Orlando's picture

    Stuff I Want to Learn: Why Are Republicans So Dumb?

    No, seriously. I want to know why.

    They get six years of free reign during which they drive the country into a ditch. Not just any ditch, either--a snow-filled ditch with a pond of thin ice at the bottom, far, far away from the nearest gas station.

    Then, they start losing. So, instead of asking themselves why they are losing, they double down, and lose some more.

    Then, they finally begin to wonder why they are losing. But they stubbornly refuse to believe that people might not like their ideas. What they do know is that the Democrats used social networking technology to their benefit during the 2008 election cycle. So, they go all in for the Twitter. And, they notice that a message that seemed to resonate with voters was that Bush never listened to anyone else's ideas and just did whatever he wanted. People didn't like it. So, in their infinite stupidity, they've decided that if they can liken Obama and the Democrats to terrorists/Hitler/socialists/facists who don't care what the opposition thinks, people will vote for them again.

    But here's the rub: Bush actually didn't ever listen to any opposing points of view and he did run roughshod over the nation for eight years, stripping civil liberties, allowing corporations to raid the store, and giving the rest of the world a great big middle finger. And, Democrats did use social networking technology to successful effect during the 2008 election cycle, but it was because they used the technologies to disseminate their ideas. It's not the technology. It's what you do with it.

    Yelling the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I think my four-year-old nephew can grasp that concept. Actually, I'm pretty sure his two-year-old sister can as well. So why are Republicans using Twitter basically to do just that?

    In other words, why are they so dumb?



    Yelling the same thing over and over doesn't make it true

    Not according to the GOP.  I can't remember if it was Rove or Atwater that said if you repeat it enough times they'll believe it, and if a republican has learned nothing they have learn that.  It DID work for a while.  They are just slow on keeping up with now. 

    All reasonable Republicans are keeping their heads down.  The press LOVES reporting the stupid stuff.  They get the dems for the laugh factor and the republican base supporting the clowns.  Press wins all around, makes money and they are happy.  The clowns are happy because they are getting press time that they equate with popularity.  It'll keep happening until we get bored and that is going to take a while because the clowns just keep stooping lower and lower and we can't help but watch in stunned amazement.

    Still doesn't answer your question does it?  Sorry.

    I can't remember if it was Rove or Atwater that said if you repeat it enough times they'll believe it, and if a republican has learned nothing they have learn that.

    You're close. It was Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes truth"

    Funny, I've heard Republicans ask the same question about Democrats.  I understand that it is easy to look at certain Republicans and think they are dumby-dumbheads (Bush, Palin, etc.) but couldn't you look at certain Democrats (Biden, Blagovich etc.)?


    Don't get me wrong, I love petty name calling, but what really do you accomplish outside of satisfying your inner urge to point that you believe you are right and they are wrong and they think they are right and you are wrong?

    Blagojevich is definitely dumb. Biden, not so much. But have you listened to Mike Pence lately? Cantor? Boehner? These are the leaders of the Republican party and if they're not dumb, they're making a damn good show of it.

    Yes, I believe that I am right and they are wrong on many, many issues. But what I wouldn't give to hear something interesting or constructive coming out of one of their mouths. What I wouldn't give to have an actual honest debate about the issues facing us. Instead we get (as Stephen Colbert would say) twatted.

    It sucks.

    Biden is a dummy. He's a well meaning dummy, but he's a dummy. He revealed the secret bunker of the VP to the media! C'mon!

    Look at polling stats and it's obvious Rebublicans target the stupid and uneducated. Boot them out of power and the wealthy, stupid and uneducated migrate toward the ruling party, leaving only the poor, stupid and uneducated. As the party base shinks, stupidity and lack of education become marks of honor. A death spiral ensues.

    Wow...  I visit this blog from time to time just to get another point of view.  There was a time when I posted something to the effect of the fact that you guys seem to be very respectful in your critisism of those with differing, or even oposite, viewpoints from your own and I read your blogs becuase of that.  This post is rude and disrespectful...how can you point at a whole group of people and say their dumb, and futher more mean it.  I guess I'm just disappointed, I thought you guys were different.

