Are you suggesting that only educated people should have the right to vote? Who decides? You?

You're the guy who doesn't know the difference between the Jewish people and the Israeli government, thinks Judaism is a race not a religion, and made a bizarre reference to monkeys when discussing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

The point here is not to bring up the drama of the last six weeks, but that if we get into the business of deciding 'on merit' who gets to vote, run for office, and govern - well, you might not make the cut, Caelan.

An intriguing idea, though godawful unweildly. I'm not sure something akin to an old New England town hall meeting would be feasible. Of course, as b!X suggested, the MacTavish tongue may be sticking through his cheek.

I've always thought that all voters should pass the same test we give to immigrants upon applying for U.S. citizenship. It's really not much of a test, but it would weed out the insipid 10 or 20 percent who have no idea about how government is supposed to work.

Over on Jack Bog's Blog, a guy suggested replacing representative democracy with a jury system. Pick people at random to govern us, rather than have politicians grub for money and pander for votes.

Clearly, a lot of people are totally dismayed by the current electoral process. Maybe someone will figure out a better way.

"blue man group" said: Are you suggesting that only educated people should have the right to vote? Who decides? You?

Did you not read the whole article? I clearly wrote: "That said, everyone will be invited, be they PhD or dropout. If they are willing to listen to both sides, and participate in a discussion of those sides, then they can be considered sufficiently educated to make an informed decision." Did you miss that?

If you're pissed about another article that I wrote, comment on it on the blog about that article: http://acitydivided.blogspot.com/

You also said: The point here is not to bring up the drama of the last six weeks ...so then why, exactly, did you bring it up?

We must deny the vote to Ditto-heads. Simply put, Ditto-heads have too much power. Someone who repeats a soundbite has as much power as someone who makes an informed decision. This gives master Propagandists the power over America that should belong to the majority of the well informed. This includes Franken-heads, doesn't it? (If not Franken, maybe some other liberal media figure who has as much "presence" as Limbaugh. Maybe Soros-heads? Kos-heads? Streisand-heads?) You seem to be making the argument that only the non-Ditto heads (i.e. the liberal, or moderates, or even progressives) are well-informed. If that is your fundamental premise, then you're building on a shaky foundation.

In American democracy, rule is not given to those with the best ideas, but to those with the most persuasive arguments. Only an educated populace can fend off the tactics of the Propagandist. So, by your logic, only the Right wing are Propagandists, and never the Left wing?

So how do we achieve an educated populace? We mandate education before voting. Not by university degrees or by grade levels, but by immediate information. To vote, a group of voters must convene in a room for three hours. They must watch two one-hour documentaries, one in favor of a position, and one against it. Then, they must engage in one hour of dialogue. Only after this three-hour education is completed will they be allowed to vote. So, even if they disagree with your re-education program (looks kinda Maoist to me), they still get to vote, right? Voting Day must become a national holiday, recognized as sacrosanct as Thanksgiving or Christmas. Those who do not participate, or who wish only to parrot what they hear from the Propagandists, will not be looked upon as productive citizens who wish the best for America. That includes Left Wing Propagandists too, correct? Or are there no left propagandists? Only those who wish to dedicate the time and effort to be educated about an issue will be invited to take part. That said, everyone will be invited, be they PhD or dropout. If they are willing to listen to both sides, and participate in a discussion of those sides, then they can be considered sufficiently educated to make an informed decision. It's a nice Utopia, and I think it's a good idea, but it'll never fly. Kind of a shame, though. I'd like to sit down with people myself and discuss voting issues. However, I don't know where many people would get the time off from work to do this.

Being forced to defend a contradictory soundbite will result in many changing opinions. But what happens if, all of a sudden, people's opinion changes away from yours? Will you make them go back to class until they get it right (or maybe "left"?) Democracy is currently the will of the ruling class sold to the majority, not the will of the majority imposed upon the ruling class. So, are there NO leftists who are members of the ruling class? Hmm...guess I'd better go check the list of Senators, and millionaires, and billionaires, and media moguls again. Remind me: How many mansions does Senator Kerry have again? Ditto-heads are the backbone of the current ruling class’ power. They are the reason that Americans consistently vote against their own interests. So, by your definition, American interests are only what you say they are? That's a pretty high horse to be sitting on.

