Posted on 09/15/2015 12:09:46 PM PDT by Steelfish
Now Is No Time to Be Voting for President Based on Emotion
by Thomas Sowell September 15, 2015 In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one — Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after six years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor. No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Mr. Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. The fact that the next two biggest vote-getters in the polls are also complete outsiders — Dr. Ben Carson and Ms. Carly Fiorina — reinforces the idea that this is a protest. It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters.
But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions? No national leader ever aroused more fervent emotions than Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. Watch some old newsreels of German crowds delirious with joy at the sight of him. The only things at all comparable in more recent times were the ecstatic crowds that greeted Barack Obama when he burst upon the political scene in 2008. Elections, however, have far more lasting, and far more serious — or even grim — consequences than emotional venting.
The actual track record of crowd-pleasers, whether Juan Peron in Argentina, Obama in America, or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing. The media seem to think that participation in elections is a big deal. But turnout often approaches 100 percent in countries so torn by bitter polarization that everyone is scared to death of what will happen if the other side wins.
But times and places with low voter turnout are often times and places when there are no such fears aroused by having an opposing party win. Despite many people who urge us all to vote, as a civic duty, the purpose of elections is not participation. The purpose is to select individuals for offices, including president of the United States. Whoever has that office has our lives, the lives of our loved ones and the fate of the entire nation in his or her hands.
An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on Election Day is stay home. Otherwise your vote, based on whims or emotions, is playing Russian roulette with the fate of this nation.
All the hoopla over Donald Trump is distracting attention from a large field of other candidates, some of whom have outstanding track records as governors, where they demonstrated courage, character, and intelligence. Others have rhetorical skills like Trump or a serious mastery of issues, unlike Trump.
Even if Trump himself does not end up as the Republican nominee for the presidency, he will have done a major disservice to both his party and the country if his grandstanding has cost us a chance to explore in depth others who may include someone far better prepared for the complex challenges of this juncture in history.
After the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, we are entering an era when people alive at this moment may live to see a day when American cities are left in radioactive ruins. We need all the wisdom, courage and dedication in the next president — and his or her successors — to save us and our children from such a catastrophe. Rhetoric and showmanship will certainly not save us. Donald Trump is not the only obstacle to finding leaders of such character.
The ultimate danger lies in the voting public themselves. All too many signs point to an electorate including many people who are grossly uninformed or, worse yet, misinformed. The very fact that the voting age was lowered to 18 shows the triumph of the vision of elections as participatory rituals, rather than times for fateful choices.
If anything, the age might have been raised to 30, since today millions of people in their 20s have never even had the responsibility of being self-supporting, to give them some sense of reality. We can only hope that the months still remaining before the first primary elections next year will allow voters to get over their emotional responses and concentrate on the life-and-death implications of choosing the next president of the United States.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
And you’re right - Trump didn’t say that universal health care works elsewhere “up until” the debate. He said that AT the debate:
“As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland.”
So, I’ll ask again. Do you agree with Donald Trump that single-payer universal healthcare “works incredibly well” elsewhere? Or was Trump wrong?
I wouldn’t call them “specifics,” they are more akin to general objectives.
What is it about, “it won’t work here,” that is so hard to grasp? If Trump wanted to push single payer onto the US it would be an issue. Since he stated he does not, your death grip on the subject betrays the bankruptcy of your anti-Trump arsenal.
Oh yes, at every stump speech he made, Trump touted single payer—right up to the debate.
Actually you and Erickson probably believe that is true. There is no limit on what the Trump haters will believe.
The point is that Trump has stated (and recently) that it works well elsewhere. That is flat out wrong, and, worse, it shows Trump’s ignorance on the issue.
You do know that not every Trump opponent is. GOPe stooge like Erickson, right? Just sayin’
Oh no! Trump thinks single payer works elsewhere—BUT THAT IT WON’T WORK IN THE US! We’re doomed!
People vote with their wallets. For Swell to say otherwise is his ignorance.
If you say so, Goldwater conservative.
Part of the process of vetting a Presidential candidate is not just understanding the candidate’s specific positions on specific issues, but understanding how the candidate thinks, both about specific issues and generally.
Here, Trump has made two statements - first, that single payer health care works elsewhere, and second, that it wouldn’t work here. The first statement is dead wrong. The second is logically inconsistent, and reflects a poor understanding of health care economics. Considering that Trump has spoken at length about repealing Obamacare, and has discussed replacing it with his own plan, I think vetting Trump’s understanding of health care is important.
If you are using “Goldwater conservative” as some sort of an insult, then you might be on the wrong forum, guy.
The bottom line is that Trump doesn’t want single payer for the U.S.
Why would you consider it an insult?
Don’t worry. He’ll hire some smart people so that he knows what he needs to when he needs to. LOL
Probably some guys with yarmulkas.
What do yarmulkas have to do with it?
The bottom line is that Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to health care.
If Trump wanted single payer for the US, I would agree with you.
Do some research. That’s who he said he likes to manage his money.
So it follows he’d have the same people advise him on healthcare?
Ok.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.