    Thanks for your time.

    they're not their (sorry) maybe I've proven your point...we are dumb. :-)

    Sorry, Terri. I probably would have chosen a different title, had I not been having some serious anger issues when I wrote the piece. But I stand by my point, which is that the current leaders of the Republican party and the conservative radio hosts aren't doing anything other than jumping up and down, screaming stuff that isn't true, isn't backed up by any empirical evidence, and isn't even convincing. I want an opposition party. I want a truly constructive discussion about how to move forward on issues that are important to every single one of us (the economy, health care, education, security). What I get is Glenn Beck. And he just doesn't qualify in any way as intelligent. A girl's gotta have her standards. 

    "... had I not been having some serious anger issues when I wrote the piece."


    Just wow.

    So..... ummmmm.... O. What about those other two times?

    You know... day-time and night-time?

    "When I wrote the piece."

    Still laughing.

    You really want to mock my grief?

    Thanks for the response.  I understand your point.  I'm not so sure that Glenn Beck and some of the other dramatic Republicans really speak for the bulk of the party.  I think we all want the same thing that you said..."a truly constructive discussion about how to move forward on issues that are improtant to every single one of us."

    Terri, I would really like it if you helped to get that discussion started. Why don't you create an account and post under the "Reader Blogs" section on an issue that's important to you? What do you think about health care reform? Education? Climate change? Or anything, really.

    Just saw this thread -- and it occurred to me: isn't this exactly the point of Genghis' new book?  Once upon a history, I tried listening to Limbaugh, since my uncle in Georgia was a fan, and I wanted to understand that perspective -- and I found I couldn't handle the vitriol enough to stick around and find out if he was actually making sense underneath.  Every time people from different political viewpoints can hold a reasonable discussion about how things actually work, what's effective, what's important, why we value what we do, the crazies lose a little tiny smidgeon of momentum.

    Orlando is a mean-girl. Steer clear.

    Shut it, you.

    I find it so cute every time a Democrat claims that they belong to the “intellectual party”, I just want to pat them on their empty wittle head, if for no reason than to just hear the echo.

    Please verify these FACTS:


    1) General Social Surveys

    Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS–a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

    If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.


    2) Democrats & Republicans–Rhetoric & Reality

    The facts presented are the final nail in the coffin for any Democratic claim to the intellectual high ground.



    3) Now’s the part where somebody will bring up the red state-blue state IQ hoax. Please see the following link:




    The Republican Party is the party of the wealthy.
    Wealth is directly proportional to education.
    Therefore, the Republican Party is the party of the educated.

    Now shutup & wash my car.

    The difference is what we make of our education. My education, for example, led me to believe that it is better for society as a whole if more people are educated, if more people participate in the political process, if disposable income is more equitably distributed, are if race and class and culture and religion are not used as wedges to drive the uneducated portion of the population to fight with each other rather than to turn their attention to the educated portion, specifically where the educated portion thinks it's adorable to suggest that people exist to wash their cars.

    Actually, your incorrect use of those facts prove the point Orlando is making. If you look into the details, you'll notice a U-shaped curve with respect to education and tendency to vote Democratic. Those without a high-school degree are more likely to vote Democratic than those with a high-school degree. However, those with advanced degrees (Masters, Ph.D, Ed.D., etc.) are also more likely to vote Democratic than those without advanced degrees.

    So, if you get a little education, you become more likely to vote Republican, but as you learn even more, you find that the Republicans rely on you not knowing enough. You'll also witness this phenomenon on Fox News where they give you just enough information to make you think they're telling you the truth, but if you look further into the facts, what they've told you is often a gross misrepresentation of that truth. This is an example of that old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

    While the overwhelming majority of college professors belong to the Democractic party, this relatively small uber-educated group is not significant enough to overcome the enormous intellectual gap that exists between Republicans and Democrats.


    See Figure 59. Thanks for playing.


