiculed by the media, and the Republican candidates would continue to be lauded. We are only doing as well as we are, I believe, by appealing to that common sense and intelligence that still exists in most Americans. The things that need to be changed are the biases against the heart of our party--social services, public schools, and unions. We lose any of those, we are in serious trouble. The big thing we need to do is wrench media control back to something reasonably balanced--that's what is shooting us in the foot, not "stupid" Americans, but misled Americans.

[Jon Thompson]

175. Wait.

Don't we control half the 24-hour news media stations, almost every sitcom, parody, most newspapers and tons of the internet? I mean, really people. Get real. The sad thing is, our candidates lie so poorly compared to Reps that, even controlling at least 60% of the media as we do, we can't get favorable spin. Pathetic.

[FlaGranny]

50. I don't believe people are stupid.

I don't believe Democrats are more intelligent. What I do believe is that we better get Martin Sheen drafted. Tom Hanks would be good too. We need someone appealing and soothing and who won't answer questions or explain policies in detail. They should only talk about keeping more of your own money and a smaller government and be vague about every other policy and never, ever explain how they think they are going to do any of it. THEN WE'LL HAVE A WINNER.

Edit: grammar

[Jon Thompson]

177. Well, come on.

We already do that for the most part, but our boys aren't usually as good at lying as Reps. We need to train our lying sacks of shit better!

[KFC]

53. Hey Britney, I knew you posted here!

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve."

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[hiphopnation]

54. Gee

do you think that this line of logic contributes in any way to the perception that liberals are elitist snobs??

My question is this: if liberals are so danged smart, then why can't we come down from our self-ascribed higher planes of intelligence and superiority for long enough to find commonalities with this hopelessly uneducated throng and put forth a positive platform that they understand and can latch on to?

[LibertyorDeath]

57. What proof do you have to back up this claim. Just because

50 million Americans voted for an idiot so dumb he can't be trusted
to speak extemporaneously & as a result only gives orchestrated press conferences. Or that the average American thought Saddam was or is behind the 9\11 attack, or may be you base this outlandish claim
on the notion that millions of Americans believe Bush to be a strait talker who actually gives a shit about them & VP Chaney has no interest whatsoever in the OIL in Iraq.

But my friend if you are basing this claim on the fact that these
fucking morans just elected Ah-nold lets all molest someone to run
the worlds 6th largest economy the engine that drives the USA then
Thank you for stating what is so fucking obvious to the rest of the world but is really painfull for intelligent Americans to come to terms with.

A salute to the truth.....

[IkeWarnedUs]

58. Many people are AFRAID to be informed

Its all too much - too evil - too big. Even before 9/11 and a pre-emptive war. People are scared to listen and read and understand.

If you know, you have to decide if you are going to do something. If you know, how can you sit back and relax? Ignorance is bliss.

Even people who do listen and read and discuss and get it may still not be able to wrap their heads around the whole picture. Even here on DU.

Bowling for Columbine does a great job of shining a light on the aura of fear Americans live in. It should be required viewing for every American.


(Which is not to say that many are not just stupid and uninformed, but we can't discount the fear factor too.)

[LibertyorDeath]

59. Good Point...

[jiacinto]

60. Wait a second

There is a big difference between being "stupid" and "uninformed". I think it's more a case of the latter than the former.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. The sex scandal against Clinton didn't work

It didn't work against Arnold either. It was the assumption that people are stupid that caused Davis supporters to stupidly use it. The American people are uninformed. They are not stupid, and your adopting Gopig tactics in California backfired.

[leftyandproud]

67. elitism..

I think you are suffering from a bad case of it--you give the people less credit than they deserve. Pick up a copy of "Vision of the Annointed" by Thomas Sowell...It will certainly piss you off, because he is talking about YOU in the book. It may be painful to read stuff like this, but if you want a clear head and a clear view of your opponent's position, its absolutely necessary.

[KFC]

68. Obviously you are not in the "high intelligence" portion of the bell curve

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve."

Genius. Pure genius.

[Jon Thompson]

178. Heh.

Thanks for pointing that out, I was suprised only one other person got that. In fact, it really took me awhile to figure out that this wasn't a populist Democrat mocking an elitist.

[Hielo]

69. Dudes, you got to understand.

We as the people of light and intelligence have to guide these poor creatures into the proper direction. My burden is that I see the truth and am not followed.

How best to get the people to follow me?

I only want what is good for them, I love all people, and want only the best for them.

Democrats, by and large do know what is best, even for the vile republicans, ( I would consider them a sub-species to real humans, sort of our slightly less evolved brothers and sisters).

How can we lead them to the glorious light?

I am not above pandering, I hold a steady job, so obviously I can pander ot my sub-human intelligence boss.

Help me!

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roark]

101. Well..

Something has to be done.

We can't go on letting morans sElect Shrub and Ah-nald.

[Darranar]

103. LOL...

Just like how we needed to enlighten the Native Americans by oppressing them? Or the Africans by enslaving them?

[HitmanLV]

70. Good Gravy....

...this kind of thinking is unproductive.

Any kind of movement that begins with the premise 'we are smarter than everyone else' isn't a good start.

The truth is in this recent election, the same pool of people who voted for Arnold voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and Gore in 2000. They are the same people who elected Davis in 1998 and again in 2002.

They weren't 'smart' then and 'stupid' now. That kind of thinking is unproductive and frankly insulting.

As for 2000, if you look at the results and come to the conclusion you did, that's just not very wise.

The vote was split down the middle, more or less. For every Gore voter, there was almost a Bush voter, close to a 1 to 1 ratio.

There are smart people are at the far end of the bell curve for each group, and stupid people on the other far end of each curve - that people come to different conclusions doesn't mean they are stupid (necessarily).

"The masses" as you say elected Clinton twice and almost elected Gore. They weren't pandered to, or patronized then, and they shouldn't be treated that way now.

We can influence the terms of the debate and win converts using proven methods that have worked in the past. Adopting a posture that basically alienates most people is never the start of a good thing.

[piece sine]

75. well, at least there's ONE...

non-Elitist in this disturbed and disturbing thread. I can just imagine Rush reading soemof the comments here, aloud and verbatim.

Why are some here so PINO...."populist in name only."

[hiphopnation]

85. Maybe

it's part of their OWN intellectual inferiority complex. Only a truly "dumb" person would openly admit to being smarter than most other people. The statement in itself is ignorant. It's no f*cking wonder liberals are are perceived as being stuck-up, elitist, arrogant snobs. If these people latch on to the Dem party then it's no wonder we're losing elections the way we are.

PINO is right.

[Jon Thompson]

180. Good points, mostly.

I think the masses were pandered to by Clinton and Gore, but I'll point out again that we didn't just come close to winning, we did win the votes in 2000, so this whole thread is doubly funny for being elitist/disturbing AND just wrong. But we can win if we get out there, present the facts, our policies, and treat the American people as human beings.

