Santorum: "Smart people" don't vote Republican

[Zanas]

The average American would calculate that what was virtuous for a family, living within its means, would be virtuous for a nation, balancing the budget.

And the average American would be wrong, because a household's budget and a nation's budget doesn't even begin to work the same way.
At all.

[BigSkyBob]

The average American would calculate that what was virtuous for a family, living within its means, would be virtuous for a nation, balancing the budget.

And the average American would be wrong, because a household's budget and a nation's budget doesn't even begin to work the same way.
At all.

It is precisely that thinking that has resulted in a 16 trillion dollar debt. Again, I would rather he governed by folks randomly picked from the phone book than academics who believe what you just wrote.

[Spanish Moss]

1) they hold middle-America in contempt;

I'm against holding any human in contempt - but I see why they have a low opinion of these people.  With 50% of America believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and these same people largely unable to locate the countries we're invading on a map - it's mostly "middle-America" where these people come from.  So anyone who is educated is kind of apt to not have a high view of the intellect (or lack thereof) of middle-America.

So, you are saying academia's contempt for middle-America is justified. Middle-America simply doesn't see it that way. Middle-America simply isn't going to internalize academia's contempt towards them. What Middle-America does is fund academia. At some point, they are going to say, "Enough is enough!"

Well, I'd mellow out on the whole "contempt" thing, but to acknowledge that middle America is the most ignorant, delusional section of the first world (meaning, per capita) is, in my eyes, justifiable.  And I don't mean that with some kind of hatred, it's observational.

[BigSkyBob]

1) they hold middle-America in contempt;

I'm against holding any human in contempt - but I see why they have a low opinion of these people.  With 50% of America believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and these same people largely unable to locate the countries we're invading on a map - it's mostly "middle-America" where these people come from.  So anyone who is educated is kind of apt to not have a high view of the intellect (or lack thereof) of middle-America.

So, you are saying academia's contempt for middle-America is justified. Middle-America simply doesn't see it that way. Middle-America simply isn't going to internalize academia's contempt towards them. What Middle-America does is fund academia. At some point, they are going to say, "Enough is enough!"

Well, I'd mellow out on the whole "contempt" thing, but to acknowledge that middle America is the most ignorant, delusional section of the first world (meaning, per capita) is, in my eyes, justifiable.  And I don't mean that with some kind of hatred, it's observational.

Alternately, you are wrong, and the contempt you are showing towards middle-America ["Ignorant, delusional"] belies your ignorance of the virtues of middle-Americans.

[Indy Texas]

It's just more anti-intellectualism.

No, it is actually more of a rejection of the anti-middle-American biases common in academia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reality is that Rick Santorum is right. Middle America ought to hold those folks in contempt because 1) they hold middle-America in contempt; and 2) they are wrong way more often than they are right. Bill Buckley was right to note that he would rather be governed by the first 100 persons in the phone book rather than the faculty of Harvard. Academia brought us Keynes and a 16 trillion dollar debt. The average American would calculate that what was virtuous for a family, living within its means, would be virtuous for a nation, balancing the budget.

G.K. Chesterton said that he would not want to be ruled by foreigners because it would mean being annoyed in a hundred ways he could not begin to enumerate. Academia is as alien to middle-America as any foreign government.

If "middle-America" was that virtuous, it would have been a lot harder to have the credit bubble and bust that we did recently.

[Spanish Moss]

1) they hold middle-America in contempt;

I'm against holding any human in contempt - but I see why they have a low opinion of these people.  With 50% of America believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and these same people largely unable to locate the countries we're invading on a map - it's mostly "middle-America" where these people come from.  So anyone who is educated is kind of apt to not have a high view of the intellect (or lack thereof) of middle-America.

So, you are saying academia's contempt for middle-America is justified. Middle-America simply doesn't see it that way. Middle-America simply isn't going to internalize academia's contempt towards them. What Middle-America does is fund academia. At some point, they are going to say, "Enough is enough!"

Well, I'd mellow out on the whole "contempt" thing, but to acknowledge that middle America is the most ignorant, delusional section of the first world (meaning, per capita) is, in my eyes, justifiable.  And I don't mean that with some kind of hatred, it's observational.