    I did leave out the undergrad part of the equation, so allow me to be more specific. Those without a high school diploma: more likely to vote Democratic. Those with only a high school or Bachelor's degree: more likely to vote Republican (as supported by the figure you provide). Those with an advanced degree (Masters, Ph.D., Ed.D., J.D., M.D., etc.): more likely to vote Democratic. It's not just professors, but anyone with enough intelligence and gumption to earn an advanced degree. As I said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    Atheist, it's time to raise the white flag. Figure 59 reflects that Republicans also hold the edge i post-graduate degrees.

    You are correct. Of course, that leaves the question of their methodology open. I'll refer you to the results from exit polls for the last several elections:


    You'll note that even though Obama swept all education levels, he barely beat out McCain for college graduates, and his strongest showings were, as usual, among those without a high school diploma and among those with advanced degrees.

    It seems the source you're relying on has a flawed methodology. I agree, however, that it's time for you to raise the white flag. :)


    So your data is correct & Anonymous, is wrong? Based on the sources, I'm going with Anonymous on this  one. GAME/SET/MATCH goes to Anonymous.

    First, I hope you recognized the smiley face as implying that there I was recognizing this wasn't clear cut. Secondly, assuming Anonymous's source is completely unbiased, there are serious methodology questions involved in how one identifies a "Republican". Much has been written on the topic. Of course, those without advanced degrees are unlikely to understand the nuances. ;) Finally, I strongly suspect you'd already made up your mind before reading anything Anonymous wrote. Both of us are influenced by those we come into contact with, and have a selective perception filter on top of that.

    In researching the methodology of the survey reported by the book, I found this:


    It discusses some of the short-comings of that survey (also note figure 3 that lays out education versus those voting for Obama). That said, although the author of the book itself clearly has an axe to grind, I believe that ANES (the authors of the NES results reported on by the book) are reasonably neutral/professional. Also, I'll readily point out the methodology problems in using exit surveys: they only capture people who vote. So, maybe there are a large number of Republicans with advanced degrees that just don't vote for some reason.

    Atheist, I'm very impressed that somebody with your passion researched and reported both sides of the story. That's rare and refreshing. You showed me yours, so I'll show you mine. I always support the party/candidate that the press despises. In '92, Bill Clinton was the media darling and I couldn't stomach him for the first 6 years of his Presidency. When the press completely turned on him during the Lewinsky debacle, I took another look. When it was revealed that Henry Hyde, the Republican from Illinois spear-heading the prosecution, had an affair in the early 60's, my view of Clinton did a 180. Hey Henry, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I started & continued to hold President Clinton in high regard. I felt the same way in '08 during the press' love affair with Obama. If the coverage of him continues to deteriorate, I'll reconsider my opinion of him, as well. Have a great labor day weekend and keep sharing your passionate and balanced views.

    Atheist & Anonymous, you've presented irrefutable proof that Republicans are indeed the intellectual party. I stumbled across this search & find it thoroughly entertaining that such a question would be posed, based on the numbers presented here. Thanks for providing closure to this ridiculous query.

    I think that the post by Anonymous  with respect to picking people to support based on how they are percieved by the American public as opposed to supporting someone because you believe in their vision could be the height of stupidity.  With this rationale - this person would vote for someone like Palin based on the fact that the media (and 99%) of the rational public would gang up on her and have field day if she ever ran for president.  There is no logic to this at all.  Just plain stupidity.  That is the problem with democracy - any idiot is allowed to vote.

    Stuey. It sounds like you're proposing that citizens should be required to pass a test before they are allowed to vote. If such a test were mandated, there would never another Democrat elected. The majority of their voting block is simply not bright enough to pass such a test. Anonymous' philosophy of voting against the press' candidate is nothing revolutionary. On the contrary, it's a trend. Viewership of the NBC, ABC & CBS evening news broadcasts is at an all time low. The cause of this ratings suicide is the lingering death of objective journalism. People are sick of the press telling them what to think. Anonymous' point apparently sailed over your empty little head. You have set the bar for the height of stupidity. Congratulations!!!