[Piperay]

72. You can never go wrong underestimating

the intelligence of the American public. :freak: :dunce:

[Jon Thompson]

181. Yes you can.

Both parties pander to the American people as though they are mentally impaired donkeys. And both parties will continue to, forever. But if ONE stops, that party might, just MIGHT, be rewarded for honesty, integrity, and, if nothing else, a departure from business as usual.

[benderlane]

74. Americans are Stupid?

Guys - I remember a very long time ago, some of my classmates
believed that the best form of govenrment was a benevolent
dictatorship.

Infact, this would be true, if it wernt for the fact that
there can be no such thing as a benevolent dictator.  Human
nature and history show that such a combination can not exist.

So - what might work better?  How about a group of intelligent
people, you know, the top 20%, having all the power?

I think the discourse on this site displays exactly why that
wouldnt work.  What defines the top 20%?

[devinsgram]

79. So thats what accounts

for them liking Bushit. He's on their level.

[MCVet]

80. Look at who makes up..

....Dem and Rep voters.

The Times ran a chart in 2000.

Most HS dropouts -Democrats
Most HS diploma only -Republicans
Most Bachelor's only -Republicans
Most Advanced degree holders -Democrats

Which party has a base that is more easy to manipulate?
Which party depends on their base being ignorant, for just this reason?
Which party lies to themselves, in order to "get out the vote"?

Obviously the Republicans are the culprits.

[fearsomepirate]

91. right.

So the Democrats have the stupidest AND the smartest people, but not the average Joe.

Something tells me that years of intellectual incest in the university system, cloistered in the Ivory Tower away from the world, doesn't guarantee that a PhD holder will necessarily have the best sense of what will and won't work in the real world.

[E Pluribus Unum]

81. It must be a wonderful thing ,Janekat, to be as intelligent as you.

[Zorra]

84. Don't shoot the messenger for

stating the obvious. Stupid people allow themselves to be brainwashed. They don't have the cognitive ability to figure out when they are being conned.

I suspect that, if it were possible to measure the overall average IQ of people that listen to Rush Limbaugh, it would end up being somewhere between 85-95. And although I have compassion for these cerebrally challenged dittoheads, it scares me that their ability to distinguish between BS and credible information is basically non-existent. They are destroying our country because of their stupidity.

Hey, bush is Resident, and Arnold is Governor Elect of California. This is an obvious indicator that many voters are stupid and voluntarily misinformed.

You don't have to be an Einstein to see the obvious.

[nolabels]

86. There is so much a head strong comedy, a keeper indeed

As a person that thinks in other people as other people, I would like to comment that it is not some damn test you take that makes you smart, its how you use what you got resourcefully. The sole determinant of how good or bad something always is a matter of tastes singularly and plural which usually doesn't remain static.

When the cure becomes more harrowing than living with the disease, you might start to wonder

[Loyal]

88. This is a ridiculously stupid thread

You are so insulting, saying that Americans are stupid, and that "WE" have nothing in common with "them". What are you, a canuck? Most people are American here, and I find it particularly insulting that you are painting with such a broad brush. Do me a favor, DON'T include ME in with your "WE". :puke:

Sickening, jkat. Ignore.

[Resistance Is Futile]

104. Get your head out of the sand

Stupid is just the word to describe residents of the sole standing superpower who felt themselves threatened by a two-bit despot like Saddam Hussain.

[Loyal]

112. wisdom from canucks?

i may indeed pass on that, sir.

[Resistance Is Futile]

117. Xenophobia

What a heartwarming display of good old fashoned xenophobia.

[Loyal]

129. I prefer the term "ethnocentrism"

As in me saying that my culture is better than yours, which I do believe it is.

[Loyal]

89. Well,

it always amazes me that people like you actually think they are logical. I mean, that's what you're basically hinting at, and come on, it's not like you have a Ph.D. Get off your high horse, and stop bitching.

[fearsomepirate]

90. w/e

Pandering won't get you much except complete loss of the right to have any self-respect. The truth of the matter is that people like you are the exact sort who assume that the William F Buckleys and Robert Borks of the world are complete idiots who wouldn't know a well-reasoned thought if it punched them in the face and pissed on their shoes.

Let me give a good example: Your main response to the fact that people don't accept your dogma is to call them idiots. Whatever happened to tolerance? You can be a smart person and have differing views on the nature of morality, deity, existence, and knowledge, but not on politics?

It is unfathomable to you that a well-reasoned human being might not agree that a classist system of taxation is <i>de facto</i> a good thing, or that anything that benefits upper fincancial classes is <i>de facto</i> a bad thing. "It will unfairly benefit the rich" might sound like a good reason to some people, but not to all. If you're not going to present a well-reasoned argument, don't expect people to follow you in droves.

Quite to the contrary of your post, Democrats tend to be slaves to classist, populist, race-baiting rhetoric. Initiatives to do something about the Social Security system now in its death throes are shot down "because the elderly will eat dog food." Proposals to do soemthing about our ailing power grid are refuted "because the children will choke on carbon monoxide." No, you're masters at pandering.

And as stupid as you say Bush is, you sure attribute vastly complex and devious conspiracies to him.

[Jon Thompson]

182. Here fucking here!

God! How refreshing. See how a Rep can actually argue in a respectful, open, honest, and intelligent manner? Does that, maybe, blow a HUGE fucking hole in your argument? Why, yes, it does. Also, I just want to say, Democrats are all those things, and slaves to Unions, but, Republicans are beholden to Christian fundamentalists, so, I think both parties are horrific in their current forms.

[fearsomepirate]

189. not a Rep

I'm not a Rep. Okay, I guess I registered as one when I was 18, but I think the party basically sucks. I'd probably vote libertarian except that a) it's throwing away your vote, and b) legalizing crack sounds like a bad idea. I voted for Forbes in the first primary, FWIW (he was out of the running by the time the 2nd one happened in my state).

If you think the Republican party is beholden to fundies, then you must not know a lot of fundies. Most fundies view George Bush as a heathen imposter. And what about Arnie and Andrew Sullivan? Sure, Christians are more or less glad their president is a Christian rather than, say, a Confucionist. But then, atheists tend to be glad when an atheist is president, so what's the big deal?

From the inside, the Republican party looks like a big amorphous blob that has more of a platform than the Democrats, but lacks the balls to actually do a whole lot other than create bureaucracies, spend prodigal amounts of money, and enact new entitlements. It's hardly this vast conspiracy of evil. I consider it a miracle that W lowered taxes at all, let alone made any sort of dent in the way they're actually administered (as I am in the very, very bottom tax bracket and on a career path to never rise above lower-middlish middle class, you can't castigate me as immoral for thinking the top tax brackets are too high).

Like I said, we have intelligent opinions. Try actually <i>reading</i> National Review sometime. The fact is, the Borks and WFBs of the world are serious intellectual heavyweights, and to dismiss them as holding the opinions of madmen is to only make your own position look untenable.

[Jon Thompson]

191. Point taken.

So I'll just change my message to say that I agree with you, and that the original poster is insane, and that we shouldn't vote for anyone just because they have a D next to their name.

