Just so i'm clear, i wasn't arguing for anything...except for maybe smarter voters.
I don't get the post then, I mean why post the quote and then back it up with rhetoric suggesting a fall of civilization may be imminent? It seems your trying to play both sides, and I genuinely question if you really value democracy. You want "smarter" voters, but what does that really mean?
For instance, I think you're a smart man, because we've had this back and forth going on 6 years now; but are you a smart voter, or even an issues voter? Think about it. I just think that 9 out 10 pollsters would classify you as a traditional red voter (i.e., unreachable), just as there are millions of traditional blue voters. On both sides there are people who will, due to nothing more than intransigence and ideology, fight ideas and that might challenge their preconceived worldview.
I think, given your choices of literature, daily reading habits, your predictable positions which tend to always follow the traditional conservative party line (not necessarily the neoconservative globalist line), and your manner of debate (meaning, you'd rather agree to disagree than to change your mind) that you are seemingly a traditional conservative voter. And that's not an attack, I mean, we could say the same for quite a few liberal posters here too. A lot could be said about me, especially around election time.. :chuckles:
But does that make for a "smart" voter??
Smart to me means someone who can use problem solving, intellectual discourse, logic, and critical reasoning to find solutions to the issues of the day; rather than reverting to ideology. I'm not deriding persons who have ethical principles here, just to be clear, but people who use arguments born entirely out of a concept or an ideal rather than practical and logical solutions.
Both party platforms are largely based on nothing more than ideological principles rather than smart, common sense, and reasonable compromises that the public at large could accept.
But lets talk about the Republican platform for a second. Their positions on marriage equality, equal pay for equal work, voter rights, discriminatory practices, abortion, foreign policy, military spending, taxation, the value of the USD, the role of the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, globalization, climate change, and the banking system in general -- all of these positions, literally
all, the Republicans do not have even close to a majority view among the population. The platform is contentious even among the registered party members. Most Republicans want banking reforms, they want a strong dollar, they want to bolster Medicare and Social Security, they want a progressive tax system (although not to the same extent as Democrats), they want cuts to defense spending, and they (more so than Democrats) advocate a far more isolationist foreign policy than Republican leadership.
Now obviously most Republicans are pro-life, anti-gay, pro-Voter ID, and hate the planet; but most Republicans are also religious, heterosexual, White, and are generally misinformed. (partially kidding). So I'll leave those issues where they are.
The point being is that I don't think someone can call themselves a "smart" voter and still vote for a party that doesn't really represent their interests. Now, if the Republicans represent
your interests, then
you are a smart voter, but I think if we had
more smart voters - voters who voted based on
their personal beliefs, perceptions, and their understanding of the
issues, without any party identification; I think you'd see the end to American conservatism.
As Richard Milhous Nixon once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
ha.ha. ..I see what you did there..