    It sounds like you're proposing that citizens should be required to pass a test before they are allowed to vote. If such a test were mandated, there would never another Democrat elected.  The majority of their voting block is simply not bright enough to pass such a test.

    Baloney.  Depends what would be on the test, of course.  But there are plenty of poorly informed voters affiliated with both major parties and who are independents.  Also, when you refer to Democrats' "voting block" do you mean to refer to the people you associate with the Democratic party's voting block (such as those living in poverty), or people who actually vote, and vote Democratic?

    It is true that Democrats who care about fighting poverty would like many more poor people to vote than do, believing more would vote Democratic than Republican.  And Republicans have opposed motor voter, same day registration and other initiatives meant to expand the number of people voting for the most part, believing the same.  There is a positive correlation between poverty and lower formal educational levels.  

    But your statement as asserted is loose and sloppy and quite possibly incorrect.  Perhaps only "bright" people should make comments on matters such as the one you chose to comment on.

    Including yourself with the "bright people" is being presumptuous.

    The results of the NES & GSS studies referenced in this blog establish the FACT that Republicans hold a significant edge in all statistical categories related to education. Obviously, the  hypothetical voter test I suggested in response to Stuart's observation that "any idiot can vote" will never happen. Theoretically, such a test would remove a large block of uneducated voters, of which the overwhelming majority tend to vote Democratic. I stand by my theory. If you meet any "bright" people, please tell them about this blog, so we can have some intelligent exchanges.

    Actually, this is not true. Voting and education follows a U-shaped curve: both the least educated (high-school drop outs) and the most educated (those with PhDs) are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate.  So, an easy voting test, such as one designed just to test basic literacy, would help the Republicans, but a more difficult voting test, such as one required to name a newspaper solve a Schroedinger wave equation would benefit Democrats. (Actually, I imagine even something as simple as applying de Morgan's Laws to real problems would suffice.)

    I hate to rain on your parade, but the NES survey referenced in Fig 59 above indicates that Republicans also hold a significant edge in graduate degrees (PhD's, etc). While the overwhelming majority of college professors do indeed vote Democratic, this relatively tiny group cannot overcome the edge held by Republican-voting professionals at this educational level. Your reference to bell curves and wave equations makes you sound somewhat intelligent, but there's no substance or hard evidence to support your cute little opinion.

    Atheist (I assume this is you). I have no doubt that you are in the 99th percentile and are probably a card-holding member of Mensa. No matter how many wave equations you make reference to, you alone cannot bring up the curve of your political affiliation. You sound like a fascinating individual & are undoubtedly a faculty member at some fortunate University. I would enroll in your class, no matter what the course description.

    (Reply posted at bottom of thread to assist with readability)

    If they're so dumb then why have we been getting our asses kicked for most of the last 30 years? 

    There's a quote from King Lear that's appropriate here ...

    Who's the more foolish? The Fools seeking to get elected to office, or the Fools who vote them into office?

    (original - Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fools who follow?)

    We wouldn't be blessed with such political stupidity if it weren't for the foolish people they've groomed to fill the ranks of their base. People incapable of connecting a dot to another and completely unaware of their ignorance. Such people are easily manipulated with facts stranger than the truth because those facts are skewed to emphasize a specific political falsehood which creates an imaginary injury and unleashes a pent up anger that's been on a slow boil over the years.


    VA's point is dead on--measures of aggregates are just that, measures of aggregates.  They say nothing about whether those at the "top" end of one distribution with a lower central tendency aggregate measure have "more" of whatever is being measured than those at the "top" end of the the distribution with the higher central tendency aggregate measure. 

    A measure of formal education says nothing about the judgment or values or character or any number of other qualities which may be more relevant in assessing "merit" than formal education.

    I happen to be reading a book about the Tea Party and came across the following data, which prompted me to think back on our conversation. 

    *National survey data suggest that "Tea Party Activists" appear to have more formal education (40% "College educated") than the general public (28% "College educated").

    (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, Feb 12-15, 2010, page 5 at:



    *51% of "Tea Party Supporters" agreed that "Global warming won't have a serious impact on the environment", compared to 24% of the general public who agreed.

