State of the Union
by Derryl
After watching the State of the Union address tonight, I have to admit I was left with a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. President Obama’s speech, as always, was written and delivered superbly. It wasn’t the things that he said, so much as it was the behavior of everyone else around him, which really ticked me off.
He began his oration by pointing out various uncertain times in our country’s history – the Civil War, D-Day, the civil rights movement, and so on – and reminded us of how, even though victory was not guaranteed, we overcame and maintained as Americans. Of course, he addressed these issues in parallel to our current situation – mired in two dreadfully expensive wars, crawling out of a recession, etc. He spoke of the things that Americans are tired of, and can no longer tolerate. Principal among these was… wait for it, “partisanship“.
Americans are tired of partisanship! And in lieu of this fact, everyone in the audience acted like mature, America-minded professionals – ones who are not at all influenced by petty, hypocritical differences of allegiance and opinion. Oh wait……
After every point made by Obama, the Democrats stood up and applauded wildly, as though they’d just saved 15% on their car insurance.
On the other side of the hall, Republicans seemed to be expending even more energy – except this energy was directed towards seeming as ill-entertained as possible. In fact, some of them seemed downright depressed! I half-expected to see Joe Wilson hunched over his iPod, listening to The Cure while slicing his wrists open… “Alas, cruel world!”
Anyone can become a politician – so long as they’re below a fourth-grade maturity level.
In any case, hardly anybody seemed to be focused on the big issues. They were more concerned with poking subtle (and not so subtle) jibes at the other half of the room. Though my confidence in our government has already been weakened greatly by the past few years, tonight’s State of the Union left me convinced that anyone can become a politician – so long as they’re below a fourth-grade maturity level.
Say what you will, but I’m increasingly of the mind that a democracy – at least insofar as we perceive it – is not the correct way to administer a country of 300 million people. It leaves too much bloat, too many people masquerading as intelligent, representative entities. I’d rather have a small handful of intelligent people run the country then a plethora of idiots.
Edit: although, perhaps this is already the case?
Comments
I have a few quotes pertaining to your notion of having “a small handful of intelligent people run the cuontry.”
1) “People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge.”
2) “The last person to trust with power is someone who is dying to have it. The best person to wield power is someone who is reluctant to do so, but who will do it for a while as a civic duty. That is why term limits should make it impossible to have a whole career in politics.”
3) “But the ignorance of Ph.Ds is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.”
4) “If you start from a belief that the most knowledgeable person on earth does not have even one percent of the total knowledge on earth, that shoots down social engineering, economic central planning, judicial activism and innumerable other ambitious notions favored by the political left.”
5) “Yet what the political left, even in democratic countries, share is the notion that knowledgeable and virtuous people like themselves have both a right and a duty to use the power of government to impose their superior knowledge and virtue on others.”
I think you can see where I’m going with this. While I do understand what you mean, I would much rather be free to make the wrong choices and suffer than have someone else make them for me. I cannot say for certain, but I am pretty sure I would rather be poor and free than rich and “equal”.
My problem with the Address lies in the fact that every “solution” he offered involved the government. At no point did he say anything along the lines of, “We’re going to back off and let you, the people, decide what to do.” Americans are quite resilient. We can do some pretty amazing things if allowed to.
I agree with everything you said – especially your third quote (”high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking”). And I also agree with the fact that his proposed solutions inevitably involve government – however, as President it does behoove him to find ways for the government (i.e. his job) to influence the situation.
However, my remark about “democracy vs. oligarchy” is one totally separate from my rants about partisanship, and would probably have been more fitting in a different, more focused article.
I appreciate the feedback!