Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Rational Ignorance & Limited Government?

"They say an informed electorate is a bulwark of democracy. How are we doing on that score? Well, a colleague of the talk show host Howard Stern traveled up to Harlem to canvas some folks about their choice for President. It is not surprising that most said they supported Obama. Statistics I’ve seen predict that Obama will get somewhere north of 95 percent of the black vote. But why? Judging from the responses of the men and women in Harlem, it doesn’t have a lot do with his policies. Stern’s colleague took several of McCain’s policies–staying the course in Iraq, being pro-life, setting limits to stem-cell research, even choosing Sarah Palin as his VP–and attributed them to Obama. No problem! As one respondent put, it’s very important to stay in Iraq and finish the job: he was really with Obama on that. He was with him, too, on being pro-life!

Question: “And if he [Obama] wins, would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice-President?”

Answer: “No I wouldn’t. Not at all.”"
I guess this supports the idea of rational ignorance, eh? Doesn't it also argue in favor of the proposition that the best government is a LIMITED GOVERNMENT?


Tim Canon said...

The fickle nature of any populace (especially those that glean their opinions and information from whatever Bill O'Reilly or Larry King tell them) disturbs the idealistic notions of democracy and brings it crashing back down to reality. It is NOT a perfect form of government at all, and lends itself to predatory practices in a subtle but very sinister way: The changing winds of the populace, if harnessed properly, can allow government to take for itself power it probably shouldn't have.

Like Paulson? I mean, I recognize the fact that most economists agree this is serious, but still, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN THAT MAN (HIS ENTIRE DEPARTMENT, FOR THAT MATTER) MANAGE 700 billion OF FINANCIAL MANEUVERING?

Doesn't matter, because most of the populace doesn't care THAT much. Maybe a little, but nothing to make them lose sleep.

All that said, I still think democracy in some form is the best form of government in existence. It must be carefully limited, but with the slow encroachment of even the United States government on its people, I wonder if perpetual limitation on government is even possible...

Austin Frindt said...

It's hard to debate with Obama supporters, because one ALMOST has to resort to name calling. You can't reason with these people because if they had any sense of reason, they would see right through Obama and his "policies."

So obviously they don't care about issues so how can you help them see the error of their ways if not through reason? What can you do but stop just short of calling them names?

This post illustrates this point. This cult of personality surrounding Obama makes me weep for this nation of people who have their eyes closed.