    CBS/NY Times, "Polling the Tea Party: Who They Are and What They Believe", NY Times, April 5-12, 2010.  Question 66 at: http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics

    138 Tea Party candidates contended for House or Senate seats in the 2010 mid-terms, all as Republicans, none as independents.  While there is no official Tea Party platform, these candidates opposed the financial reform legislation and cap-and-trade legislation.

    These partisan, pro-establishment "Super Republicans" are now the dominant element in your party, the Republican party. 

    What do you make of Tea Party supporters, who have more formal education than the public as a whole, being simply factually incorrect in much higher proportions, about the only conclusion I can draw from this data, on the question of whether global warming will have a serious impact on the environment?

    I'll offer my view.  The "reasoning" of the Tea Party/Republican party on climate change seems to be something like this:

    *dealing with climate change to as to avoid catastrophic environmental damage, if it is possible at all, is only possible with public policy as well as voluntary individual, local level, and community-level actions.

    *Public policy is made by government, which is inherently evil and incompetent.

    *Better to let the planet cook and the environment go to hell than support government policy to try to avert the worst scenario.

    *(cognitive dissonance)

    *If I support letting the planet cook and the environment go to hell over any government action to try to avert the worst scenario, that doesn't feel very good.  It doesn't sit well with my self-concept of being a worthy, intelligent, decent human being.

    *Therefore: global warming will *not* have a serious impact on the environment.


    That's one problem with B4's point. The other problem goes back to the polling data I've cited earlier that contradicts B4's non-polling data. If you go to CNN's exit polling data, you'll see that U-shaped curve I mentioned.

    Here's an excerpt of the relevant data:
    Vote by Education

    Total Obama McCain Other/No Answer
    No High School (4%) 63% 35% 2%
    H.S. Graduate (20%) 52% 46% 2%
    Some College (31%) 51% 47% 2%
    College Graduate (28%) 50% 48% 2%
    Postgraduate (17%) 58% 40% 2%

    In this particular case, Obama won every category, but one can see that he did best in the no high school (although that's only 4% of the voters) and postgraduate groups. So, I think this supports my position that if we had sufficiently difficult voting tests (not that I'm seriously advocating for it), then Obama would've done even better.

    By comparison, in my opinion B4's data is more hypothetical in nature.

    Yes, the U-shaped phenomenon on distribution of formal educational attainment you re-articulated here is what I was trying, not nearly as clearly, to allude to in my first paragraph.

    Also, just to be clear (for B4's sake), this was not just an Obama phenomenon. The 2004 election had the same shape for Kerry, even though he lost. Excerpt:

    No High School (4%) 49% 50% 0%
    H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% 47% 0%
    Some College (32%) 54% 46% 0%
    College Graduate (26%) 52% 46% 1%
    Postgrad Study (16%) 44% 55% 1%


    Verified Atheist (American Dreamer) judging by your posting times, it's fairly obvious that you've got the same identity crisis as Superman & Clark Kent. On behalf of all free thinkers from the sensible side of the aisle, you're not helping our cause. This guy already schooled you during your previous exchanges. Making a generalized attack against their intellect with CNN Exit Polls?!? is a losing battle and it lowers us to their level. It may be a sad reality, but as a whole, the wealthy have more education and always will.  Attack them where it hurts--right in the ideology.

    They've got the guns, but we've got the numbers~J Morrison

    I'm unclear about what, specifically, you disagree with in what either of us has written--perhaps you could clarify or elaborate a bit on what it was you think either of us said that was unhelpful, and why.  I agreed with VA's comments. 

    You wrote: "Attack them where it hurts--right in the ideology."

    By all means, be my guest.  Give us your best stuff.  Who said there are only one or two grounds for disagreement here?

    Wow. I never expected somebody from "across the aisle" to back me. Thanks Tincup.

    I'm not backing anybody. While your facts are from a more reliable source than a CNN poll, I think this whole argument is silly. "We're smarter". "No, we're smarter." Like I told American Atheist, why don't you actually discuss some issues?