Keep Ditto-heads from voting, and Americans will begin to vote in their own interests again. They will vote for universal health care, and for higher wages, because they are the ones being bankrupted by pharmaceutical companies and low wages. This is not about us vs. them. You should rephrase that--you don't mean "keep Ditto-heads from voting." What you really mean is "change the minds of the Ditto-heads so they become more like I want them to be."

I agree with Kari that this proposal is unworkable.

However, there are some good ideas in it. I think that we should have more voter education, conducted by nonpartisan groups. I agree that some of this should take the form of having the voters discuss the issues among themselves. It's a shame how little some people know about the issues when they fill out their ballot.

Perhaps we could convince a civic-minded coffee shop to host such an event as a "voter education night". Or perhaps a civic-minded pub could offer people a coupon for a free drink if they attend.

I also sometimes wish we could require people to actually read blog posts before commenting, but that is another story.

Caelan,

You say, " They will vote for higher wages, because they are the ones being bankrupted by pharmaceutical companies and low wages."

I have seen similar naive statements tossed about. How successful is "voting" for higher wages in disregard for market forces? Seems like an absurd statement, can you or anyone elaborate? In the same vein, could we vote for more money in our bank accounts at the same time?

Caelan, I do agree with your general premise that it would be great to have an informed electorate. Oregon would be better served, rather than the special interests in Oregon running the show, as they do now.

It seems Rob Kremer does not recognize this as a contemporary and colloquial discussion of a millennia old issue of political philosophy. Plato and Aristotle explored the mechanics of getting the most able and best-intentioned people in charge of government. From their viewpoint the philosopher king seemed the best route.

We've had our fill of kings and prefer to seat sovereignty in the people. The advantage is that those affected by government hold the power over government, in theory anyway. The problem of good intentions becomes a matter of citizens being able to see their own interests as well as respect the rights of others. The problem of competency is compounded however. To get good government, democracies need both wise, well-informed voters and wise, well-informed politicians. I'd say we are not doing too well.

The idea of limiting the vote to those who exhibit competency has a long history. There have been citizenship restrictions, age restrictions, gender restrictions, race restrictions, property-ownership restrictions, and literacy restrictions at various times and places. Unfortunately, these tests have been used mostly to maintain class [I use term generally] hegemony, not to improve the decision-making ability of the voting public.

Caelan's idea, to produce better voters, is valid. The problem is doing this without allowing some privileged class to extend its power.

Why not do away with the elections in the first place and choose our legislators by lot similar to the way we choose a jury panel? If a jury, chosen by lot, is good enough to determine whether a person lives, or dies then we should be able to use the same method to choose our legislators. M.

Michael, Good idea. Those selected jury-style to run the government would then be able to watch 51 hours of documentaries. After a year of paid service, another panel of rulers would be randomly chosen.

I love the idea in all trurth, exspecially the pettitions coming back to hunt them.

However having the week before an election would probally increase the understanding of the voters. Even if you could not make it madatory.

as far as the special interest controling government, you "get what u pay for." see mysite for a longer explanaition

One of the responsibilities of citizens of a democracy is to be well informed. So, in premise, I agree that people should be informed before they vote. Most people vote strickly down party-lines, whether Dem or Rep without much thought. Some people actually vote for their own self-interest (see Vancouver Mass Transit) leaving blind and crippled people waiting for buses that never come. (They recently got more funding for this one) Such decisions should be well thought out, especially for ballot measures.

As to Ditto-Heads, Franken-Heads... et al, I have never heard Rush mention a governmental website, or brief that could be verified on his show. Rather, he and other "right-wing" talk show hosts talk more than they show or prove. This does not mean that everything on the left is true and certainly not unbiased, but on many shows there are actual sites where I have read governmental documents, with dates and facts. I enjoy seeing some proof for what is being said when possible.