Alternately, you are wrong, and the contempt you are showing towards middle-America ["Ignorant, delusional"] belies your ignorance of the virtues of middle-Americans.

I'm sorry, but any group of people who has a dispraportionately high number of people thinking the world is less than 10,000 years old is - by definition - ignorant and delusional.  50% of Americans believe this, and the majority of them aren't coming from California, NY, etc.  I don't hate them, I just truly believe they're ignorant and delusional.  I don't even mean that condescendingly, I just see that as being the factual case.

[BigSkyBob]

1) they hold middle-America in contempt;

I'm against holding any human in contempt - but I see why they have a low opinion of these people.  With 50% of America believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and these same people largely unable to locate the countries we're invading on a map - it's mostly "middle-America" where these people come from.  So anyone who is educated is kind of apt to not have a high view of the intellect (or lack thereof) of middle-America.

So, you are saying academia's contempt for middle-America is justified. Middle-America simply doesn't see it that way. Middle-America simply isn't going to internalize academia's contempt towards them. What Middle-America does is fund academia. At some point, they are going to say, "Enough is enough!"

Well, I'd mellow out on the whole "contempt" thing, but to acknowledge that middle America is the most ignorant, delusional section of the first world (meaning, per capita) is, in my eyes, justifiable.  And I don't mean that with some kind of hatred, it's observational.

Alternately, you are wrong, and the contempt you are showing towards middle-America ["Ignorant, delusional"] belies your ignorance of the virtues of middle-Americans.

I'm sorry, but any group of people who has a dispraportionately high number of people thinking the world is less than 10,000 years old is - by definition - ignorant and delusional.  50% of Americans believe this, and the majority of them aren't coming from California, NY, etc.  I don't hate them, I just truly believe they're ignorant and delusional.  I don't even mean that condescendingly, I just see that as being the factual case.

I understand you think your contempt is justified. I profoundly disagree with you. The question is whether, or not, you are right. You aren't. Even among the folks whom, as you put it, think the world is less than 10,000 years old, and, are, therefore "ignorant" and "delusional," there are decent, and hard working people. While you have every right to think they are wrong as a matter of fact, but, to assert that they are wrong as human beings is simply beyond the pale.

[Spanish Moss]

I understand you think your contempt is justified. I profoundly disagree with you. The question is whether, or not, you are right. You aren't. Even among the folks whom, as you put it, think the world is less than 10,000 years old, and, are, therefore "ignorant" and "delusional," there are decent, and hard working people. While you have every right to think they are wrong as a matter of fact, but, to assert that they are wrong as human beings is simply beyond the pale.

I very honestly do not have contempt for these individuals, it's more of a "I'm just statin', not hatin'" kind of thing.  I've interacted with people who fall in this category, and some of them are wonderful people - this doesn't reflect on who they are as people.  A person can be ignorant with a delusional perception of the world and still be a hard working, very decent person.  I never asserted they are "wrong as human beings," I don't believe they are.  They're just living under this false reality of what the world really is, and clearly are uneducated in terms of science and history.  That's all I'm saying.

I'm not even claiming to be better than them, it could be the case with many of them they are far better human beings than I am - that's entirely unrelated.  I'm discussing their relation to how they perceive the world around them, not who they are as people, and I don't mean to do it with condescension or judgment - just observation.

[BigSkyBob]

I understand you think your contempt is justified. I profoundly disagree with you. The question is whether, or not, you are right. You aren't. Even among the folks whom, as you put it, think the world is less than 10,000 years old, and, are, therefore "ignorant" and "delusional," there are decent, and hard working people. While you have every right to think they are wrong as a matter of fact, but, to assert that they are wrong as human beings is simply beyond the pale.

I very honestly do not have contempt for these individuals,

The fact that you refer to people as "ignorant" and "delusion" indicates you do have a contemptuous attitude towards some folks. You might very well sincerely believe that you are justified in labeling people "ignorant" and "delusional" but you are not. There are people among those whom believe that the world is about four thousand years old who have graduated from college, scored highly on IQ tests, etc. By most reasonable standards such people aren't characterized as "ignorant." But, you have created a single-issue litmus test. Calling people "delusional" is a gross abuse of psychology.