    Instead of basing your beliefs on your perceptions of relative reliability, you'd be better off basing your beliefs on methodology, especially as how it relates to the question at hand. That question was not, by the way, who's smarter. From my perspective, it was merely an academic question (the kind I enjoy most) about who would benefit most from a significantly advanced polling test. (I will agree with B4, however, that Republicans would benefit from a rudimentary polling test, as it would adversely affect the bottom half of the U-shaped curve.)

    I missed this response when composing my previous comment about my guess that you thought AmericanDreamer and I were the same person. Since you referred to me as "American Atheist", I'll take that as confirmation of my guess. I wonder if s/he is as amused as I am.

    It seems odd that American Dreamer referred to Verified Atheist as VA on 25 July @09:55 AM, which was before Verified Atheist's 1st post on 25 July @10:38 AM. It appears that American Dreamer was responding to the original Atheist's posts from last year. The Dreamer must have had a premonition that Atheist would become Verified Atheist. Spooky.

    It seems odder that you think my first post as Verified Atheist was on 25 July @ 10:38 AM, when you can find a post from me on 1/25/2011 @ 6:43 pm on this thread:


    (Although I'm not sure why I bother responding.)

    I guess trolls like to accuse others of being trolls, and sock-puppets like to accuse others of being sock-puppets, etc.

    First, I'm guessing your Superman/Clark Kent reference is meant to suggest that AmericanDream and I are the same person. (I wonder which one you think is Clark Kent?) We are not the same person. You might want to improve your deductive skills.

    Second, I was not schooled in our previous exchange. We have an honest disagreement on the validity of our datasets. I respect that he honestly believes his dataset is better than mine, but I think that as far as judging actual voting behavior, the CNN dataset is superior. (Go back and read where B4's dataset comes from. If he'll post his original sources again, we can analyze them together if you like.)

    Finally, I'm not attacking their intellect. I know there are several intelligent people with advanced degrees who vote Republican. My father is one of them. Furthermore, the data I myself provide demonstrates that there are many others. All I'm arguing is that the U-shaped curve is real.

    Uh Atheist, in case it wasn't apparent to you from the troll population explosion on a two-year-old thread, Tin Cup = B4 = kirby. I'm banning it.

    I suspected as much, but didn't want to accuse him outright of such. Thanks, Genghis.

    Wow! It's cool to see this thread going strong, two years later. But it turns out, I'm the one who's so dumb. I thought voters would see through the Republican BS and in no way vote them back into a majority any time soon. My bad. 

    That's OK, Orlando. I was confident there was no way that George Bush would get re-elected in 2004.

    Another way to ask the question is to ask why the years the Republicans were in the driver's seat is something they don't have to account for in any way. The Tea Party is a rhetorical oddity because they act like none of their ideas have ever been applied in actual space/time. They have.

    Maybe the Republican leadership is a troupe of Mimes. Language itself has become the intellectual property of the Liberals so the Conservatives are left with Gestures and Government Contracts to express their point of view.

    How does one (or many) countervail against such a device?

    Why are they so dumb?  Well, I think there is a certain segment of Republicans that are willfully dumb.  Determined stupidity, so to speak.  They made their minds up, and no matter what, that is what they will continue to shout and rant about.  As example, I offer an exchange I had with someone on Facebook.  On Tuesday, this person posted about Obama's Monday night speech. She wrote: "Did Obama just call America a grand experiment? WTF??!!"  Naturally, all her Conservative pals weighed in about how awful it was and what a terrible person Obama was, blah, blah, blah.  Now, I'm no history scholar, but I do know some things, and one of those things is that the concept of America being a 'grand experiment' is one that goes back to Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers.  So, without making a political statement, I simply explained to her that this was not an outrageous statement and I gave her some historical context and assured her that almost every President at some point had used that expression to describe America. To which, this person replied, "Never heard it before. Why would it be considered an experiment at all? You think the people that came over on the mayflower thought it was an experiment?"  I replied back with the explanation that in the 18th century, no-one was really sure that a country could be run with direct representation, and that America was considered a grand experiment in Democracy, even quoting Thomas Jefferson at the Constitutional Convention: " “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth."  I added that she needed to put the phrase in context, and I asked would she be offended to hear Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan use the phrase, because it's never been taken as an insult, but rather as a description of the vibrancy and greatness of America's concept of democracy... To which she replied, " ... YES I would be as taken aback by the statement whether it be Ghandi, Bush, The Pope, Obama or any of the others you mentioned." 

