Being a big-shot blagger is a stressful and demanding hobby. Similar to the evolution of rules, bylaws, punishments, and social mores in a customary-law society, our positions, assertions, and predictions are under constant judgment and scrutiny by the global community of readers and other blaggers, leading to the success of those writers deemed more astute by more people and the withering of blags that aren't original or insightful. Even our choice of topics and our writing styles are judged, as well they should be. There are a lot of tough issues to deal with out here on the interblags.
Take, for instance, a difficult question many of us are faced with but not many know how to address or whether, even, to address it. That question is: Who's stupider, Democratic voters or Democratic politicians?
Now, at first it might seem like too daunting a task to answer this question. It seems so damn near impossible that it probably isn't even worth the attempt. How can we possibly judge, quantitatively or qualitatively, the tiny differences in stupidity that separate these two classes of creatures down in the dark, fetid depths of stupidity that they share with Republicans?
Don't worry: I haven't much else to do and I think I'm up to the challenge.
I'm as qualified as most people to estimate the stupidity of Democratic voters because I am surrounded by liberal Obama-worshippers every day of my life. Their level of self-blinding bias is staggering. All they ever talk about is how stupid, incompetent, and unqualified Sarah Palin is, with the occasional jab at McCain's latest campaign tactic. Oh, sorry, now they talk about Wall Street and the bailouts as if they understood monetary policy, and naturally none of them supports the Fed or the Treasury. So at least their hearts are in the right place.
What they never, ever talk about is the Democrats' role in creating this economic mess, creating the housing boom and bust, and PASSING THE GODDAMNED BAILOUT LEGISLATION! It's going to get passed and they're going to be the ones who do it!
Let's back up. Why do they hate George W. Bush and John McCain so? Because they (Bush and McCain) are murderous war criminals and care nothing about a single civil liberty. Because their policy is to bomb, threaten, torture, and impoverish anyone who isn't their crony or ally, and empower and enrich all their cronies and allies. Oh, and Bush is a terrible public speaker. And McCain is given, at most, six months to live in office if elected.
Joe Biden, whom everyone I know liked and still likes as Democratic vice presidential candidate, is also a murderous warmonger who should be imprisoned for his support of the aggressive foreign policy of the United States. He was one of the biggest supporters of invading Iraq in the 1990's. He voted for the PATRIOT Act the first time, even bragging that it was derived from anti-terrorist legislation he drafted in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. After Georgia's invasion of the secessionary region of South Ossetia, he clamored for the United States to go over there and help Georgia stabilize the situation, with murder and threats of murder, of course.
So, let's see...warmongering war criminal, check; disdains our civil liberties, check; is a poor public speaker, check. He has all the qualities of George W. Bush, but, oh, he writes a (D) after his name, so he must be good.
On to the savior of the human race himself, Barack Obama. He voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2008, angering and distancing himself from many hardcore liberals. He voted for both the 2005 and 2006 re-authorizations of the PATRIOT Act, and has never, to my knowledge, spoken against the original PATRIOT Act. (It is my understanding that the two re-authorizations decreased the power and scope of some aspects of the original PATRIOT Act, but he has never spoken, acted, or in any other way indicated that the whole thing was a bad idea to begin with. He wasn't in office when the original PATRIOT Act was passed.) He has said he hasn't ruled out any options for dealing with Iran and the threat it might pose to Israel or the United States; this means he would even consider, for a brief second, nuking Iran. He has steadfastly and repeatedly defended the U.S.'s position as Israel's armer and defender, and said we should take an even stronger stance in its defense. He has advocated increasing the number of U.S. Marines in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, and wants to scale up the war in Afghanistan because we're not focusing enough on that. He also recently said the troop surge in Iraq has worked, and that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" are possible. This is only true if you have the same definitions of "success" and victory" as the neocons, have the same foreign-policy goals as the neocons, and advocate achieving them in the same way!
So, for the Democratic voters' hopeful president-elect...dismisses our civil liberties, check; aggressive foreign policy, check; oh, but he's a good speaker and he's a minority—and, of course, his name is often written with a (D) after it—so he must be just fine!
My liberal friends will never bring this up amongst themselves and they will never listen to criticisms along these lines. They are like children. They close their eyes and put their hands over their ears and they kick and they scream, "No, no, no, I'm not listening, I can't hear you, Obama's the best presidential candidate ever and Biden was a wonderful choice and defeating the Republicans is all that matters and Sarah Palin is an idiot!"