[iangb]

95. 'How to lose an election 101, Lesson 1'

If you are not particularly interested in National politics 24/7, you're not intellectually challenged...........you're normal.


Characterising normal people as 'stupid' will achieve one thing.......a Bush landslide in '04.......and he won't have to cheat.

[AlinPA]

98. You are 100% correct.

America has been "dumbed down". Excellent Post.

[Darranar]

100. So tell me this:

How come Gore got more votes than Bush in '00?

Americans aren't as stupid as some think.

Ignorance, though, is a problem.

[Resistance Is Futile]

102. Willful denial

The degree of vitrol leveled at the original poster is remarkable. It is fundamentally obvious that the vast majority of the population belongs to the shallow end of the gene pool. Just look at how many people moved, in the space of a week, from accepting the Sept 11-Iraq connection to accepting that Chimpy never, ever suggested such a thing. The electorate is stupid. It's not polite to say so, but it's the truth.

As this applies to fighting elections, the key is not, as many here have incorrectly assumed, to rub the electorate's nose in its stupidity and assert some kind of right to 'take care' of them for their own good but rather to slant election propaganda to a level the masses can understand. The masses do not care about issues that cannot be expressed in soundbites and campaign strategies must reflect this.

The masses do need members of an elite to take care of them but the absolute last thing to do is tell them that to their faces.

[kevinc]

107. This is a surefire way to ...

lose the popular vote.

What makes you so much better than the rest of America? Americans don't want a socialist utopia and I am sorry but that doesnt make them stupid...
Is this some sort of " I am liberal hear me roar...but you don't really understand what is best for you cause you are to stupid to figure it out...but really take me at my word I am smarter, better informed and even more evolved than you so just listen to me roar and be quiet..."
And you wonder why Americans, common everyday Americans lean more toward the right......hard to figure that out


"the masses do need members of an elite to take care of them but the absolute last thing to do is tell them that to their faces"

Yeah thats it...this is a hearts and minds campaign that can turn the tide alright...

[Resistance Is Futile]

113. Winning the popular vote

What makes you so much better than the rest of America? Americans don't want a socialist utopia and I am sorry but that doesnt make them stupid...

I am smarter than most Americans because I can read a budget and realize that spending 4% of GDP more than incoming revenues is not sustainable.

I am smarter than most Americans because I can see trends in current accounts and income and realize that the long term economic outlook is dismal.

I am smarter than most Americans because I did not fall for the Texas Fascist Party's propaganda connecting Iraq with Sept 11.

I am smarter than most Americans because I know that regressive tax cuts do not effectively foster economic growth.

I am smarter than most Americans becuase I know that anyone who believes that regressive tax cuts foster economic growth is corrupt or ignorant, and generally unfit for public office.

Socialist utopias have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Is this some sort of " I am liberal hear me roar...but you don't really understand what is best for you cause you are to stupid to figure it out...but really take me at my word I am smarter, better informed and even more evolved than you so just listen to me roar and be quiet..."

Enough with the straw men. Designing a campaign strategy around the knowledge that the masses are knuckle-dragging morons is not the same thing as telling the masses that they're stupid and need to vote for an 'educated protector.' All it means to accept the masses as stupid is to campaign with an emphasis on soundbites and jingoistic one-liners that the masses can understand rather than on complex issues that they can't comprehend.

The masses can't understand the concept of fiscal collapse but they can understand "preserving opportunities for our children" and that is how campaigns should be fought. Accepting that the public is too stupid to understand the issues is a campaign strategy. Nothing more.

[kevinc]

114. so....

we know they are stupid..and plan accordingly is that what you are saying?

[Resistance Is Futile]

115. Exactly.

They are idiots, but they are the majority and winning elections means pandering to them.

[kevinc]

116. ok then

what if they aren't as stupid you think? I mean if we talk down to them all the time aren't they going to notice?

[Resistance Is Futile]

119. Not a problem

%70 of them fell for the Sept 11-Iraq connection.

~%50 of them are unable to see that Chimpy is worse than a boil on the ass of humanity who will do untold damage to civilization if he is allowed to remain in office.

A siable percentage of them believe WMD have been found in Iraq.

Talking down to these people is not going to be an issue.

[forgethell]

125. Lying & pandering?

I thought we had the superior morals. besides, don't the Repukes lie & pander, and use soundbites better than we do? We need a better strategy than that.

[Jon Thompson]

183. I think most of what you stated is so stupid I won't even bother, but.

Dems already use that as campaign strategy. We already pander pathetically to "Joe Sixpack." And frankly, it is disgusting. We'll win in '04 no matter what, god, Al Sharpton could win the primary and run on a platform of 400 years of white slavery and we'd win. But we have to think about how we want to win, and whether this business as usual system of lying to the people is really going to work in the long run. We should be honest and open and clear with our goals. In other words, do the opposite of what we currently do, which is to make vague, nice statements and attack Bush. Nothing wrong with that, except we can and should do better. I believe that if we did, we'd win by an even bigger landslide than we already likely will.

[fishnfla]

147. Welcome to DU!

you dont work for the WSJ do you? welcome! :)

[hiphopnation]

110. Claptrap.

Your assertions are based on nothing more than heresay and subjective, sloppy guessswork. To assert that the elecotrate is "stupid" because they were duped by the corporate media into believing that Sadaam was linked to 9/11 is ludicrous. If any of the candidates formed thier stratagem around this line of logic, how far do you think they would get?

As many in the post have already distinguished: Ill-informed? Yes. Misguided? Yes. Stupid? No.

As this applies to fighting elections, the key is not, as many here have incorrectly assumed, to rub the electorate's nose in its stupidity and assert some kind of right to 'take care' of them for their own good but rather to slant election propaganda to a level the masses can understand

I would submit that the populists among us feel that it's imperative to DO AWAY with the propaganda all together, but then again you may be of another political stripe that supports the use of propaganda in lieu of the truth.

[Resistance Is Futile]

118. Power or principles

As many in the post have already distinguished: Ill-informed? Yes. Misguided? Yes. Stupid? No.

Stupidity is willful ignorance; an unwillingness to learn and accept reality. An inability to read a budget is simply ignorance. A willingness to dismiss anyone who argues 'this budget is a disaster' and attempts to explain why as an over-educated liberal is nothing less than stupidity.

I would submit that the populists among us feel that it's imperative to DO AWAY with the propaganda all together, but then again you may be of another political stripe that supports the use of propaganda in lieu of the truth.

Would you retain ideoligical purity, rather make no compromises and remain marginalized, or take the pragmatic approach, do what works, and actually win a few victories?

Rigid principles and $500,000 will can a decent house. $500,000, flexible principles and a willingness to do what works can change the world.

[forgethell]

124. The masses,

like everybody else, cares about the issues that affect them personally. Sort of 'all politics is local' kinda thing. If they are doing all right, then what they want to do is get along with their own potty little lives with minimal interference from their betters. But then if their betters don't interfere, maybe things won't be going allright, will they?

[fishnfla]

134. Too late

this post made it nationwide. WSJ ed page.

