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.
people have reached a point and that transcends party lines - If I recall, Reagans amnesty wasn't all that popular either...Its a hot issue and this guy is mashing the button. Time for soft spoken & polite is over, it got us nowhere....
Would you vote a Trump/Cruz or a Trump/Carson?
>> And 1775 probably wasn’t the best time to ditch the Brits either. Should have been other less deadly options. But there wasn’t, and there’s not.
That’s a good point.
The first step is in properly identifying the real problem.
If the real problem is to maintain the status quo of a nation that is more-or-less functioning properly, then Trump may not be the best candidate.
But today the real problem is fixing a deeply entrenched totally dysfunctional uni-party government before the nation self-destructs. Now is the only acceptable time, and Trump may be the only real choice.
I know people are not that stupid, are they?
If you listen to him, he tells you, awe you haven’t been listening have you? You just gave yourself away.....LMAO
Last two times weren’t either
“we now we’re hearing of a GOPe Third Party threat. ( Bill Kristol )”
I don’t think anyone here felt bound by his `pledge’ to support the eventual GOP candidate—after the GOP steals it for whomever their choice may be, Yeb prolly.
But this should convince any of you, and Trump that matter, to vote for whomever you please, in that a real deal works both ways:
Mutuality of Obligation
The legal principle that provides that unless both parties to a contract are bound to perform, neither party is bound.
Based on logic rather than emotion, the republican leadership has given me no reason to vote for someone they want. I see Cruz as a great member of congress (lawmaker) but have doubts about him as President (manager of the executive branch) He doesn’t have experience at that size organization though he may be great. And I prefer to have his ideology in congress making laws rather than than unconstitutionally forcing his ideology on the country like Obama or avoiding it.
The republicans need to give me a logical reason to vote for them if they don’t want me to vote on emotion.
Also from a logic point of view I see Trump as having accomplished quit a bit. He has led large organizations (not US government sized but larger and more diverse than anyone else). Worked with friends (partners), and non-friends (suppliers, competitors, governments). He has the skills I’m looking for - able to run a large organization and accomplish goals. I think he understands the constitution and will leave law making to congress while he manages the executive branch. He also has the skills to tell congress what he needs to run the government effectively and to get differing groups to come to agreements (can help congress in doing their job rather than trying to usurp their power as Obama has done)
I’ll admit my support of Trump is driven by emotion. But I can make a logical argument for him and the republicans haven’t given me a logical argument for anyone else (and don’t tell me it’s because Trump gets all the attention).
I may have read the article too quick but I don’t see any logical argument for someone else. It’s mostly a general argument to “give others a chance” and sometimes emotional argument against Trump.
If an anti-Trump argument is to be made, tell me
1) What do you think the job of the president is? Specific tasks and corresponding skills.
2) Where does Trump fail at that job
3) Who has a better overall history at the necessary skills
There’s a good chance we disagree on step 1 and the next 2 don’t matter. I want an executive, not a lawmaker (that’s for congress even though Obama set a different precedent). But if we agree on 1, the next 2 should be easy to discuss for anyone who wants to argue against Trump. And don’t say “some of whom” and “others”. Who specifically has all of the skills?
I agree with someone else who said this is one of the rare times I disagree with Sowell, but I think he completely failed to make his argument to me in this case.
Thank you.
I was about to go through the list point-by-point, but honestly I’m sick of it.
At this point, if a FReeper doesn’t know the answers, then they can do their own freaking research. It doesn’t matter if you spoon-feed these people. They simply refuse to swallow.
Adults would look into these questions for themselves.
Sowell likes Walker. He is human and has reduced himself to fighting with cheap shots. Too bad.
Say hi to Erik Erickson for me.
The emotional responses of freepers to Sowell asking for thoughtful deliberation shows the effort over. We are all low information voters now.
He didnt push a candidate, just said use your head and not your testosterone for a fight back.
The Germans wanted to just fight back at the sobs that signed Versailles out from under them, like a bad oranian treaty, gay marriage, obamacare.
Trump is no killer outside the womb of course, but look for specific details not feel good put downs. Keep looking for them to see if he provides. He cant give them all in a speech but his website ought be able to employ a gutsy intern or two to put them out there at three per day!
I have listened to and/or read all or most of Trump’s major speeches, and many of his interviews. I’ve also scoured his website, Twitter account, and other sources of info re: his proposals.
If you think he’s laid out concrete proposals on many (much less all) of the slogans you listed, much less proposals that would work together (and by that, I mean that he is proposing boatloads of new spending, plus massive tax cuts), then might I suggest that you, Queen of the Cult of Trump, are the one who is not paying attention?
Oh look, it’s a Trump supporter responding to policy criticism with personal attacks.
::yawn::
I doubt Sowell is a !Yeb! fan.
Seems more a Cruz-thinking man’s conservative type.
I do agree Trump is saying the right things, and I agree with him, but there is no substance. It’s all just grand banalities, and people will catch on and Trump will fade.
I disagree, however, that Trump hurt us. He focused the race on immigration, which is a huge issue.
The elites wish to import a pseudo-slave class of people. They teach them in Spanish so they will not be able to assimilate and will remain second class citizens for generations -— there to mow the elites’ lawns, wash their clothes, and pick up their trash.
One person dominates the news, one dominates the column inches, one who understands advertising viscerally, one who knows what will resonate with the target audience.
Unfortunately, that does not translate to understanding Conservatism that way.
Populist candidates have notoriously bad track records, and while I enjoy the show, I seriously hope people are carefully considering the issues.
So you won’t say hi to Erik Erickson for me?
How about we set emotion aside and vote for the survival of the country? That means a wall, for starters.
Just a few years ago, we watched a major "separating the wheat from the chaff", when the non-establishment VP candidate Sarah Palin entered the national arena.
What's happening now is just another round. I like Sarah much more than I'll ever like Trump, but Trump has the money needed to fight the establishment, and the number one objective is ...
... the establishment pukes must be destroyed.
Oh I do, unlike you...you just got caught, but that’s ok, you don’t have to like Trump, we forgive you....
But Trump IS going to be our next President....
He doesn't have to do any of those things.
All he has to do is make them unemployable and they'll deport themselves.
conservatives will just let the democrats get people to vote with emotion and we’ll stick with a prim proper wonk like romney again and sit quietly and applaud on cue
that always works so well
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.