Posted on 10/02/2014 7:20:58 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
For several years now we have heard much of the plague of “low information voters” — those legions of the supposedly ignorant who walk, clueless on the issues, into our polling places, casting their votes for candidates the details of whose programs are as familiar to them as quantum mechanics.
But we may have a more significant problem. There are a number of people who are at least somewhat cognizant of quantum mechanics to whom the details of the issues of the day are just as unfamiliar — the modern liberal intelligentsia. I’m not talking about the punditocracy here, the Thomas Friedmans of the world, who are certainly aware of the issues (well, more or less) even if they evaluate them in peculiar ways. I’m talking about the workaday liberal, the well-educated professionals who are our friends, relatives and neighbors. They are, increasingly, low information voters, living in willful or perhaps willed blindness.
In a recent months I have been startled by many examples of this. In a casual conversation, an Ivy League graduate and author of several best-selling books asked me what I meant by “quantitative easing,” although it has been one of the keys to the economic policies of the last half-dozen years. Since the man is highly intelligent, my conclusion was he didn’t want to know about such details because they would lead to him having to examine long-held assumptions, assumptions it would be uncomfortable to question for a whole set of reasons. Remember, these are people who voted for Obama, twice, and now are just becoming aware that many of us consider him the worst president ever and have pretty good reasons. And the public is beginning to agree with us. This is hard to process.
Oops, I forgot to click the “Excerpt” button.
Which is worse? Voters who are just dumb or true believers who actually think that Socialism is worth a try?
It’s not that they don’t have access to the same information, it’s that they actively refuse to pursue it.
The #1 driving motivation of a LIV sheeperal is to feel good about himself for his beliefs and advocacy.
When information is available that undermines the “goodness” of his beliefs and advocacy, he will not even look at it and deny that it exists.
There are 2 kinds of liberals: slavemasters and sheep.
There are two kinds of liberal sheep: those who dream of being slavemasters themselves some day and those who love being a liberal sheep and consider it the most exquisite existence in the world.
Most liberals are sheep and love being led and told how to think. Most liberals “feel good” by doing so. Liberal sheep are ignorant and very selfish and self-centered. They cannot see the big picture. Everything for liberals is based on emotion rather than logic. They are permanently indoctrinated in “stupid”.
Whenever I encounter a "super intelligent" liberal, I ask him a series of really simple questions like, "Who's the Prime Minister of England?" You would not believe how many "genius" liberal Americans can not answer that simple question.
Another one - "Can you name five Supreme Court justices?" Bzzzt. They almost never can (but they always name Clarence Thomas for some reason - and they hate him because he's so stupid).
I hadn't tried asking about quantitative easing yet. No liberal I know is going to know that. Or the Kelo decision. They damn sure know the name of that little spawn Chelsea just squirted out. And they know if the Fleetwood Mac tour is coming to town. And they know the sexuality of each contestant on Dancing with the Stars.
But on anything important, they know what Jon Stewart tells them.
I have a cousin who is just like this. When presented with information from someone he knows who lost his insurance due to Obamacare, he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) process it.
One thing that would be amusing if it didn’t cause so much real harm is that leftists claim they are scientific in their world view but they never once consider the efficacy of their policies. The War on Poverty, not only didn’t reduce poverty but actually increased poverty. The War on Drugs created unimaginable wealth for the cartels and didn’t stop drug abuse. Roe v Wade did not result in abortion becoming rare, legal and safe. Instead, it has become common, life-threatening and fraught with criminals like Gosnell.
One would think that even the desire to appear rational, leftists would pay lip-service to efficacy and examine their policies. Reagan and JFK’s tax policies have been shown to work. John Lott’s analysis of the advantages of an armed populace have been documented and subject to peer review. Those things work but people who advocate them are called extremists. Leftist policies fail but it doesn’t matter how big a failure they are, they are still trotted out and given another go.
Because “affordable health care” or “universal health care” to him
is not about whether it actually works to make it “affordable” or “universal” or “available to all”,
it’s about how it makes him feel about himself (self-righteousness) for supporting “universal, affordable health care for all”.
Any evidence or information that says what he’s advocating isn’t actually helping people is a direct attack on his righteousness.
This is a longstanding problem and is due, at least in part, to a politicized media that habitually frames issues around democrat talking points. Try talking to a liberal about Social Security, for example, and the superiority of a fully funded system. Talk about ROI and opportunity costs. Even though they have their own money in 401(k)s, they will have extreme difficulty connecting the dots. On health care, they will never have heard of the conservative critique and think we want poor people to simply do without. The list could be extended. They live in a media environment that systematically excludes non-left points of view.
I call them "Pretzel People", because they have to twist themselves into impossible positions in order to avoid acknowledging the hypocrisy of their beliefs.
Posted this on the wrong thread somehow:
There is a universal knowledge in humankind of what “ought to be” and how you “ought to behave” and also a universal understanding that you fail to meet that standard and that there will be a judgment for it.
From this visceral understanding comes the need to “do something” to “get right”.
For some, it’s works.
For most leftists, it’s advocacy.
When you present evidence that their advocacy is actually harmful, or at the minimum, not helpful,
you are destroying their only perceived way of “getting right”.
That’s why they deny it.
Excellent article.
Look for the black vote to take a real down turn in 2016....a lot of first and last time voters there if the candidate isn’t black.
Obama is one of those low information voters Rush keeps talking about. He never knows about anything until he reads it in the paper or hears about it on the tv.
You’re right in saying that liberals love being led. Like children, they’re frightened of the Big Bad World and all its formless boogeymen, so they crave a guardian — a parent, if you will — to watch over them and keep their perpetual childhood safe. They are perfectly willing to give up their freedom (and yours) if only Daddy will make the monsters go away.
They are examples of arrested development writ large.
They are perfectly willing to give up their freedom (and yours) if only Daddy will make the monsters go away.
That’s probably the biggest reason to detest them. They are very selfish and don’t care how they adversely affect other people. They can’t see past their self serving, narrow emotions and train of thought.
Progressives/liberals’ minds are truly diseased.
Look for the black vote to take a real down turn in 2016....a lot of first and last time voters there if the candidate isn’t black.
Excellent point.
Conservative blacks will naturally get out and vote because they are logical and can see the big picture. They are not sheep.
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.