House of Eratosthenes

Wisconsin Crying Man Mike seems to believe it is dead & done, whenever his fellow Wisconsinites participate in an election and a majority of them vote for something he doesn’t like? That would tend to indicate “democracy” is…um…well…Mike getting his way, contrary to the wishes of a majority of his peers. Funny, I thought that was something else.

But E.J. Dionne (hat tip to Terri) evidently is on Boo Hoo Mike’s side on this thing. “It’s called democracy,” says Dionne, finishing strong after going three garrulous and creepy paragraphs, describing in intricate detail how our elections are to be run to Dionne’s liking.

…so here is a modest proposal: A small group of billionaires, aided perhaps by a few super-millionaires, should form an alliance to offset the spending of the other billionaires and super-millionaires. They might call themselves Billionaires Against Billionaire Politics. These public-spirited citizens would announce that they will match every penny raised by the various super PACs on the other side.

In principle, they could commit themselves to balancing off whichever side — conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat — is dominating the airwaves and the fundraising. The idea would be to destroy the incentives for the very rich to buy the election. If shrewd wealthy people realized that every $10 million they put up would be met immediately by $10 million from the other side, they might lose interest in the exercise.

As a practical matter, it’s conservative dollars that need to be offset, so this balancing act would likely be financed by non-conservatives. George Soros, Warren Buffett and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg come to mind. But there may be other, less high-profile wealthy folks who want to do their patriotic bit. The hope is that this would be a one-shot deal. After one nuclear winter of an election, rich partisans could agree to mutual disarmament.

“Should form…might call…would announce…could commit…the idea would be…would likely be financed by.” Reminds me of that sock-puppet group-identity “person” who was on here, insisting over and over again, “best estimates are 3.5 to 5.0 C increase” in the global temperature over the next century. Things got weird when I started to focus on what exactly that word “best” meant, in that context; did it really mean “most likely”? Or something else?

Progressives have a strange relationship with the time stream, just as they have a strange relationship with that word “democracy.” Just as they seem to define “democracy” as “everyone does everything my way, whether they want to or not” — they speak of future events as if they have occurred in the past. More specifically, they speak of them as if it is entirely responsible & safe to forget all about probability.

And the idea of a bunch of billionaires gathered around a big table, led by the erstwhile George Soros, as if re-enacting the famous Thunderball scene, cracks me up. Especially the part where “Number One Soros” announces his displeasure and uncertainty about whether the group is headed in the right direction or not, and the time has come for a quick conference call to E.J. Dionne to make sure they’re doing everything the right way.

My goodness…proggies do so love to hand out these commands about what other people should do with their money. And their votes. And they’re always absolutely certain about what is going to happen — occasionally, in very impressive detail. The question naturally emerges: Is Dionne predicting what is going to happen, or simply communicating his wishes? I am absolutely certain that if I were to critique and attack his rambling missive based on one of those premises, he or his apologists would insist that he really meant the other (and I’m an overly simplistic dolt for not immediately recognizing it). If you read his words carefully, you’ll see he describes both wish (“the hope is that this would be a one-shot deal”) and likelihood (“it’s highly unlikely that any of this will happen before November, so…”). So which of those two purposes emerges as the primary one? I don’t think E.J. himself knows. He’s just indulging a lazy midsummer fantasy. Hey, if you could make a living at it, you’d do it too!

The more I learn about the left-wing set, the more I think there is a part of the brain missing, damaged, or under-developed. Think about it: What is your reaction when you hear someone say “Hold it, let’s settle this democratically and put it to a vote”? What is the first thought in your head? Normal people hear that and think “Oh great…I’m gonna get screwed here.” Second thought, more sober and more sluggish: “Well, I should trust in the judgment of my peers if we’re going to be living in proximity to each other, and if my position is correct, I should be able to present it in a compelling way.” But your first thought is: Darn it, I’ve taken the time to figure out the right answer, I know it’s right…why are we opening it up to a decent chance that the wrong answer might carry the day, just to make everyone feel like they’re participating, when they might not even care. In sum: Normal people with fully working brains, see “democracy” as what it really is. It’s an exchange. We’re all going to give up a lot of control, now, so that later on we can say “right or wrong, this was the decision of those who took the time to participate.” It does not make the final outcome more correct, or even more virtuous, nor is it supposed to. It solves no problem at all, other than the complaints that might properly be aired, later on, that so-and-so was not consulted.

In fact, democracy is like money that way. Somewhere I read a quote from someone about money: If you happen to receive a whole lot of it, whatever problems you have that are money-related, will be helped, and whatever other problems you have, won’t. Seems so simple — why even bother to say such a thing? Later on, when I had some personal experience with this, I got a whole new perspective. That’s what it takes, you have to live it yourself to see what’s really being said here. Well, democracy is like that. Whatever problems you have that are related to resentments about this person or that person not having a say, will be addressed, and all the other problems will not be. All this is self-evident to those of us who see democracy as what it really is; those of us who are not brain damaged.