Frankly, I prefer Ed Shultz and Randi Rhodes over Franken, in that order.

After reading Tom Civiletti I realized hip waders were not enough for this thread.

Whether or not we "disagree with this with every fiber of" our "being." is beside the point.

Regardless of the merits of Caelen's proposal, the constitutionality of it... which I remind you, these are merely ideas, not laws or even ballot measure. (people get so defensive!)... regardless, the downfall of democracy is when people are NOT informed when they vote. Or they are misinformed. In the wake of their decisions a minority is denied rights or benefits that assist them in maintaining a reasonable quality of life. It is "the Tyranny of the Majority". There is no consensus, but competition that eliminates the weak and defenseless.

I don't expect most people on this site to understand this concept. You'd have to be in a minority to have a chance at grasping such it. Social Injustice comes from the majority. People simply do not care.

So, I think that talking about having an informed public is paramount. The question is, how can we accomplish this and maintain people's individual freedoms? A free-press for starters...

People have the right to be boneheads. In any case, do none of you remember high school - aka, the last time a bunch of people who weren't all that interested were compelled to sit in a classroom? Sure, you had your eager beavers in there, but the majority of people doodled, mentally undressed the girl/boy a few seats over, sorted out the logistics of getting drunk or otherwise finding entertainment by passing notes, or otherwise struggled to stay awake.

Interesting side note: Caelan cite "psychologists" who claim that talking about/defending a position is more likely to change minds. I never thought about that before and, based on my experience, I lean toward accepting it. Further, in his post Caelan does mention the idea of participation. My question is, who decides on what constitutes sufficient participation? In other words, the "dittoheads" (on both sides; hat tip to whomever up there pointed that out) can show up and just clock time and then go vote for whomever Lars Larson urged them.

Anyway, it's a fun idea to play with...and, as such, it's a good post. But there are rocks at the bottom of the sea with a better chance of flying than this proposal.

<h1></h1>

Power vested in public vote -- democracy -- only works for an aware people, and the definition of ditto-head is 'numb brain,' or hemisphere-ectomied, with half a brain catatonic, unaware.

Of course the given plan can work, and voters can be educated in order to vote. It already has worked -- it happened to us. We were indoctrinated. And it is working today -- education forms voter choice and thinking, such as it is, and which mostly continues to be indoctrination defined as education which isn't coherent or consistent in its principle: To learn.

And that indoctrination continues because we don't recognize what education is, what learning is. We turn one blind brain to that, and with the other brain hemisphere we know and say most people get from TV most of the information they remember, proving the basal-brain stimulus power of the human voice and sound effects. But that is not education, not graduated, sequentially developed learning.

All learning comes from play and builds neural connections in the outer, or cortical, brain layers. Where we 'think' and 'decide' our votes. Play means self-directed, not preposing; it requires study, it requires interaction -- OF us. Self-directed does not mean arbitrary. We listen at the frequency of the speaker, but we read at the frequency of our own comprehension, in our cortex. Learning is a process of growing connections stemming from earlier connections, and each growth step makes a small adjustment in our operating (thinking) frequency. The human mind attunes to an experience in its own reception frequency in order to learn from it -- we each read at our own pace.

So, saving democracy by educating voters to think, most requires, as stated, that "people change their minds (by and) while they are talking," and talking means moving the words around in personal fashion and 'playing with the idea.' And as commented, giving each person preparation 'play' and (book) 'learning' is "godawful unwieldy" -- it is 'hard' to do TO someone.

The key to saving democracy is what NOT to do, is to STOP doing to. Which then provides each voter the opportunity to do -- learn -- for themself. Stopping doing something is why it is possible and relatively 'easy' to save democracy by eliminating ditto-heads.