[Spanish Moss]

I understand you think your contempt is justified. I profoundly disagree with you. The question is whether, or not, you are right. You aren't. Even among the folks whom, as you put it, think the world is less than 10,000 years old, and, are, therefore "ignorant" and "delusional," there are decent, and hard working people. While you have every right to think they are wrong as a matter of fact, but, to assert that they are wrong as human beings is simply beyond the pale.

I very honestly do not have contempt for these individuals,

The fact that you refer to people as "ignorant" and "delusion" indicates you do have a contemptuous attitude towards some folks. You might very well sincerely believe that you are justified in labeling people "ignorant" and "delusional" but you are not. There are people among those whom believe that the world is about four thousand years old who have graduated from college, scored highly on IQ tests, etc. By most reasonable standards such people aren't characterized as "ignorant." But, you have created a single-issue litmus test. Calling people "delusional" is a gross abuse of psychology.

"Ignorant" just means absolutely not a critical thinker and buys into what they're told while not having an understanding of reality, "delusional" meaning perceiving reality in a wholly inaccurate way.  Given those definitions, my statements are purely observational.  I won't use a term like "idiot" or "moron," those are words that are intended to imply superiority.  I don't want to imply that, and considering I have, I clearly should have expressed what I meant in a different way.

[Spanish Moss]

I'll say this - I'd like to apologize, my wording clearly misrepresented my point, and the language I used I can totally see as condescending.  So I'll re-word it this way:

Most of these individuals seem, to me, to lack what I would consider adequate critical thinking skills, and have a perception of the way things are that is rather inaccurate - and this is dangerous in a democracy.  And none of this reflects on them as human beings.

I don't want to make anyone feel judged, or as if I perceive myself to be superior - because that's not how I feel.  I'll just be more careful with the language I use to express ideas to make sure it comes across accurately.  Sorry.

[BigSkyBob]

I understand you think your contempt is justified. I profoundly disagree with you. The question is whether, or not, you are right. You aren't. Even among the folks whom, as you put it, think the world is less than 10,000 years old, and, are, therefore "ignorant" and "delusional," there are decent, and hard working people. While you have every right to think they are wrong as a matter of fact, but, to assert that they are wrong as human beings is simply beyond the pale.

I very honestly do not have contempt for these individuals,

The fact that you refer to people as "ignorant" and "delusion" indicates you do have a contemptuous attitude towards some folks. You might very well sincerely believe that you are justified in labeling people "ignorant" and "delusional" but you are not. There are people among those whom believe that the world is about four thousand years old who have graduated from college, scored highly on IQ tests, etc. By most reasonable standards such people aren't characterized as "ignorant." But, you have created a single-issue litmus test. Calling people "delusional" is a gross abuse of psychology.

"Ignorant" just means absolutely not a critical thinker and buys into what they're told while not having an understanding of reality,

No, that is not the definition of "ignorant."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, that is not the definition of "delusional."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Ignorant and delusion" has more of a punch than, "Not a critical thinker that buys into what they are told while not having an understanding of reality that is wholly accurate." Equating choosing to join, and believe, certain religions groups with "buying into what they are told" is merely your anti-religious prejudice. Sir Issac Newton believe in alchemy. His understanding of reality was not wholly accurate. Are you suggesting he was "ignorant" and "delusional?"

Whether you are merely being "observational," or whether you are starting with your prejudices, and working backwards to justify your contempt is the question.

[BigSkyBob]

I'll say this - I'd like to apologize, my wording clearly misrepresented my point, and the language I used I can totally see as condescending.  So I'll re-word it this way:

Most of these individuals seem, to me, to lack what I would consider adequate critical thinking skills, and have a perception of the way things are that is rather inaccurate - and this is dangerous in a democracy.  And none of this reflects on them as human beings.

I don't want to make anyone feel judged, or as if I perceive myself to be superior - because that's not how I feel.  I'll just be more careful with the language I use to express ideas to make sure it comes across accurately.  Sorry.

Isn't it a tad bit hypocritical to first denounce others as "dangerous in a democracy" and lacking "adequate critical thinking skills," and, then, claim you as a rightful voter and critical thinker aren't their "superior?"