[Castilleja]

108. Sadly, I think you are correct.........

Many people do not notice things or care about something until it is staring them in the face and affecting them personally. No idea how to fix this.

[Unforgiven]

123. How Right You Are

We have very little in common with average idiot on the street. To them we might as well be from another planet. Pandering to the masses is going to take some time, do we have that much time left in this country? I am doubtful, look at what just happened in CA.
Is it about time we start looking for a state, country or someplace on earth where like minded (or open minded) people can live in relative peace and contentment? The dumbing down of the american individual continues, and we will be amoung it's first victums as we become more and more isolated from the general population. Only AFTER the masses begin to suffer or are moved out of their "comfort zone" (as Jeb would say) will they even begin to look for cause and effect. And even then what will be the result? Let's face it the only reason the right hasn't taken over this country is there are far too many firearms out there, and I'm guessing quite a few people that would use them if push comes to shove.

[JVS]

130. Congratulations, you've provided ammo for the WSJ to attack liberals with!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004149

[Oberst Klink]

131. To win, we have to rid ourselves of this kind of arrogant...

... attitude toward the average Jane/Joe American.

hte hate and contempt flowing from this site is embarrassing. I'm new here and I understand a lot of the frustration, however I do not share the nastyness shown in some of these posts.

[bhunt70]

146. Welcome Oberst Klink

and I agree with you.

[quaker bill]

135. Your analysis in poorly drawn and elitist

From the posts I have read here, I would not get that cocky about the average IQ on DU.

There are some very bright and well read folks here, no doubt. But more than occasionally, the dialog fails to impress.

The general notion that conservative issues have been marketed on emotional appeal much more effectively than issues recent centrist democrats have run on is reasonably sound.

The concept that the emotional approach works better in 30 second bites is obvious.

The idea that the left is intellectually based and the right by definition based in ill-informed emotions is simply wrong.

First, if you want to see the emotions of the left, just start a Green party bashing thread. There is rarely any intellectual analysis that crops up in one of these, but they go on and on nonettheless.

Second, we cannot consign our ideas to perpetual wonkishness. Feeding poor kids has emotional appeal. Not blowing up strangers with our military over lies and misrepresentations has basic emotional appeal. Getting people who, to quote Clinton "work hard and play by the rules" a decent living wage has emotional appeal.

Our pResident started dropping 2000 pound bombs on a city with a civilian population of 4 million people before, according to Condi Rice, "He read the entire report" about the putative threat posed by Iraq. It sounds like the act of someone who did not feel that the lives of innocents were worth an hour or two of his time. This has emotional appeal, when the correct approach is used.

We need a candidate with the spine to state things directly and as necessary in emotional terms. Most folks are afraid this will illict anger which can be unpredictable and thus choose to keep the discussion in milder waters. Anger in the cause of justice is no sin. Republicans have known that emotions can be a strong motivator to drive good turnout and have used anger and fear heavily in their campaigns. To win we need to want it enough to be prepared to fire back.

By the way, the middle of the bell curve, by definition always represents the majority of the population. It nearly always occurs between the 80 and 20 percentile range. Know your stats or state them better.

[uhhuh]

144. This is the truth

It's not that people don't have the intelligence to make good decisions,they need to be given the relevant facts. Most people have basic common sense. If they are presented with facts and shown how it relates to them, they will get it. The fact that people didn't reject ahnold after the scandals about him broke, is directly related to the way the information was given to them and how it was dissected by the media. I'v heard people say that the Davis campaign should have focused on the power companies ripping off the state, but it was brought up by the Davis people, and the media spun it to look like Davis was scapegoating others for his failures. They then went on to bash him for not seizing the power supply and holding it hostage. The Davis people stopped bringing it up after that.

If you are still looking at this WSJ, you are the problem. Americans are highly intelligent, thoughtful, hard working people, who are constantly denied access to the information that would help them make an informed choice. In order to find the truth, they have to go look for it, and most of them don't have the energy to do it when they are constantly distracted by the bullshit you folks in the media try to tell them is important. You know, the stuff that keeps them happy little consumers.

We here at DU don't think the public are idiots, but folks in the media work real hard to make sure the public has to struggle to be informed.
Instead of reporting on this little website, and painting those of us who care about this country as "those elitist liberals", why don't you spend some time asking yourself how much it's worth to betray the mission that real journalists throughout history have always worked to achieve? How many senseless deaths are you willing to be complicit to through your actions? It's no wonder both those on the Left and Right see the media as biased. The problem is, both sides see the bias slanted to one side or the other. The truth is that the bias is even worse than either side. The media bias is one of a completely ideologically bankrupt, amoral pursuit of whatever kind of fear or scandalmongering or war cheerleading will increase the bottom line of the multinational media conglomerates.
It's no surprise when virtually all media sources are controlled by six companies worldwide. You guys think you own the truth. You think it is yours to create. Well, I've got "news" for you. The internet makes each and every one of us our own media outlet, and you better take care, because trends are showing that more and more people are networking with each other, and doing their own investigations and getting first hand accounts of what is happening, in real time, all over the world. People are wising up. People are organizing their own reports, and getting to the bottom of things.
My advice to you is to do the important job that you were meant for, and stop stirring the pot to watch us wiggle. Those of us on the Left and Right know what you're up to.

[Mairead]

136. The vast majority of Americans are of perfectly normal intelligence

As people ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Prof. Zinn have said, ordinary people are perfectly capable of understanding all they need to in order to take good policy decisions for themselves and others.

What the majority of Americans lack is not intelligence--they have plenty intelligence. What they lack is good information. To the extent we have any advantage at all --and if you read DU a little more closely, I think you'll begin to question your assumption of superiority-- it's in having information. So our responsibility is not to be a 'cadre' that leads Poor Stoopid Bastards to the promised land, our responsibility is to provide intelligent people with solid, well-supported information. Not tinfoil-hat, National-Inquirer 'information' but information about things that can be demonstrated to be true. If we do that, we won't need to do anything else.

[tamdon]

142. Don't trust repug press for fair and balanced coverage of DU

What losing Presidential candidate is responsible for this anecdote. "Why Mr. So-And-So you have the vote of every thinking person in this country."

"Yes, madam, but I need the majority." What the original poster said is nothing new to the political landscape.

[JVS]

143. Adlai Stevenson

[Polemonium]

197. I agree but....

Information is not enough. One look at Arnie in California, should be evidence that information alone is insufficient. I am hard pressed to explain this one. Many folks, intelligent or not, are very cynical when it comes to the national or state politics. Most people believe they are relatively unaffected by which party is in which mansion, or white house. While, untrue in many respects, people's cable doesn't go out, their kids still go to school, and they still drink beers with their friends when they can. In California, people finally had someone to pin their economic woes on, and out went Davis. So how do we explain the replacement?