Ban broadcast political ads. (Just like public democracy, in its own health interest and overcoming the 'ditto' paralysis of addiction in the human basal brain, collectively banned broadcast cigarette ads.) (And yeah, Rash Lamebrain is a political ad, as are others. Discuss.) Print and newspaper political campaigns and principles is not indoctrination because print requires interaction to read it, play with it, self-paced; so is not 'copying' indoctrinated vote-mind, dittoed in the direction and at the pace of a spokesperson.

Without TV and radio ads for politics, there would probably be a profusion of internet information available for the voter's decision, some of it created by the actual candidate, most of it likely to be streaming audio and video. Which would look like what we just put a stop to by banning it being broadcast. Yet the difference is that the internet requires the voter to INTERACT, and to 'go in and get it,' for themself, in their own order, learning at their own pace. Some wouldn't, and eliminate themself from voting, solving the problem that's "unweildy" for others to do TO them.

The basal nature of broadcast affects pre-readers and illiterates, and is shown in 5-year-old children who have never been to school and yet 'know all about' politics, namely it's Democrats and Republicans. This is what happened to us, voters born after TV. Before broadcast, there was more variety, maybe kookiness, self-learned of political thought, such as Strom Thurman's Dixiecrats, or an alcoholic's mccarthyism, 1948. Mass media indoctrinated us in binary politics. In that frame, its most unmanageable situations have been seen during 'third party'-candidate elections. They don't fit in. Most recently, mass media has reduced even binary to unary, so in 2004 only one party's national convention was given coverage, not all parties' conventions. With enactment of a ban, broadcast is reduced to STOPPING doing that to ditto-heads.

And people educate themselves, learning in whatever way and rate they want to play around with political thought.

The necessity of growing to deal with political thought, will mother each person's invention for it, for growing. Growth happens, deal with it. Just like has ever happened, is already happening in each of us, and will ever happen to humankind.

Events happen in our lives which affect us, deeply, and which we must deal with collectively, politically, and some events -- human pathos-stimulating events, move us in our basal brain. The commonality of motivation to act on such personally felt events, when only collective action (voting) is possible away from it since collective action (voting) caused and brought it, THAT (enjoying to be like everybody else and enjoying to participate -- the 'social animal awareness' in each of us; except ditto-heads by definition), that is the necessity that drives us each to grow knowledgeable and learn politics, in order to play along in the events in our lives. We each invent it in ourself in order to have a way to respond, our own behavior in the collective, with our public sense, to express the stirrings that occur at our personal base in common.

And to see that our individual learning can not grow from broadcast media's political paced-dogmatism, indeed, we cannot grow our own learning IN broadcast media's political doxology, there is the following moving example which requires any response we make to it to be communicated and coordinated together as one, in the name of we, the people, a single unit of democracy as that principle is comprehended.

TORTURE FACTS CONFIRMED, UNREPORTED Peter Phillips of Project Censored reports:

”Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death in US military custody. Yet the US corporate media are covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church.

“A recent American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posting of one of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."

ACLU source documents online at: action.aclu.org

We who have EVER held our heart to pledge allegiance to the republic with liberty and justice, for ALL, now face doing one single job: charging war crimes at The White House. Our Fright House.

We have committed homicide in our collective, so-called democratic, deeds. This is our country. This is our country on psychosis. Anyone not moved by the evidence to feel to act, cannot read and would not think of voting and so we must act and vote in their stead for them against it, because when they learn and think of voting, they cannot humanly, consciously vote for it.

<h1></h1>

Here's a modest proposal: How about a LANGUAGE test.

And to Tom Civiletti: Where does Aristotle advocate philosopher kings?

Responding to the original points by Caelen MacTavish -

This is not an experiment for me - It is more or less what happens when I visit my in-laws. Hours of discussion, sometimes heated.

Caelen, it doesn't work. You don't end up with educated people -

You end up with angry people. There isn't a police force large enough in the world to handle what American would be like at the end of those three hours. Voting in secret really helps keep the peace.

To Caelan and any other young person, Google "literacy tests to vote" or some similar phrase and learn what older folks remember--there were discriminatory tests used to deprive minorities of the right to vote. Even something like "read aloud a section of the Constitution and explain it" might mean the Preamble for whites and a really complex section for "those Negroes" (that is being polite).

