The View From 1776

The Limitations of Public Opinion

When so many people don’t know even the names of the candidates in presidential elections, it’s hard to maintain faith in the wisdom of the voters.  Voters are, however, pretty good at assessing the character of local candidates.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/01 at 06:37 PM
  1. quote:
    Throwing the bums out is a venerable tradition, but what if the ultimate bums are us?
    Exactly. An uneducated voter base that doesn't study the policies that work and don't work around the world are trapped with the history of their own policies if they study any at all. Thus, they are often left with choosing between policies that none of which will work in the long run.

    Often we also see goals, as is pointed out in the comments you posted, that can't be reached as long as "man" and "human nature" influence decisions and the cultures of nations.

    In my forum, "Tree of Libertry Forum" (, I posted a topic in "Sound Off" that was based on an author I heard this morning on a financial program. His book, "Globalist Papers" is calling for an "elected world government" with an army, that will resolve disputes between nations and avoid the coming nuclear war created by rogue nations that are now developing nuclear weapons.

    He states it should be designed like our government was by our founders. However, we started with 13 colonies that had very common needs, ideals, values and even with the division slavery caused, similar laws and moral codes for their citizens and all 13 states were based on Judeo/Christian principles from the Bible.

    Now, how do you get the same thing in the world with nations that are so different in culture, needs, religion, government, etc. to legislate like our Government did in its beginnings?

    Still, many in our government (both parties though democrats seem to welcome it more than conservative Republicans) and our society believe that is the very thing that is necessary. They also believe it is possible for all these diverse nations, some of which want world domination or at least domination of the portions of the world they get natural resources from to agree to allow another government to tell them what they can and can't do.

    Even with the people electing their representatives, I don't see it. In some nations, the people themselves want their nation to "reign supreme" so their culture will be the only culture in the world.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  11/01  at  08:06 PM
  2. 'Now, how do you get the same thing in the world with nations that are so different in culture, needs, religion, government, etc. to legislate like our Government did in its beginnings?" JPB

    The only way that is possible is if they define the human creature the way our Founders did. Many in our OWN system have changed their definition of 'human' from that of a basic natural-law way, "...endowed by their Creator with Liberty...," as earth's Choicemaker.

    Such a premise disallows humanistic philosophies of rule by high priests of collectivism and asserts individual validity and sovereignty.

    Socialistic Liberals just don't get it! It goes right over their head. They prefer to talky-talk a shallow 'politics.' Lacking criteria, it's always Patty-cake time...

    Semper Fidelis
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  11/02  at  10:53 PM
  3. I wrote in a commentary on Samuelson's editorial that it's a vicious cycle in that one term we throw the Democrat bums out and in one of the next few terms we realize we don't like what the Republicans do either, so we throw the Republican bums out. We get exactly what we deserve. Not much will change.

    Being sick of the cycle, I personally voted for Constitutional party candidates here in Utah. One got about 4% of the vote, and the other got 9%. I hope we can keep the momentum.
    Posted by Frank Staheli  on  11/08  at  02:01 PM
  4. We are approaching 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 of voters. Each of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Yet, I wonder what would happen if we ran on the "Constitution" where each state chooses how liberal or Conservative it would be, if we might approach 50% independent and 25% Democrat and 25% Republican. Let each state's parties fight out the Conservative/Liberal issues and leave the U.S. as a nation to defend and monitor the states to make sure they apply the laws equally and protect all equally. That doesn't mean they will be "fair," only "Just." For a liberal living in a Conservative state it won't be fair and for a Conservative living in a liberal state it won't be fair. But it also isn't fair to have both liberals and conservatives living in societies they don't like either because they have no clear direction.

    Also, if one or two states aren't doing the things they should, they won't drag the whole nation down like national policies do when they are wrong. Our founders were very wise to leave most social, moral and economic issues up to the states where each could adapt to their own unique needs, resources and cultures. Limited Federal government was demanded because they knew the danger a centralized government created.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  11/08  at  03:45 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.