Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Uneducated Voters

Of all the components to this primary that piss me off there is one golden, shining beacon of asinine idiocy that literally keeps me up at night because I'm too fucking pissed off to sleep.

You see, whenever Clinton's wins are analyzed the demographic tick-off is nigh-always "Whites, women, and those without a college education". When pundits start talking about the gas tax holiday proposed by McCain and Clinton pundits portray the sides as:
"It's the old "if it feels good, do it" (that Clinton and McCain have seen succeed for so long during times that pocketbook politics have dominated the debate) versus the intellectual argument Obama is trying to have (that usually is praised by, well, intellectuals but dismissed by rank-and-file voters who want their tax cut or gas prices cut)."
Moreover when you actually talk to experts you'll see that economists and people who know shit understand that the gas tax holiday is a terrible idea not only because it won't help the economy but also because, you know, the more gas we burn the sooner we'll all be dead.

And I'm trying to figure out why the fucking hell no one has stopped to point out that when the debate is between uneducated people and intellectuals there is no debate because FUCK UNEDUCATED PEOPLE. If the primary supporters of a given candidate or policy are uneducated does not that indicate some fundamental flaw in the candidate or policy given that, you know, stupid people like it?

Granted, if you look at the statistics you'll see that a lot of these "gaps" are not necessarily overwhelming. Obama has maybe a 10% lead over McCain with people who have post-graduate education. In PA Clinton's lead among people without college degrees was around 19 points. So if you have a college degree you can decide whether or not 10% or 19 points is significant.

But, really, oughtn't those uneducated people be removed from the process anyway?

I know that there is a level of discomfort which results from the notion that certain people oughtn't be allowed to participate in the process, that we cling to this bizarre, idiotic notion that everyone matters. But i'm not talking about racism or sexism or ageism or any of the other baseless forms of segregation based in rampant idiocy. I'm talking about idiocy itself. If we don't allow felons (people who have demonstrably shown that they are incapable of making decisions which behoove society) to vote then why the fuck would we allow uneducated people to vote?

Wouldn't it be sort of terrific if everyone who participated in the democratic process could read at a college level, were well versed in the Classics and familiar with thinkers such as Locke and Hobbes? Wouldn't it be delightful if everyone who voted based their decision on an objective assessment of a candidate's positions and soundness of their policies rather than the color of their skin, their genitals, or whatever other mud-fucking-stupid criteria uneducated dipshits utilize?

But if we aren't going to prohibit uneducated people from voting; if we're going to maintain this delusional, baseless notion that those people have valid concerns and respectable decision making abilities then can't we at least frame the conversation to be condescending towards them? Oughtn't we openly mock Clinton for maintaining positions supported by those without a college education? Oughtn't we rightly portray this preposterous gas tax holiday as an uneconomial, unenvironmental pander to the lowest common denominator? For fuck's sake can't we all agree to call a moron a moron and stop dignifying and respecting the positions of these dipshits?

Here's my proposal: The next time Clinton wins a state as a result of carrying the uneducated white dipshit vote? Instead of lauding her ability to appeal to the residents of Bumblefuck, Tacoma and skewing the spin to portray her positions as sensible, supported, and good let's rather embrace the nature of the win and summarize her victory in a manner truly befitting her supporters and policies:

"Hayuck!"

5 comments:

_J_ said...

Clinton's Morning Commute

Ya'll done appreciate the gesture? Shucks howdy! She's just like you!

Hayuck!

Unknown said...

I am at a loss after reading this rant. I am somewhat disgusted also. You mistake intelligence for formal education. A college education does not always result in an intelligent being, and the reverse is also true. A person does not require a college education to be intelligent or even learned.

These numbers are from polls of small groups of people who merely answered yes or no to a question as to whether they graduated from college, and you have the gall to assume to know them and their intentions by this yes/no answer?

I have a college education and couldn't tell you a god damn thing about he classics or locke or hobbes. My brother however doesn't (at this time yet), but I'm willing to bet that he has more working knowledge of philosophy and the classics than I.

The point to allowing ALL people to vote is such that ALL people can vote for someone they feel will properly represent them. The elitist view you hold would too easily result in a candidate who represents and therefore caters only to the people that can vote. Not everyone has at their disposal the means to go to college, some not even the desire.

Society is built not upon those endowed with higher education and wealth, but upon the backs of the uneducated masses who strive to eke out a living. Sure the wealthy and educated are remembered in history's books but the working backbone of society is the reason this could be. They too need representation, such that their lives too can get better.

*Note: If the uneducated masses were to put into office a candidate who does not have their best interests at heart, then it is their own grave they dig. Myself being middle to upper middle class will see little difference in the effects I will endure from a change in presidency, and so have little care as to who actually takes the seat.

_J_ said...

The problem I have is exemplified in this gas tax holiday crap. Shithead Sam the Drill Press Man loves the idea of paying less for gas because he doesn't make much money, he has a family of five to care for, and he has to drive to work every day. So if a politician says that they want to reduce the price of gas then Shithead Sam loves them.

The problem is that Shithead Sam the Drill Press Man can't fucking think past himself to assess the long-term effects of this gas tax holiday and recognize the actual implications such an action will have on their lives and the human species.

In a lot of ways the masses are not equipped to handle these issues; they are too busy doing other things. It's the Protestantism vs. Classic Catholicism debate. The Masses are fuck-all stupid and completely not equipped to interpret the Bible, which is why Catholicism makes more sense than Protestantism. But then the ruling elite start to act selfishly, as people do, and so etc.

So we have this system set up where everyone gets to help select the people in government. But then we fail due to pandering and gas tax holiday bullshit and "if we drill in ANWR you have to pay less for gas" bullshit and celebrate short-term victories but fuck ourselves over.

And my position is that it would be keen if everyone could look beyond short-term victories and appreciate that the decisions we make now have long-term consequences which influence everything. But we don't have that. We have dipshits who proudly proclaim "I don't know who Dick Cheney is!" and "I don't know whose running for president." and then vote because, well, they're dipshits.

I'm sick of stupid people doing stupid shit, voting for George W. Bush, and fucking things up for the rest of us. So if I have to come up with a system to prevent that at 11:00 a.m. on a Wednesday when my boss is not at work? I'm going with success in higher education as the standard by which we assess whether or not someone is a shithead.

And it's flawed and it's problematic but it also might very well remove all the fuckheads from the process who want to vote for Clinton so that they can save $50 at the pump this summer.

And that's not $50 per pump. That's $50 for the entire summer.

Unknown said...

I agree that voters should not legislate for themselves, and it would be truly amazing if they were to consider wisdom and intelligence as positive traits in their candidates, but alas it shall not be.

Frankly, I don't care who is in office, as long as lobbyists exist our government will never do what is best for the people, neither short nor long term. Our only chance for survival at this point in middle class and below is to find a way to outlaw lobbying. US elected officials should not be allowed to take a dime from outside sources, and by the same standard should be set for life (which they already are) so as to keep the desire at bay. I think then we would see a different kind of person running for office, the kind we saw when the offics meant something.

_J_ said...

The personal benefit component to a human being is really the most problematic one. If politicians were not concerned for their selves then they could probably, for example, declare who they support as super delegates rather than waiting to see which horse they can most advantageously hook their wagon to.

Then again, if people are not concerned for their own well-being and public image things can get pretty fucked up, as they are now.

I'm sleepy.