One such site describes Alabama http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm

In the search I found someone commenting on Florida 2000 saying the way some ballots were written amounted to a defacto literacy test because it was so hard to read those " butterfly" ballots.

Anthony,

You are right that Philosopher King is Plato's term. Aristotle put more emphasis of citizens, but my reading of Politics, at least in my more radical days [1975], convinced me there was not that much room between the two.

Also, if there is going to be a test, it should go to the heart of the matter. Testing language is one way to keep one class from voting, even though they are not necessarily the worst informed or most unreasonable voters.

Carl,

Stay in the shallow end, just stay in the shallow end.

Kari,

I don't believe that good information and clear thinking produces as many conservatives as it does progressives. Yes, there are smart, well-educated Republicans, and they usually are well paid for that. Wealthy folks are often rationally Republican, as it aids there wealth accumulation. But the vast majority of people who vote Republican do it out of misinformation, confusion, or unreasonable priorities. Good education and a responsible free press would create millions of progressive voters, which is one of the reasons that Republicans oppose good public schools and truly free and diverse journalism.

Libertarians are somewhat a special case, as many of them are both intelligent and educated. I attribute their tunnel vision of reality to a difficult relationship with some authority figure in their youth.

Kari, You suggest, "There are certainly plenty of intelligent folks that fully understand the issues and vote Republican -- they're just wrong. Not stupid, but wrong."

That is an interesting comment that I'm sure represents considerable thought. Could you (or anyone) be specific (as a list) in the areas that "progressives" are "correct", and Republicans or conservatives are "wrong". Perhaps this could be considered in a new post. I believe the differences must be addressed within the context that Oregon is a relatively poor state (36th in "per capita income") and spending limitations.

Naturally, I am most interested in K-12 education funding, which you may or may not want to address.

Tom, you wrote "But the vast majority of people who vote Republican do it out of misinformation, confusion, or unreasonable priorities."

You wrote it like you actually believe it, like having conservative views is somehow a social affliction like illiteracy or poverty. Oh, if only Democrats could just spend two minutes talking to people, then they would "get it".

Your arrogance seems to be a typical symptom in these parts. At least this way, when you lose, it really isn't your fault. It's just that people are stupid, misinformed or hoodwinked by evil conservatives.

Even if you disagree with someone, you should at least pretend to respect their opinions and their rights to those opinions. If you want to debate them, go ahead. But people can usually tell when someone thinks they are vastly superior. It's not exactly an attractive quality. If every independent read Blue Oregon, you would never win another election. Not because your ideas are bad, or because you lack sincerity. But because you are so baselessly arrogant.

I agree with this statement: Even if you disagree with someone, you should at least pretend to respect their opinions and their rights to those opinions Before the next time someone is about to post a comment with a line like "You Lefties...", they should think about this.

Most people vote as individuals, not as members of groups. Lots of people vote split ticket (Bush/Hooley, Bush but against Measure 36, etc) and insulting them on one election will not get their vote on others.

If I was campaigning for a state rep. I would be thrilled to see my candidate's signs stuck in the same lawn as signs for a Republican.

Tom,

It strikes me as odd that you can entertain a test that gets to “the heart of the matter” in one breath and then imply in the next that a language test would be a sinister way of “keeping one class from voting.” It’s reassuring to see a more robust commitment to democracy on the part of so many of the other commentators here.

I think Kari showed both fair-mindedness and superior experience in allowing that one’s intelligent opponents can choose another path than one’s own. It’s a difficult realization both for people who are less fair and less experienced, but also for intelligent people of a certain cast of mind, all too common among, and indeed almost characteristic of, progressives.

Michael Oakeshott writes in “Rationalism in Politics”:

“A Rationalist never doubts the power of his reason (when properly applied) to determine the worth of a thing, the truth of an opinion or the propriety of an action. Moreover, he is fortified by a belief in a reason common to all mankind, a common power of rational consideration, which is the ground and inspiration of argument: set up on his door is the precept of Parmenides—Judge by rational argument. But besides this, which gives the Rationalist a touch of intellectual equalitarianism, he is something also of an individualist, finding it difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself.”