So, they oppose Bush and McCain because Bush and McCain take similar stances as Obama and Biden on foreign policy and civil liberties, but Obama sounds better, isn't as blatant in his destruction of our civil liberties, and both of their names appear with a (D) after them.
Now, why do they disdain Sarah Palin so? They think she is uninformed and unqualified to be (vice) president because she has too little foreign policy experience, plus she couldn't even define the "Bush Doctrine." Well, since by his words, his policy positions, and his voting record, Barack Obama also implicitly supports at least the major parts of the Bush Doctrine, how do you think he would respond to an accusation that he supports it?
He would glibly swerve around the question or define the Bush Doctrine in some way as to be not entirely compatible with his foreign policy, or some other misleading answer. Sarah Palin doesn't know the answers; Obama and Biden know the answers, know why many actions they've supported are wrong and harmful, and supported them anyway, but they can justify it more smoothly and glibly on television, so this makes them better suited to run our lives.
Lastly, I don't know how exactly the House and Senate are going to vote on some type of Wall Street bailout plan, but I know it will pass and the Democrats hold the majority in each house. Biden and Obama will either vote for it or abstain; I doubt they will vote against it. A vote for it is absolute, solid-gold proof that they are evil, opportunistic, power-hungry criminals; and a non-vote is proof that they are all of the above but are also calculating charlatans who hope to avoid taking a strong stance, in the interest of political/election savvy. (It will be stupid, from a purely electoral standpoint, not to vote against any and all bailout plans, because nearly every voter hates the bailouts.)
This brings us, at last, close to an answer to whether the Democratic voters or their elected criminals are stupider. Clearly the aforementioned foreign-policy, civil-liberties, and financial policies are harmful. Further, Democratic politicians know they are harmful but support them anyway. They support them because they want to appeal to as many voters as possible and seem strong on foreign policy. This makes them evil. They know very little about economics, especially monetary policy. This makes them ignorant. Their inability to figure out how to get elected without immoral pandering, or to understand monetary policy, or to imagine any service or transaction taking place without government guidance, makes them stupid.
The Democratic voters have no idea what monetary policy even means, and they blind themselves to the foibles of their beloved candidates. They are willfully ignorant, then. Their inability to discern their bias and see the shortcomings of their own preferred criminals makes them stupid. They are not evil, though, not most of them. They want to do what's right and help heal the world, and their ignorance and stupidity keep them from recognizing the evil in the positions they support.
(I am careful with my use of the word evil. A few years ago I came across my currently preferred definition of evil: knowingly committing immoral acts. The "knowingly" is the most important aspect of the definition. You have to know you're harming others unnecessarily—violating their rights—in order for you to really be evil. Otherwise your actions are just hurtful or immoral. Maybe amoral. (Can actions be immoral or amoral? Or just the actor? I'm not so sure. But you get the point.) Therefore economists such as Alan Greenspan and other, unknown banksters, who know how harmful fractional-reserve banking and inflationary fiat money are but who promote it anyway to empower and enrich themselves and their cronies, are evil. Professional criminals are mostly evil people. I give a break to a lot of voters.
Also, I mustn't overlook the fact that every single human who has ever lived has good and evil inside of him. I bet everyone who's read this blag is almost entirely good. Probably everyone I've ever personally known is almost entirely good. (Good as in non-evil, not good as in a pleasant, kindly person who's neither annoying nor a douchebag.) Then, on the other end of the spectrum, are dark, inhuman monsters like Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Osama bin Laden, whose souls are probably predominantly evil at this point.)
Democratic voters just want to make things better—not perfect, and they don't honestly claim their preferred professional criminals have no failings—they just dismiss, ignore, or blind themselves to most of them.
So, stupid, evil, and ignorant vs. stupid and ignorant (and very biased; this is part of the ignorance). Here's the clincher: Voters are stupider than politicians because, one, they inexplicably ascribe a high level of intelligence to their vaunted leaders and, two, they delude themselves that this separates their leaders from those across the aisle. The professional criminal class must at least be somewhat smarter (and less ignorant) than the voters because they treat the voters like complete idiots, which is appropriate.
It should be noted, finally, that this barely distinguishes them from many Republican voters, who are stupid, ignorant, and evil.
Man, never has a post of mine been more suitable for the category Rants. Meh, it's late and it would take too long to trim it down.