I would suggest it is highly dangerous to question other people's right to vote based on what to you "seems" to be the case, nor, is it particularly polite to even raise the question without a higher level of confidence.

[Spanish Moss]

I'll say this - I'd like to apologize, my wording clearly misrepresented my point, and the language I used I can totally see as condescending.  So I'll re-word it this way:

Most of these individuals seem, to me, to lack what I would consider adequate critical thinking skills, and have a perception of the way things are that is rather inaccurate - and this is dangerous in a democracy.  And none of this reflects on them as human beings.

I don't want to make anyone feel judged, or as if I perceive myself to be superior - because that's not how I feel.  I'll just be more careful with the language I use to express ideas to make sure it comes across accurately.  Sorry.

Isn't it a tad bit hypocritical to first denounce others as "dangerous in a democracy" and lacking "adequate critical thinking skills," and, then, claim you as a rightful voter and critical thinker aren't their "superior?"

I would suggest it is highly dangerous to question other people's right to vote based on what to you "seems" to be the case, nor, is it particularly polite to even raise the question without a higher level of confidence.

I'm not questioning their right to vote, I believe they should still maintain that.  You're inferring things that I'm not saying.  Do I believe it is dangerous to democracy to have 50% of the population believe the world is 5k - 10k years old when the evidence is beyond overwhelming that this isn't the case?  Yes, and there's no way around it.  These individuals have no evidence for their claims, and reject all the evidence showing that they're wrong.  Therefore, their critical thinking skills are very low.  Anyone who can deny that much evidence and believe in something with zero evidence is, in my opinion, dangerous when it comes to evaluating decisions such as voting.  There's really no way around that.  Does it make me better than them?  No.  But when I say "the universe is billions of years old," I'm right and they're wrong - this is based on absolutely overwhelming evidence with no evidence otherwise.  The fact that they could deny something so factually concrete shows that they have little to no critical thinking skills.

It's not a matter of judgment, it's a matter of the clear reality of the matter.

[Spanish Moss]

That's really all I have to say, no matter how you reply, I'm fairly confident that this will go round and round forever if I don't stop.

[Badger]

Please don't stop yet guys! My popcorn is almost done!

[BigSkyBob]

I'll say this - I'd like to apologize, my wording clearly misrepresented my point, and the language I used I can totally see as condescending.  So I'll re-word it this way:

Most of these individuals seem, to me, to lack what I would consider adequate critical thinking skills, and have a perception of the way things are that is rather inaccurate - and this is dangerous in a democracy.  And none of this reflects on them as human beings.

I don't want to make anyone feel judged, or as if I perceive myself to be superior - because that's not how I feel.  I'll just be more careful with the language I use to express ideas to make sure it comes across accurately.  Sorry.

Isn't it a tad bit hypocritical to first denounce others as "dangerous in a democracy" and lacking "adequate critical thinking skills," and, then, claim you as a rightful voter and critical thinker aren't their "superior?"

I would suggest it is highly dangerous to question other people's right to vote based on what to you "seems" to be the case, nor, is it particularly polite to even raise the question without a higher level of confidence.

I'm not questioning their right to vote, ... their critical thinking skills are very low ... [such people are] dangerous when it comes to evaluating decisions such as voting." 

Squaring the circle is an easier task than reconciling those two statements.

[BigSkyBob]

That's really all I have to say, no matter how you reply, I'm fairly confident that this will go round and round forever if I don't stop.

I'll end it then with George Will's famous quote of the Marxist whom stated, "The fact that none of Marx's predictions have come true is proof of his farsightedness." The sort of dogmatism you cite is hardly just the province of certain religious folks. I have yet to meet a so-called "libertarian" who acknowledges the historical fact that racially restrictive covenants were the result of private contracts not state coercion.

I find it particularly odd that you would denounce dogmatism in such strident terms in a political site. If Obama were caught in bed with a dead girl, or a live boy, tommorrow, some of the folks here would a priori assert that the video and photographic proof was photoshopped.

[© tweed]

none of Marx's predictions have come true

this is so demonstrably untrue it hurts