Later in the work Oakeshott quotes William Godwin (Mary Wollstonecraft’s husband):

“There must in the nature of things be one best form of government which all intellects, sufficiently roused from the slumber of savage ignorance, will be irresistibly incited to approve.”

rolleyes,

You wrote:

Tom, you wrote "But the vast majority of people who vote Republican do it out of misinformation, confusion, or unreasonable priorities."

You wrote it like you actually believe it, like having conservative views is somehow a social affliction like illiteracy or poverty. Oh, if only Democrats could just spend two minutes talking to people, then they would "get it".

Yes, I believe it, but two minutes talking to someone is not going to enlighten him or her. I'm talking about voters here, not political activists, who are a relatively small group. Sure there are intelligent and educated conservatives and libertarians. Most people, though, don't care much about political philosophy one way or another. They just want things to work and to feel they are getting a fair deal. I am convinced that given access to good information [the facts] and a balanced presentation of opinion, the majority would vote for progressives most of the time because that is what would be best for them and best for furthering their values.

It seems to me that this is not an arrogant belief. Rather, if I believed otherwise and still promoted a progressive agenda in the public sphere, I would either be a cynic or a manipulator. How can one sincerely promote ideas if one does not believe they are both correct and important? Furthermore, if I believe an idea to be correct, then folks who disagree with me are either misinformed, incapable of reasoning, or practicing deception of others and maybe themselves. How can it logically be otherwise? This does not mean that I cannot work respectfully with someone on the other side of an issue or be friendly toward someone I think is very wrong about some important issue. I will not, however pretend that it doesn't matter that they are wrong [from my viewpoint]. I won't practice civility to the point of paralysis.

Anthony,

I look at this discussion as an theoretical exercise. It is clearly shown by copious research that many voters have a very muddled view of important political, social and economic issues. It is arguable that good government would be served if only informed and rational people voted. All attempts at this have, however, become efforts to disenfranchise some group other than those not qualified to vote intelligently. I admitted that above. My political activism has been organized around getting folks better education, better and more diverse information, and more empowerment. This is slow and frustrating work, "hard work" as Shrub would say. It is fun, once in a while, to fantasize about simply doing away with those who cannot figure things out under the present circumstances.

It's not really a matter of intelligence. I thing most people have sufficient intelligence to be good voters. It's a matter of seeing through the cloud of propaganda and emotional manipulation all around us.

Thanks for the reply, Tom. But I still think you’re missing something crucial. Both sides resort to propaganda and its subset “emotional manipulation” but both sides have divergent visions. I think you have a view of what politics is about and where we should be headed that people don’t necessarily share. You may or may not be right that the Progressive program is the best way to get where you believe we ought to be going. But that’s irrelevant for those that don’t hold your assumptions.

Progressives see traditional values as the product of mostly irrational forces, as prejudices subject to rational examination and judgment. Conservatives thus tend to see the progressive program as hostile to traditional values. They see the progressive vision as high-handed in its treatment of tradition, and their more intellectual partisans, at least, see the progressive approach as characterized by hubris. Where progressives see a greater role for government in improving conditions in order to better peoples’ lives, conservatives place greater emphasis on the responsibility of the individual to change his or her own life and see misplaced charity as a corrupting influence on the will and a counterproductive expenditure. Progressives take a more cosmopolitan view of foreign policy and have an optimistic view of other nations’ intentions and of the value of international governing bodies. Conservatives believe that the responsibility of foreign policy officials is to look to the nation’s interest , not the world’s; they are hostile to the idea of international governing bodies and take a posture of alertness about forces contrary to American interest. These are only a few examples of fundamental differences in political orientation.

Reconciling these divergent viewpoints is not a matter of “seeing through a cloud of propaganda” but of persuading people that their philosophical principles and historical viewpoints are mistaken.