I have no idea, but I'll throw out some ideas anyway. 1) Did Davis appear to be buying votes by passing fairly irrational legeslation that allowed illegal immigrants to get a driver's license? (The rational idea might have been to legitimize their immigrant status first.) 2) Did Davis appear untrustworthy because of his blatant attempts to gain favor? 3) Were a cynical fairly disinterested public more than ready to believe anything from a political outsider? 3) Were the many of the people who voted for him willing to dismiss the rediculousness of the candidate who was running, because they were fairly sure that the moron wouldn't really be calling the shots anyway? 4) Did Davis fail to demonstrate that he was not responsible for the current economic woes?

How do you inform a public, that is deeply cynical about big state and Federal politics? How do you inform them when their already short attension span doesn't believe in big politics enough to care or listen? How can you possibly distract them from ESPN, their kids, Hollywood etc. long enough, and how can you divorse them from the dillusion that most Americans hold that they could be the next Bill Gates (by playing the lotto, working hard, whatever)?

I don't know anymore. For the moment I'm spent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. Without taking sides in this debate

John Stuart Mill did call the Tories who were the Republicans in England of his day the "stupid party"....


But if they are the stupid party why are they always eating our collective lunchs?

[poskonig]

140. The Straussians in the current government actually HAVE this philosophy.

I.e. man is stupid and evil and needs a secret enlightened elite to lead them, preferably by encouraging mythological imagery, romanticized histories, blah blah blah. This is supposedly necessary since only militarist, homogenous states can survive.

I find it odd that while people like Wolfowitz studied this stuff, and more importantly, believe it, liberals are being painted with this brush by the WSJ. I've seen this kind of attack before, though, way back in 1995, i.e. Sowell's "Vision of the Annointed."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Leo Strauss.......

Plato figgered that our way before him......

[bhunt70]

145. This is ridiculous...it's whats killing the Democratic Party.

This air of superiority is all bullshit, I am just like joe schmoe who lives down the street and voted republican. I went to the same colleges as consevatives, I have friends that don't even care about voting. Am I better than any of them because I am liberal or a democrat? Hell no.

I, and many others, are just like the american public, we care about social issues that affect us and personal issues that shape our lives and our families. No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on this is probably evident.

Some people might process information differently than I do but thats great, we aren't a homogenous sheep like community.

"PANDERING TO THE MASSES" is total and utter bullshit. We are the masses and once you put "us" above "them", especially in a general way, you have lost all shred of credibility.

How about connecting with people other than your little social group and get out and interact with different types of people, it will open your eyes to how similar we really are.

Being right is subjective many times and rarely should have to do with people thinking the same thing you do.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. At least one Dem candidate is taking this approach --

sticking to sound-bite answers, pandering to the audience he's facing at the time, fudging his past record (figuring the sheeple are either too dumb or too obedient to scrutinize further) -- yep, we've got at least one Democratic candidate who is going after the bottom of the bell curve.

[Resistance Is Futile]

149. He's also leading in the polls

Pandering to the idiots works.

Case closed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

150. "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the American people"

Was it H.L. Mencken who said? Seems to be true of the Democratic Party as well this primary season... we'll know by the convention I guess...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. Right

nt

[Meliorist]

153. What's your alternative?

I'm hoping that I can say a few things here; while I wouldn't call myself a Democrat, it would be far more difficult to call myself a Republican; I have some libertarian leanings, but many differences with them as well; so maybe I should state some things that make up my worldview, and let you decide if I can post here, on this subject.

I am 51 years old; I marched for civil rights in the '60's, and got a busted head and a faceful of mace for my efforts. I marched against the draft; I organized the first student's rights organization in my school at the age of 15; I was a member of the Parking Meter chapter of the Yippies; I was also a White Panther member. I lived in a commune for a while, in the early '70's; I have been involved in alternative energy source research since the late '70's. I have studied economics and history to both great breadth and depth; I've read Adam Smith, Marx, von Mises, and Galbraith; in short, I am a person interested in creating a future that holds a promise for all people to live in a world that is more peaceful, cleaner, offers more equitable opportunities for every person, regardless or race, creed, color, religion, or national origin; I believe that your private life is your business, not anyone else's; and I don't believe in corporate welfare, or the fiction that a corporate entity can hold individual rights.

I want to deal with realities, not fantasies. I want changes in our polity to be made that will offer some potential chance of improving the lot of all people, and not favor any group, whatever their declared virtues, or lack thereof.

I favor drug legalization; a woman's (and a man's) right to control their own body; personal privacy; a rational solution to the health care situation (though I haven't a clue about what that may be); and I insist on a basic respect for the individual.

Regarding intelligence, I am in the upper .1 of 1% in terms of IQ; I don't mistake that potential for any personal superiority over others, save in certain specialized areas of problem solving.

I hope this makes my personal views somewhat clear; if anyone cares to question them, I'm quite receptive to any discussion on them.

Now, to the point of this post; I have read this thread in its entirety, and have found statements that ranged from laughable ( the original post) to profound; unfortunately, the bulk of them fall into the category of "Those who don't agree with me are simply either misinformed, uninformed, or incapable of sentient thought." Quite childish, in fact; if you didn't agree with me, you're just a cootie breath and a poopie head.

In what way does this indicate any faith in democracy? What specific Democratic ideal does this attitude support? How do you resolve the stated ideal of representing the people against the forces that would deny them their basic human rights with such utter contempt and disdain for those self-same individuals?

And even more to the point, just what alternatives do you actually offer? Many of you claim to be progressives; many claim to be concerned with truth and justice in the world; but the vast majority of the ideas I see espoused here are simple retreads of old, hackneyed, provably failed policies of times past.

Is there no hope for any original ideas; ones that can address the obvious problems present in the world, and not resort to the failures that most of the "solutions" presented herein have proven to be?

The failure to conceive of new ways to solve our problems is at the root of the disdain and contempt that the mass of the citizenry hold the Democrats-and the Republicans-in today. They bought that horse once, and failed to check it's teeth; they won't be fooled again. The would rather go with someone like Ahnuld who at least makes them feel good about themselves than a hack like Davis who has proven his contempt for them; and when they hear or read people like many of you stating that they aren't competent to make decisions in their own lives, what really surprises you when they they won't support you to make those decisions for them.

I am not satisfied with Bush; while I can find sufficient reason to support the Iraq invasion, on pragmatic grounds, I am quite disgusted with the crony capitalism that has become evident. I find that he has few answers that make good sense on domestic policy; yet I hear no better ideas emerging from the Democrats. And this deeply concerns me.

I consider it a very bad thing that there is no credible opposition to the Rep's; and I find the current crop of Dem candidates almost laughably contemptible in their lack of new ideas. If this is the best they can offer, then we're stuck with Bush for another four years, and, frankly, four more years of the party of Ashcroft concerns me deeply. Ashcroft has almost as much contempt for the Bill of Rights as Reno did; and that strikes fear in me for this country.

So, what do you offer to get my vote? More of the same old tired ideas? Or can you offer me something that brings hope? That's what needs to be done if the Democratic Party is not to become a relic of the past; dumped into the trashbin of history.