    That, to me, says it all.  Willful ignorance. They have their interpretation and you can't change it by telling them the truth. They want to be outraged and won't be mollified by the wrongness or ignorance of their opinions.

    How do we deal with that kind of dumb? Well, we've tried reasoning with them, perhaps we need to go the other way and try being even stupider ... At this point, I'm so frustrated with the idiocy of these people that I'm actually considering the stupider-than-them approach. Arrrggghhhhh!

    The biggest secret of politics, and political strategists, is the knowledge that the majority of people are now medically, clinically, scientifically-provable brain damaged, ignorant lumbering shades of what people used to be.

    The Norman Rockwell icon of the “we are just plain folks in our overalls working hard on our farms” demographic of the average citizen is gone. Replaced by a drug addled, alcohol addled, Prozac addled, junk-food-brain-damaged horde of inner city gangsters, media catatonics, trophy wives, arrogant yuppie hipsters, obese pita-pocket gobbling, Jerry Springer addicts.

    In other words, a large number of the voting public are really, really dumb; Dumber than ever and easily brainwashed.  They are increasing in numbers.
    The CIA discovered that you can brainwash some people in a matter of hours and most people in 5 days or less.  Madison Avenue then perfected their techniques. “Over-messaging”  is the intelligence agency technique of brainwashing an entire country (millions of people) over the course of a year or two, with subtle concept reinforcement. It is done in a way so that the population does not really notice it and so they think it was their idea.  A successfully accomplished intelligence effort of this kind is called a “regime change” or “national transition effort”, on Madison Avenue it is called a:  “marketing campaign”.

    The increase in Reality TV shows about exceptionally stupid people has to do with the smart people turning off their TV’s and the dumb people increasing in numbers.  The dumb ones are the only ones the TV networks can get to watch but they have to meet them on their level.  Domestic education scores are dropping through the basement. Many high school students can’t read a book. The population is getting stupid at the speed of light.

    At college you can get smart but if you get too smart you might observe and realize all of the things in this essay are true so not everybody gets to go to college. If you aren’t addicted to something then you might see too clearly so the underwriting of the alcohol and drug industry continues (with your tax dollars)
    So you have the smart ones and the dumb ones (think Morlocks and Eloi) if you run the current cycles and patterns out into the future you might actually end up with Morlocks and Eloi. (If you still know how to read books you will know what this reference is, the rest of you: Google it) One wonders if the current fad about Zombies has to do with the public’s second sight on his potential future.

    Political strategists exploit the dumb hordes by triggering their primal instincts using very base advertising concepts: “The bad guys will get you if you don’t vote for us” (Fear); “You won’t be able to get money to pay for your addictions if you don’t let us create the jobs” (Security);  etc.  An entire campaign can be won without the need to appeal to any intelligent voters. The bestial ones can bring in the majority more often than not.

    If you are reading this, you may be saying: “oh, I’m not one of them” but if you don’t read the news daily from multiple sources, if you only have products from the eye-level shelf at Safeway in your cupboards and if you watch “reality TV” shows… you just might be one. But you have one last chance to escape…

    The only advantage that one side has over the other is money.  If the law, the Constitution and the public demand said that every penny spent by one voice in an issue must be equal to that spent by any other voice, almost all of the injustice issues would dissolve. The sides that have all of the money will never let such a law exist. Your only hope is to change that!

    Make the law or end up as a Zombie!

    Randy Oats, that is the most thought-provoking & accurate observation I've ever seen. No sarcasm intended, I can finally stop reading these political blogs because somebody has finally stated the truth so clearly. Incredible. Thank you.

    Latest Comments