Tom, let's carry your argument a bit further. Let's acknowledge that I feel just as correct in my perceptions and positions. I can be civil and thoughtful in debate, just as you. But also like you, I have the fundamental belief that people who disagree with me are "misinformed, incapable of reasoning, or practicing deception of others and maybe themselves." How does that make you feel, to be called either ignorant, devoid of reason, or a plain ol' liar? That's what you are saying to me...why should someone feel differently towards your views - or is that not possible because your views are superior, and a rational person could clearly see this and convert immediately? Tell me, Tom, how much mileage will you get by viewing people who may have different beliefs as stupid, ignorant liars? Will that make your viewpoints that much more attractive when they find out your true opinion of them? I thought Democrats loved diversity and freedom of thought and the whole "everyone is welcome at the table". Or does that only apply when you are all drinking the same Kool-aid and reading from the same book?

We conservatives have plenty of flaws. But at least I'm not a hypocrite.

"To vote, a group of voters must convene in a room for three hours. They must watch two one-hour documentaries, one in favor of a position, and one against it. Then, they must engage in one hour of dialogue. Only after this three-hour education is completed will they be allowed to vote."

Why stop there?

• Voters thought to be still not quite as "informed" as we would like (or at least, informed in ways which disagree with what We, the All Seeing All Knowing Elite, have Decreed it So) shall be led through a maze with several Opportunities for Conversion (aka The Seeing of the Light) and also, if deemed necessary, some Light Torture

• Voters who get mouthy at having to sit through poorly produced documentaries with bad lighting about each individual candidate and ballot measure (from president on down to dog catcher) shall be immediately boxed up and shipped to Paraguay so they can appreciate what its like to live in a country that is not so enlightened as to force its citizens to endure hours of government-mandated "education". They shall be charged 200% of the shipping costs, with the surplus going to build more light rail.

• Oh hell - in a nice twist on Pol Pot, anyone without glasses shall be rounded up and sent to the countryside. Or shot in the back of the head. Either way, as long as they're out of eyesight.

All Hail the Great Leader MacTavish! Only He has the Wisdom to make it So.

This entire thread is predicated on the idea that people don't vote Democrat ONLY because they lack the special information or understanding of the issues. This lack comes from their own stupidity or deficit of reason, or that evil neocons try to deceive the populus. Never is it mentioned that maybe people CHOOSE not to vote Democrat, or maybe they DISAGREE with certain liberal positions. No, that could not be possible. All enlightened and rational people vote Democrat. Any lack of support for Democrat ideas is because of internal personal flaws or external deception. That's the only POSSIBLE reason for every single breathing human being not to be registered as a Democrat.

It must be awfully cold and lonely in that Ivory Tower.

Pat,

The big-tent politics of the two-party system encourages cynicism, as back-room operatives (of whom Michael Scanlon may be an example) will inevitably be called upon to appeal to voter blocks for whom they have little sympathy, not to say active contempt, for support for measures for which those operatives have little enthusiasm. Party discipline routinely requires the politicians themselves to argue for things they may find distasteful.

Republicans throw red meat to the Christian right, among other segments of the voting population, just as Democrats throw red meat to the left wing of the party, to blacks and other minority groups, and others. I don’t want to indulge in the fallacy of equivalence: just because fault can be found with two parties doesn’t mean they’re the same. But cynicism and manipulation are not always easy to measure objectively, and I think it’s safe to say that both parties are deeply culpable. There’s no question that you’re more alert to the possibilities of Republican cynicism than the Democratic Party variety. And perhaps you have an appetite for red meat yourself. I’m partial to a bit of steak tartare myself from time to time, and am much more sensitive to Democratic outrages.

Nevertheless, I hope that I can acknowledge my Democratic friends’ exasperation with Republican chicanery now and then, and I hope that they can understand that I find the suggestion that the Democrats are above demagoguery the funniest thing I’ve heard in weeks.

