Monday, July 31, 2006

The Politically Illiterate

I have this theory that "The Left" is not this country's problem. The honest ones define themselves beautifully and reveal a thinking and nature that is very far removed from 80 % of the American people.

Our problem is the poorly educated, lazy, distracted... the culture of hedonism's politically illiterate. They are the ones that the Left misleads, and with whom the Democrats have constructed a Party.

I work with some very intelligent people who are totally clueless beyond their own little world and the pleasures they seek. Their daily narcotic, whether it is their job, their family, their favorite entertainment... consumes their attention and leaves them vulnerable to the "moderate" notion that a little bit of ying and a little bit of yang is the only core belief that rings true.

I think we need to shoot them...
Posted by at

5 comments:

Jacob said...

What's wrong with being moderate? Just because someone doesn't harbour extreme views on politics, or that they have no views at all, doesn't make them ignorant or unintelligent.

Sorry, but I was just a little bit mystified by that post. Especially the last line.

7/31/2006 9:44 AM
SkyePuppy said...

FKAB,

That last line is known as humor through the element of surprise, because people familiar with Malott's writing know he doesn't really mean that for a second.

I didn't see his problem being with moderates but with "the poorly educated, lazy, distracted."

I have some friends who take no interest in politics or world events. When elections approach, they ask me which way to vote, since they would tend to share my views on things if they had views.

But what about all the other lazy people who don't have me to help them out? They're forced to rely on the newspaper to inform them or to try to find some "happy medium" when medium is rarely happy and is often harmful.

These are the people who should be removed from the electoral process. (But it's not funny when you say it this way.)

7/31/2006 11:22 AM
Christina said...

I think that being "moderate" in certain situations is akin to "riding the fence". You can't always just take a middle-of-the-road position on all issues, yet there are plenty of people who sway whichever way the wind blows them.

In my opinion, that's a dangerous philosophy because I believe that there are absolutes in life. There are moral absolutes for certain, and when people try to shy away from truth, from the black and white areas of life, and live in the "grey zone", they leave us in a dangerous place directly in the line of fire.

It's sort of like the old saying, "If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything". Being moderate isn't necessarily bad, but being uneducated and lazy and unwilling to take a stand leaves a person vulnerable and wide open to a lot of harm. When you look at this in a political context, as Malott did, where those "moderates" make up a pretty large portion of the electorate, then you can understand why Malott believes that being a moderate is not a good thing.

7/31/2006 11:27 AM
Jacob said...

I don't know about the US, but in Australia most people are moderate so that the Government will lavish attention on the swing voters. If everyone had extreme political views, the Government would have little to no incentive to 'win' votes.

Does that make sense at all?

7/31/2006 9:37 PM
Malott said...

FKAB

It's the same way in the U.S.

There are some states that are solidly Democrat or Republican, and they rarely see a presidential candidate. My state hasn't gone Democrat since 1964 and the only time we see a presidential hopeful is when he comes to help a House or Senate candidate.

Skyepuppy and Christina,

...Great points as always...

8/01/2006 5:20 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)