The Opposition is Heard

[Philip Coates]

Part 2 (ordinary people -- and evasion vs. honest error):

I think anonrobt has hit on a key observation about the students we grew up with and could see not trying or not thinking or withdrawing from thinking: "Inquiry requires feedback to keep going, to keep to the sense of its worthiness - even if is as in the rare case of coming from within oneself... for most, of course, that rarity not exist, and if no feedback from others, it fades as if a chimera...with the consequence of loss to the long-range, the goal-directiveness - the purposefulness of being..."

In other words, if you are an eager, bright-eyed kid, you need to see some success - in terms of some aha! moments of yes, I get this and/or some positive feedback, some other reward for your efforts. Unfortunately, schools - especially today - don't foster this. Subjects taught in the wrong order, poor teacher, incomprehensible material. And the outside world, unless you have really good parents in regard to this, doesn't allow the time to learn, to play, to be pointed to or to read very good books. Once you get out of the perceptual and concrete level of Montessori, of hands on, and of picture books. And it is seldom explained to you, why you should learn more abstract material, or material more distant in time and space.

Plus, when you can't do it or fall away from it, you tend to feel inadequate or stupid in that area. The result is the things the man on the street feels sure about, tend to be the more immediate and more concrete - day to day living, family, paycheck, repairs, neighborhood matters. As anonrobt put it: "the more range of the moment invites more attention, with more immediate feedback, with the consequence of loss to the long-range."

So, they tend to think of themselves as "practical men" (or women). They resent as useless (or incapable of being understood) anything which is outside that. The sizable majority dislike and shut off from deliberation or attention any "intellectual" issues. Even on a low level, such as debates over the economics of health care, or whether markets work. You can see this in conversations with your dry cleaner or the man who sells you a newspaper or the truck driver. It's not that they have zero opinions on such things, but they simply wrote down what their teachers told them in 10th grade social studies and didn't integrate much beyond that.

[Philip Coates]

Part 2, continued:

The important thing to note is that the majority of ordinary people are -not evading on any level- the fact that the free market works. Or what happens when government takes over certain areas. They are simply shunting aside the whole subject of economics, and thus of causality in business and markets. They are not evading it in the sense of shutting down what you know to be true or to be important.

And here's the key:

They don't -actually believe- it is important. Because they haven't ever done virtually ANY THINKING in that area. Or they believe that they can go with their own very rough or very emotional conclusions, their own 'common sense'. The whole sphere has seemed like subjective bullshit, incomprehensible jargon, politicians (and maybe teachers) talking out of both sides of their mouths. It's often been observed that Americans are anti-intellectual and have contempt for the whole realm of the intellect. This may be more true for Americans than it is for French or Russians or Germans, but it seems true for all those people who "gave up" and ended up on the lower end of the "gap" that Jim or I spoke of in our last posts. And that seems worldwide. And throughout history for the 'masses of men'.

I also think the giving up in the intellectual areas has some reasonableness to it, given their context of knowledge, the preoccupation with mere survival and practical concerns [an important issue I forgot to mention above!] and much of the misstatements or mis-education they have seen. [This last sentence would be another discussion.]

[Selene]

In terms of the origin of this thread, it appears that the opposition is being heard and it is quite clear.

Remember, Rasmussen interviews voters.

This is today's information. Rasmussen tracks daily the approval rate of the President and has been doing so for as long as I can remember.

"Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no Republican support for the legislative effort although the Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a bi-partisan solution.

Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.

Voters who earn less than $20,000 a year are evenly divided but a majority of all other voters would prefer no action. Middle income voters, those who earn from $40,000 to $75,000 a year, are most strongly in favor of taking no action.

A plurality of voters under 30 say passage of the Congressional legislation is better. A majority of adults over 30 take the opposite view. Full demographic crosstabs are available for Premium Members.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

As the public has become more engaged in the debate over health care reform, support for the Congressional reform plans has fallen to new lows. Just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan while 53% are opposed. Those who oppose the effort feel more strongly about it.

It remains difficult to poll about the reform effort because no single plan has been presented. A Congressional consensus on health care reform was reported earlier this year, but it received mixed reviews from the public.