I sincerely hope for some civil and insightful replies to this post. I have a great deal of respect for those who, like yourselves, obviously care about the problems that exist. At the same time, your contempt for those who don't agree with your solutions, and your apparent inability to respond in any other fashion than to denigrate them, does not bode well for any potential solutions to arise from within your ranks. A general failure to examine and reasses the reasons for the disrespect that the "common people" hold many of your ideas and politicians in does not indicate that there is a high possibility for renewal of the Democratic party.

Idealistic rigidity is a guarantee of eventual tyranny; as is an inability to posess and hold to firm principles. Resolve that tension in your party, and you stand a good chance for future success. Fail to do so, and become one with the dinosaurs.

[Jon Thompson]

184. My god.

We need more people like you. Everyone does. I have no answers to your questions, but I do want to pick your brain on a few points.

1. Do you think one of the major problems in this country is the two party system, the yes-no, black-white, right-wrong, right-left reality we live in? Do you think that that helps to sap support from credible third options, and do you think that is the major problem with our country?

2. As an alternative energy guy, do you think that permanent nuclear storage facilities, shooting the waste to the moon with a magnetic cannon, or recycling it by enriching the depleted stuff so we can use it again instead of just dumping it, any or all of the above, do you think that could make nuclear a credible alternative to current energy sources?

[Meliorist]

193. Brain Picking

Since you are the only person who has seen fit to even comment in any way on my questions, I feel obliged to reply to your questions.

1. In short, yes. I have long felt that we were long ago sold a bill of goods; that being the assumption that we either have a choice between "the left" (socialists, communists, progressives, Democrats, or however you wish to define them) and "the right" (conservatives, fascists, religious fundamentalists, Republicans, or however you wish to define them). Presenting such a complete dichotomy to the voter, while ignoring the fact that the only thing driving the vast majority of people who are actively engaged in seeking electoral positions is the lust for power, encumbered only by the bare minimum level of pretensions to any principle needed to appear electable.

What must be understood is that the only thing driving most politicians is the need for power, and whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. The left/right definition is only used to manipulate the voter; if you look at the actual record, neither "side" has, in reality, much to distinguish between them; neither is responsive in any significant way to the concerns of the general populace; both are utterly beholding to those who have financed their campaigns; and none of them is anything less than perfectly willing to do whatever will insure that they attain, and retain, power. Lying, manipulating, character assasination, cheating-these are the everyday tools of everyday political figures; it makes no difference whether you apply these to Bush, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich, Kerry, Schwarzenegger, Cheney, Powell, or whomever you wish to-it is how they have behaved in their determination to assuage their lust for power.

Since we are rarely presented with any potential candidates who have not been long term seekers of power, when a Schwarzenegger, or Clark, or Powell, who have not been obvious seekers of power, comes along, we are engaged by their very appearance of being disconnected from the "machine politics" that we normally are faced with-and the chance to elect them becomes quite attractive. Note that in Clark's case, in particular, he has made many statements that evidence his willingness to become part of whichever party will give him the chance to attain power; in this we see the true face of the seeker of power. If there is any real difference between these apparent outsiders and the rest of the power-seeker class, I have failed utterly to discern it; and this is at the heart of our dilemma.

Is the two-party system the problem? Yes, and no. There are certainly worse answers; single party and proportional representation come immediately to mind. Party politics, in general, regardless of number or kind, are at the root of the problem; but people seem to be drawn to tribal structures-and, let's not kid ourselves, these are just modern tribes-and there seems to be no way of negating that fact without utterly violating some basic human rights.

I would far prefer that we were able to choose from a smorgasboard of principles, and nominate and elect our officeholders based upon their promises to represent those while in office; coupled with strict term limits; draconian punishments for corruption; transparency for sources of campaign financing; five year prohibitions against returning to private employment, coupled with matching stipends to compensate for loss of income, and, again, draconian punishment for accepting money or favors for personal enrichment from individuals or groups seeking to influence legislation, regulation, or enforcement of either; and possibly a few other additional checks and balances to protect against the powerseeker mentality, we could regain the citizen's control over the actions of the government that should be our birthright.

2. Under the current laws governing the generation of power by nuclear means, it is not cost efficient to do so; regulation must be changed before it will become cost efficient-currently, government effectively controls the design of those powerplants, and does not allow for innovations such as either the pebble-bed or CANDU designs, let alone some safer, more efficient design that may become available in the future. In addition, one of the trade-offs that the nuclear industry has willingly accepted is that regulation in return of an assumption of liability by the government; liability should be a matter for private insurers, who have long demonstrated that they will far more effectively make certain that all neccessary steps will be taken to avoid potential litigation costs, in order to preserve their own profits.

Regarding the wastes, I prefer the glassification and storage scenario; we aren't capable of seeing into the future and knowing whether or not those remains of fission power generation may be valuable and needed in future technologies; so dumping it into space or the sun is not an option I would want to see. Remember, 100 years ago, petroleum producers were burning off the gasoline fractions of their refinery products; they found no use for them.

Thanks for your interest in these questions; I'm somewhat surprised that no one else has seen fit to comment upon or propose any answers to my questions. I don't know whether that is because they either don't care to, or are incapable of, or are intimidated by them. I had hoped for better than that, from people who are self-proclaimedly "smarter than the rest of us".

[Meliorist]

199. No alternatives here, just the SOS

Jon, in all liklihood, this will be my last post on this site, for reasons I will make clear.

After having spent a good portion of my life working for change in our society, I, like many other people, have become dissatisfied with the choices presented to us by our political establishment. When I became aware of this site, I decided to check it out, in the (vain) hope that there was something going on here that would present a possibility of more attractive options to the "same old, same old" remedies offered by that establishment.

Tough luck for me. After thoroughly reading this, and many other threads on this site, all I have found-with a few exceptions, such as yourself-are smug, self-satisfied and self-appointed "intellectuals" who have never bothered to actually examine the failures of the "same old" prescriptions they avow will work, if we just give them another chance. Doing the same thing, over and over, despite the fact that it fails every time, is one of the clinical definitions of insanity; it is well in evidence here. If most of the posters here have ever bothered to read anything but information sources that support only their own prejudices, it would simply stun me; they evidence no knowledge of anything but their own preconceptions, yet they are quite comfortable damning most of the populace for not agreeing with them, seeing them as "sheeple", as fit only for being ruled by their self-proclaimed "betters".

Yeah, right. They are nothing less than elitists, wallowing in the same mud and dung encrusted sty that elitists have always wallowed in; they are modern Marie Antoinettes, thinking that the masses are simply unaware of the fact that, when you are out of bread, why, you simply eat cake. Did it ever cross their minds that, since the governments of the past century, and every one of those in the present century, that have followed in the path they suggest has ended up in tyranny, terror, economic failure, and, in most cases, genocide? Have they never read history, beyond the bland and bowderlized pap that passes for such in our schools today? Are they so filed with hate for those who cannot understand their clinging to corrupt and failed policies that have ever been ineffectual in actually changing people's lives for the better, policies and doctrines that have always engendered more human misery than existed prior to their enactment, that they have to denounce them as their intellectual inferiors, and portray them as so ignorant that they don't even deserve the basic respect due to all humans?