Good conversation.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own views on what is best for the world. I cannot demand that someone else share my values or theoretical believes, but as Pat Ryan mentioned, there is a chasm between the veracity of information used to support progressive and conservative [or Democratic and Republican] positions on important issues. This is sustainable because of the institutional support for misinformation that favors the wealthy and their interests as well as nationalists and their conceits. I have to wonder how many more decades anti-estate tax forces can continue to get away with crusading to save the family farm, although it is verifiable that family farms are not lost to the estate tax. I have to wonder how many more centuries warmongers can continue to get away with demonizing the enemy de jour in order to foment needless and unjust violence.

I'm not proposing [even hypothetically] a test for progressive orientation, but one for a grasp on factual reality and the ability to process it according to the rules of logic. I have little hope that this can work in the real world, but I wouldn't object to someone working on the concept. I believe that people who passed such a test would be more likely to vote as progressives than today's typical voter.

Rolleyes continues to claim that my attitude toward political adversaries is disrepectful, arrogant, or somehow otherwise nasty. I disagree. I've never run into anyone who agrees with me on everything. I don't need to pretend that such disagreements on important issues do not matter in order for me to respect and value the other person. Conversely, if the worst my adversaries did was call me "either ignorant, devoid of reason, or a plain ol' liar", politics would be a lot more fun. I would, however, ask them to back up their accusals with evidence.

Politics is not for the prissy, and it is not for folks who cannot be told they are wrong without melting down.

<h1></h1>

The "arrogance" view sticks with me. I think it's simplistic, and it goes as much both ways. To see premier arrogance, look at Bush and all who voted for him and defend him, and in their hearts know he and they are all terribly terribly wrong. Viz: Gore got more votes in 2000, Bush cheated. By that cheating, which robbed you and me of our democracy birthright, Nine-Eleven Op happened and Iraq invasion happened. None of it, and not the Patriot act police state and not the suffering of workers and the lowly, could have happened with President Gore. And the rightwing anger and 'indignation' at being called on it and shown they were wrong, is all the normal human reaction when we know inside we made a mistake. And calling "arrogant lefties" is simply more of it.

One reference where I find solace is Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. There, I found these 'best quotes' that survive time and satisfy widely if not universally.

From the Bible, Isaiah 13:11. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. On reading this my mind sees one object only, and that is Bush and Bushies. He has murdered people and he is murdering people. That is the "evil" and that is the "wicked" and that is the "terrible" and he and all accepting of him as 'we won the election neener neener neener' -- but they/you did not, the evidence: actual ballots shows he got fewer -- he/they/you, that is the "proud," too, too proud of himself, themselves, yourself. It -- him/them/you: shall cease. Without anyone 'doing it to you,' stopping you; you have done it to yourself, you shall cease yourself. Because you have chosen a failure.

From John F. Kennedy's address at Amherst College, Oct. 26, 1963: When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitstions. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses, and art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgement. So many show artless judgement.

From antiquity, the second of the entries (which run chronologically), this by Ptahhotpe, 2350 B.C., the earliest manuscript of the Maxims, known as the Prisse Papyrus. I liked this in the introduction: Teach him what has been said in the past; then he will set a good example to the children of the magistrates, and judgement and all exactitude shall enter into him. Speak to him, for there is none born wise. What has been said, (history), and should be taught, is the reason Ptahhotpe wrote and that anyone writes.

Then comes Maxim 1: Do not be arrogant because of your knowledge, but confer with the ignorant man as with the learned. ... Good speech is more hidden than malachite, yet it is found in the possession of women slaves at the millstones. Also it is found around the BlueOregon 'water cooler.' I never see Bush or Republican lockstep ditto-for-brains "conferring" with anyone, let alone the "ignorant" or the "learned."

And I repeat my earlier charge against you -- Republican, Democrat, red, blue, you name it: You must act to absolve yourself, and responsibly because you have pledged your allegiant oath to secure the blessing of liberty for our posterity, whereas you have been shown by reading it here the absolute knowledge you are party to torture murder in your name.

<h1></h1>