From the beginning of the debate, voters have indicated support for the concept of health care reform and for some of the specific ideas that have been suggested. However, they are skeptical about what has been presented thus far in Congress. One reason is skepticism about Congress itself. By a two-to-one margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress could always make it worse.

There are also concerns about the timing. While Democrats consider health care reform the top priority for the President, Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as more important.

As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists. One surprising by-product of the debate over changing the system is that confidence in the U.S. health care system has grown over the past few months. That may be because when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than they fear private insurance companies. Forty-one percent (41%) hold the opposite view.

Cost, not universal coverage, is the top priority for most voters and 54% favor middle class tax cuts over new spending on health care.

One reason that the President has been careful to distinguish between his idea of health care reform and a single payer system is that just 32% favor Single-Payer health care while 57% are opposed."

[Philip Coates]

Barbara, this is a good debate we're having...and an important one. Hopefully, we'll still be on speaking terms when it's over.

I'll try to respond to your last point later tonight or tomorrow.

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara, this is a good debate we're having...and an important one. Hopefully, we'll still be on speaking terms when it's over.

I'll try to respond to your last point later tonight or tomorrow.

We'll be on speaking terms only if you admit the terminal moral depravity involved in disagreeing with me.

Barbara

[Selene]

Barbara, this is a good debate we're having...and an important one. Hopefully, we'll still be on speaking terms when it's over.

I'll try to respond to your last point later tonight or tomorrow.

We'll be on speaking terms only if you admit the terminal moral depravity involved in disagreeing with me.

Barbara

Now that's funny.

[Philip Coates]

Can we negotiate about the word 'terminal'?

[jeffrey smith]

If y'all haven't seen today's Doonesbury (Sun 8/16), check it out. Even he is making fun of Obama's programs (although in this case it's the auto bailouts that he targeted).

[Selene]

[Philip Coates]

> the people whom you characterize as unable to think in principles or to think for themselves, understand much more than you give them credit for. l refer to the Town Hall meetings...Many of those people perfectly well understood that big government is dangerous; they didn't have to read von Mises or Hayek or Rand to see the evidence on plain view throughout the world." [barbara]

"Many of those people"? How many? The number of people showing up and speaking articulately at those Town Meetings is a self-selected small minority of Americans. It doesn't refute the point I made that the common man, on the average, as opposed to 'evasion' of them, simply doesn't generally think very clearly about such issues.

As evidence, the election of Obama and the Democratic sweep of House and Senate. Or the steady drift of American toward more and more government. If they "understand much more than give them credit for", and if they are in the millions they would have already thrown the bums out.

I will say, however, that 'the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully'. So, if one threatens to cut off benefits, remove health care, or raise taxes in a way that is clearly seen, they will pay much more attention and do less of the shunting aside I referred to in my previous post. Or at least a higher percentage of the common men will try to be focus in on this issue.

Just a reminder. This disagreement actually started when (1) you were criticizing a major element of the common man (among others) morally: "People who want to "redistribute the wealth" know very well that to do so means that everyone in society will have less...what's important to them...is that the rich and successful, whom they hate and fear and envy and feel inferior to, will be brought down to the level of everyone else" and (2) I was defending them (morally, not in terms of knowing a great deal): "My view is that the overwhelming majority of people in every country, even staunch Democrats or people who agitate for bigger government, even academics or intellectuals are not motivated by envy, fear, or hate."

[Selene]

LET'S ROLL - I will follow this guy proudly.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TUxjBpuwU-o

Adam

Post script: Just another dumb American who probably can't speak much French, but the last I checked they are about 0 for 8 since Waterloo.

Vietnam, WWI, WWII. Algeria ...hmm maybe us dumb Americans ain't so dumb after all.

Where are our Federal representatives making those kinds of speeches and backing up their words with actions.

This is what the Congressscum was apologizing for...the Timothy McVeigh straw man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k9P0N1bSgo

Edited August 25, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

Congressscum MORON adk Moran (D) Virginia actually had the temerity to ask this man for ID to prove that he was a constituent:

These people have become completely imperial.

It is time. Now to push these clowns out.

Adam