It is a sad commentary on the state of alternative political thought that a site such as this, which portrays itself as being in opposition to the establishment, is in reality a slave to its tired, worn out ideologies, incapable of conceiving that real alternatives that would actually change society genuinely for the better may exist outside of their highly limited "received knowledge". That they assume the role of being oh-so-well informed, when in reality they convey nothing but ignorance and refusal to look at the hard realities facing all of us is not surprising; it is common among all of the doomed classes of the past, from the aristocracy in Europe, to the Chinese mandarins, to the Soviets of Russia-every one of them also proclaimed loudly their intellectual superiority to the masses; every one of them ended in that proverbial "trash-bin of history".

So will the people here, if they cling to the failed rhetoric, the failed politics, the failed crusades that they espouse. The people here are not ignorant; or so they proclaim. Yet they consistently fail to say anything new, to think anything new, and, as a favorite song of mine says "He not busy being born is busy dying."

No one here has even attempted to address my questions; I can think of only three reasons for that:
1. They don't think that it's worth their time.
2. They are incapable of doing so.
3. They are frightened to do so.

Maybe you, or someone else, can refute these three possibilities, but I frankly doubt it.

I wish you well; but if you really seek change, I'm quite certain that you'll not find any source for it here.

These people have so little intellectual capacity that they remind me of the story of the minnow who bragged of his ancestry from the great sharks-everyone knew he was lying, but no one would point it out, since that was all he had in the way of a claim to stature.

Swim on, all you minnows.

[Deja Q]

154. Worse, the average American ddn't understand the hypocrisy of Arnold's sex

scandal.

Americans are not only stupid, they're fickle! There were 138 candidates and they all chose Arnold because he's good at singing and dancing. He's an ENTERTAINER. He knows zilch about the system. But I digress, the election of Arnold shows something fundamentally wrong about the American people too. Am I attacking them? Damn straight I am!

We do need to pander to the masses and be prepared for a repuke attack.

Won't happen though.

[gulliver]

155. Caveat emptor

Americans have been deceived. True, they could have been more vigilant.

But now they are starting to see through the "nice salesmen" of the Bush Administration. It's all downhill from there.

As Bush said, "Fool me once. Shame on...er.shame... uh ... can't get fooled again."

[Jon Thompson]

156. This is not only stupid, it is pathetic.

You people are the most ludicrous, pathetic piles I've ever had the pleasure of communicating with. Good lord. Democrats and Republicans win or lose based off of how well their candidates look, smile, talk, and act. Children enjoy being talked to as if they were adults, and guess what, SO DO ADULTS. If either party stopped lying right to the faces of the American people, they'd be voted in as long as they weren't completely retarded or nuts. Don't lie about this, Gore was talking down to the American people during his campaign, just like Bush, and actually, if you dips could see with your heads lodged inside your own nether regions, you'd realize that Gore won the popular vote, so your theory that he lost because he wasn't popular because he was too smart is, umm, oh yeah, CRAP. The next president will win based off of how well he can smile, talk, and act, and what he looks like. But if any of the democratic candidates you love were to actually get their message out, instead of just hiding their intent in double-talk and character attacks against Bush or his administration, or bland statements about being pro-America or something equally meaningless, they'd have even better chances to win. My personal feeling is that Bush will lose, because he presided over a bad economy and the war on terror that is going poorly, even if that isn't his fault. Also, I think it is disgusting that so many liberals and Democrats didn't care that Clinton was accused of rape, but Arnie was accused of groping women. It is pathetic and partisan. And, you can see that the American people are basically non-partisan by the fact that in both cases, they didn't care. The ideas came before the people. That seems like decent evidence that people in America are, on average, smarter than the liberals on this page.

[Merlin]

159. Ahhh Haaa Haaa Haaa! That's Hilarious!

My personal feeling is that Bush will lose, because he presided over a bad economy and the war on terror that is going poorly, even if that isn't his fault.

Like, what are you smokin', dude?

[Jon Thompson]

163. Me?

Nothing, my point wasn't that it wasn't his fault, only that he'd lose, whether it was his fault or not.

[Jon Thompson]

157. This is just intellectual wanking.

All the people who are supporting this pile should realize that the most likely reason you support it and so many other people on this site support it is that the message is, "You are smart, that's why you don't have all the power." It is just disgusting. I'm hardly surprised that most of you support this. It paints all Democrats and Liberals, in this case, especially the readers of DU, as smart, wonderful, caring, perfect people whom society slaps down, because the peons are afraid of them, and in this case, you. The sad thing is that there are so many people like this out there, who don't care about policies or real politics, that it is essentially useless to actually try and find out the truth about a candidate or policy, because they fill the airwaves, on both sides, with too much crap to cut through to the facts or underlying logic. We'll never have real leaders, willing to make tough decisions which are for the good of America and the world, in this country as long as people are this petty and silly. Which means, we will never have real leaders. Thanks, in small part, to janekat.

[Merlin]

158. Oh, yeah. You're right. People are so godam well informed and smart, too.

And we are such clods not to see the obvious facts that we are the ones who are uninformed.

The mere fact that most people on this board can actually locate Iraq on a fucking map, can tell you approximately how many troops are there, can tell you the size of the budget deficits (surpluses) for the past 5 years, can name all of the Dem candidates for President, understand about the social security challenge we are about to face in this country, can tell you how many people are unemployed, have a clear idea about what happened in the build-up to the Iraq business, and understand that your post is little more that glib, arrogant claptrap demonstrates clearly that we are such dim bulbs we don't belong on the same planet as bright lights like you.

You, after all, have all the answers and are much closer to the really, really smart voters out there who understood that Ahnuld's character was falsely besmirched and that Clinton was oh, so fairly treated. You are much better informed than we liberals who only actually read newspapers and news articles and follow events and could have told you before it started--and actually did--what the outcome would be--and is--in Iraq, for example. We are such dweebs. We are not worthy!

[Jon Thompson]

164. If you weren't wrong, you'd be right.

If I really thought most of the people on this board could actually do that, I'd think you'd be correct. I don't though, considering the original argument that started this thread as my only argument. I don't have answers, hell, I don't even have all the questions. I just think the original post was stupid as hell. And, if you actually read my post, you'd see that my point was that many democrats changed sides about sex-scandals in terms of public-office holders, and the voters didn't. They supported Clinton before the scandal, and after, they supported Arnie before, and after. I also note simply that you make a ton of assumptions about my points without any knowledge, and go right to character and personal attacks (that many liberals and dems said were the sole property of those silly, fringe Repugnantcans, when Clinton was president), and you assume that I was pro-war, or that the American people actually thought the war was about terror or would be easy. And frankly, if they did, I do believe it would have been for the simple reason that the democrats failed to get their point across (remember that thing I talked about, real leadership, talking to the American people as adults?). I'm, again, not surprised by the form of your reply, considering what you believe. Sad to say, I did expect this kind of reprisal.