On the left, people are missing that. Maybe they’re conditioned to bypass that circuit altogether — or, they’re accustomed to this word “democracy” referring to something other than what it really is supposed to mean. They never seem to think anybody, who counts for anything or has a bearing on the outcome, will ever disagree with them. Perhaps they have a plan in place to make sure of it…putting the deceased on the registration rolls, stuffing ballot boxes, et al.

They want things put to a vote, but it is contrary to their way of living & perceiving life, ever to be prepared to lose.

to offset the spending of the other billionaires and super-millionaires

Oh great googly moogly, what a crock of shit.

The left had ZERO problem when Obama broke his pledge to stick to public financing… and then outspent McCain three to one…. taking in — and spending — the most money ever in the history of American politics in the process. One suspects that a search of Mr. Dionne’s archives would find a conspicuous silence on that little switcheroo.

Liberals only care about the baleful influence of money in politics when that money is a) Republican, and b) effective. I’ve never heard a liberal suggesting that a Dem politician should return George Soros’s checks.

They want things put to a vote, but it is contrary to their way of living & perceiving life, ever to be prepared to lose.

Sadly, this makes perfect sense within the Us Smart, You Dumb Manichaeism of the contemporary left — they’re so obviously correct, intellectually and morally, that any fair vote is bound to turn out their way….

…. and if it doesn’t, we’ll blame it on the awful influence of money in politics.
- Severian | 06/14/2012 @ 07:54
sorry, I screwed up my ital tags (again!).
- Severian | 06/14/2012 @ 07:55
House of Eratosthenes: Reminds me of that sock-puppet group-identity “person” who was on here, insisting over and over again, “best estimates are 3.5 to 5.0 C increase” in the global temperature over the next century. Things got weird when I started to focus on what exactly that word “best” meant, in that context; did it really mean “most likely”? Or something else?

This is a bit off-topic, but most estimates put the probability of serious global warming over the next century at well over 90% (largely dependent on human responses). For instance, from MIT,
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

House of Eratosthenes: Wisconsin Crying Man Mike seems to believe it is dead & done, whenever his fellow Wisconsinites participate in an election and a majority of them vote for something he doesn’t like? That would tend to indicate “democracy” is…um…well…Mike getting his way, contrary to the wishes of a majority of his peers. Funny, I thought that was something else.

To argue the point, it is possible for a democracy to vote its own end, in this case, presumably by restricting the right of unions, while enabling corporations. But in this case, it’s hardly the end of democracy. It does shift the power somewhat, but a new balance will emerge.

House of Eratosthenes: They want things put to a vote, but it is contrary to their way of living & perceiving life, ever to be prepared to lose.

That’s true of people on both sides of the political spectrum. Keep in mind that much of the right considers Obama to be a foreign, atheist, Muslim and radical Christian; a usurper.

House of Eratosthenes: {Democracy is} an exchange. We’re all going to give up a lot of control, now, so that later on we can say “right or wrong, this was the decision of those who took the time to participate.” It does not make the final outcome more correct, or even more virtuous, nor is it supposed to. It solves no problem at all, other than the complaints that might properly be aired, later on, that so-and-so was not consulted.

Well said.
- Zachriel | 06/14/2012 @ 11:02
The right considers Obama to be a foreigner, atheist, Muslim etc. because there is some reason in fact to believe those things. He spent part of his early days in a foreign country and that has affected him. He also, as a result of that and exposure to his Muslim relatives, holds a more favorable viewpoint of Islam than many Americans do. We suspect he is an atheist because he does not publicly display any Christian behavior. He spent 20 years attending Reverend Wright’s church. Do you consider it to be mainstream?

Americans expect certain behavior from their Presidents. We expect them to be “one of us” even though most of them are rich and have a far different lifestyle that us. We expect them to be good enough politicians to make us believe that they care about how the laws and programs they put into place will affect our lives. We expect them to listen to us. And I think most Americans expect that there are going to be people that will disagree with them politically. They just don’t think that those who disagree should be put to death or prevented from voting or expressing their point of view. The Left wants to purge all those who disagree. Witness Cory Booker who is now “dead to us”.
- teripittman | 06/14/2012 @ 12:14
This is a bit off-topic, but most estimates put the probability of serious global warming over the next century at well over 90% (largely dependent on human responses). For instance, from MIT…

…whose ‘scientists’ have a vested interest in a certain outcome, such as receiving additional government funding to ‘study’ the problem of man-caused global warming, as well as their reputation among the rest of the scientific community. As with evolution, it puts a great deal of pressure on individual scientists and teams to reach a certain outcome. But we’ve been through all of that, haven’t we? About 400 times, in fact.

The only mystery to me is why you’re still here, or why you think you’re going to convince any reader of this blog….of anything. Morgan’s got you pegged. My suspicion is that you’re either on someone’s payroll or are doing this as some sort of weird experiment in human psychology.
- cylarz | 06/14/2012 @ 18:49

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

DemocracyThursday, June 14th, 2012

Democracy
Thursday, June 14th, 2012