[Merlin]

176. You were right to "expect this kind of reprisal." Your post deserved it.

Aw, gee, you're frightfully upset at my reply that goes "right to character and personal attacks," but are utterly oblivious to your insolent, blanket smearing of liberals in your earlier post. Perhaps you have been reading too much David and Rush.

Now you claim you weren't really attacking Dems, but you were... ah... what, exactly were you doing then?

Hmmm... Let's see. The entire Iraq fiasco is not any fault of the neocons, the bushies, the right wing media... Noooooooo. Oh, gosh no! It's all because:

"democrats failed to get their point across"

Well, we know you're not really gunning for Dems and liberals. You just accidentally come off that way.

[Jon Thompson]

185. What?

I really wasn't blanket smearing the dems or libs. I'd like you to point out where I was, either you are reading into my statements beliefs I don't hold, or I made a mistake typing. I don't read David or Rush. In fact, I'm not sure who David is in this case. And, I said that people, if they really believed that terrorism and Saddam were linked, which I doubt, but, whatever, if they believed that, it was because democrats failed to get their point across. I don't think it would have stopped Iraq or anything, and I don't blame dems, in fact, that was Bush's fault, and I never said otherwise. The most I said was, even assuming it wasn't his fault, he'll get booted in '04. I note, again, that you are reading into my statements things I didn't say or even imply.

[Jon Thompson]

165. Oh yes.

And let's not forget that several people on this board have mentioned Gore, and said he was too smart to win the majority, or did not....which shows, possibly, that some people on this board -don't- read newspapers.

[Merlin]

179. Oh, no!

Omigosh! You're quite sure there are "several people on this board" who think Gore "was too smart to win the majority"? Would that be a majority of popular votes? Or a majority of electoral votes? Or could it be that you don't --ah-- read posts all that well?

[Jon Thompson]

186. Sorry man.

Original poster for this thread, said, and I quote:
"look at what happened to Gore. He was "too smart" according to most 'Mericuns. "

This implies that most Americans voted against Gore, which is completely false in point of fact. What a surprise that the best ammo against this thread comes from the original poster.

[JCMach1]

160. It's MEME warfare

and we need to win the war...

http://adbusters.org/home/

[blkgrl]

161. I hate to say this but you're right on some counts

I was horrified to find out that most of the people I know don't even know who the Vice President is. I know they're not stupid, but its more like a combination of disinterest, lack of time, and misinformation. What I do though, is bring bits and pieces of information to their attention every now and then and a few people I know are catching on/getting more involved.

[A_Tra]

162. No

wonder we're not winning elections.

[TheGipper]

188. I love this dialog

Janekat is the perfect spokesperson for THE PARTY...along with
her sympathizers and the Dean lovers.

This is the kind of message that needs to get out so people
vote for us: 
Bush is a liar 
you're too dumb to vote so stay home
I'm in the 20% intelligent crowd so you must let me do the
thinking for you.

Oh my...this is wonderful. The last time I heard the 'smarter
of us in the party should do the thinking for you' bit was
before the wall came down.

Vote what you really feel....Vote your heart....VOTE FOR
HOWARD DEAN!
and wreck our party for good.

You want to really make a difference...vote for Sharpton and
send a message to the leadership of our party that we're not
gonna take it!

[Jon Thompson]

194. Not this little black duck.

I'm voting for Joe! He's my favorite so far, and he seems the most honest, open and intelligent....but, admittedly, the pickings are a bit slim this year.

[PATRICK]

190. one of several posts

that remind me of two things. Clinton's little summit with Gingrich when the toadstool honestly gloated what they would do to Clinton and why: "Because we can."

That cost them the election simply because Clinton woke up enough to get close to their level(Morris and several very ugly policy decisions). What startled me is how clueless or trapped in higher(humane) priorities the Democrats and decent people are. While, after knowing their popular support and dedication to the majority best interests was nil, the GOP and the hard right chose to wholeheartedly pursue victory by other means. Clinton barely had a clue. His political presumptions appeared vastly naive.

The trap of decent priorities? The idea that vote turnout overcomes all pesky disadvantages(BBV, Media, Money) in the "long run". That good service will be recognized andf those hobbling it will be blamed? Inability to fathom the extreme depth of what they see among their GOP confreres?

The second was the anthrax controversy. Just like the victims of Florida 200 and 9/11, the scripted sideral obfuscations that pass for universal opinion prevailed. Our top union and postal management moved to solidarity in a cloud of presumption and ignorance never relieved by any hard looks at the WH or the facts. 100% of the time was committed to unity and damage control, clueless about facts removed to the tinfoil hat black territory, such as who did it and how bad the response was. You'd never lknow it happened except as a ceremonial tragedy such as a hurricane of earthquake. The Homeland Security sham presided over by ready made suckers and victimes whose job does not include doing the work of the DOJ or WH who are somewhat more than MIA and distorting the events in their favor while we memorialize the victimization.

Firemen, policemen, postal wortkers, soldiers, airplane passengers all have been sidetracked neatly into going on as before, a good chunk within the WH spin(their world myth only internally shaken a bit), and the seething truth or focus away from the surface.Our response has been to find efficient ways to care for and bury the next victims of goofy WH policy.

I think the politicians who make a life's career out of myth and compromises and fellowship of tweedeledum and tweedledee competition are similarly prioriitized away from the dark core- until some shock reveals SOME aspect(one only) that gets some response- much much less than the horror warrants.

After the theft of the elections, the manipulation of terror that should never have happened, the looting and control of the nation, the illusion has swollen and hollowed out simultaneously. We look dumber and dumber(to the entire world) with each passing incident as the juggernaut of the Right lumbers on insanely, but united and focussed in ways so irrational and wicked that the Big Lie is not only preferable but SEEMS more rational and comforting than the sun rising at dawn.

How to react at the "awakening" is something few here can blueprint for the seasoned smart pols we look to for help. This is an opinion war always at the borders while the central assault on America rolls on mercilessly. During Vietnam from outside the country looking in sometimes the atmosphere ofparanoia and discontent could be cut with a knife. Inside, a large chunk of denial and sidestepping kept people in step with the choreography of the dark.

With the Internet we have communication to pierce the miasma and an alternative obviously most people are not graced with since our bludgeoning of the media failure is still only another sidetracked borderland battle. The rest of the nation, following Judas goats and con men descends again into tragedy, or at least the incomplete defeat of the real enemies of the nation.

[Philosophy]

192. We should just prefix everything we say with "God told me..."

That makes gullible people pay careful attention, yet it trumps all criticism. Seems to work great for *.

[farmboxer]

196. Sheep In Amerika!

Run by the fascists!

[lapauvre]

198. I am more than apologetic.

Having spent much time on Pol Chat, I, unfortunately, have to agree with you.

But most Americans do not look up history (recent or ancient), nor do they look up references. Democrats probably do more often than republicans. As a book written by who knows who, thousands of years ago, is tried and tried again to have some significance on today's dilemmas.

It is unfortunate, but here we are. Explore more, explain more, and express more.

Thank you.