Freedom at Home: The Importance of Informed Citizenship

[Ivan Seeking]

The judge went on to deliver a scathing attack on politicians who got involved in the case, saying the White House and lawmakers “have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people – our Constitution.” [conitnued]

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4330267

How many times have we heard this language associated with the Bush adminstration? How can we defend freedom for others while throwing it away at home? These thugs try every dirty, under-handed trick in the book, with no regard for constitutional law. Americans should be worried about freedom at home, first.

 

[wasteofo2]

Americans should be worried about freedom at home, first.

But apparently they're not, and without freedom of speech and press being used as the public's check against the government (as Madison saw it), there's not much reason for anything to change.

 

[SOS2008]

Americans should be worried about freedom at home, first.

I've said this before -- Bush supporters tend to have high school educations or less. They don't know who Frist is, or Wolfowitz, or Rove, etc., because they don't follow politics and current events. Probably because without basic knowledge of history, geography, government systems, etc., they don't understand it. They actually like that Bush doesn't seem too bright, and speaks plainly and acts like an average guy. They can relate to it. They like simple concepts, and if they are presented with information contrary to their simple world view, they will rationalize, and even go into denial to make it all fit (cognitive dissonance), which includes the need to reassure themselves that they have not been wrong about voting for this man--the man they are sure will be the greatest president in American history. As a result, they are just as entrenched as the leaders they support.

 

[russ_watters]

How many times have we heard this language associated with the Bush adminstration?

Including that time, once from someone who matters (a judge).

 

[Bystander]

"Box score" going into latest media, judicial, executive, and legislative free-for-all: 15 years, 16 judges, and 23 appeals --- and not a one of the bench buzzards managed to come up with a judgement of "Hubby, you are now divorced from this woman. Mr. & Mrs. Schindler, you are now this woman's legal guardian."

Judicial incompetence requires the occasional executive and legislative nudge in any system of checks and balances. Was the "nudge" in this case all that well designed? No --- would the judiciary know the difference? Not likely.

 

[Grogs]

I've said this before -- Bush supporters tend to have high school educations or less. They don't know who Frist is, or Wolfowitz, or Rove, etc., because they don't follow politics and current events. Probably because without basic knowledge of history, geography, government systems, etc., they don't understand it.

This is quite a claim. What's your source for this? I suspect you'll find that apathy and ignorance or political figures spans both sides of the aisle.

As for the legislature/President's decision with the recent 'law', I think they had no business at all getting involved with this. Still, I would have a hard time characterizing something this public as 'dirty and underhanded.' The fact that a federal judge immediately shot their 'law' down speak wonders about how well our system works.

 

[russ_watters]

"Box score" going into latest media, judicial, executive, and legislative free-for-all: 15 years, 16 judges, and 23 appeals --- and not a one of the bench buzzards managed to come up with a judgement of "Hubby, you are now divorced from this woman. Mr. & Mrs. Schindler, you are now this woman's legal guardian."

How could they? Its against the law and an unConstitutional violation of separation of powers (sounds vaguely familiar...).

Judicial incompetence requires the occasional executive and legislative nudge in any system of checks and balances. Was the "nudge" in this case all that well designed? No --- would the judiciary know the difference? Not likely.

This isn't a case of judicial incompetence, its pretty straightforward marriage law. To allow a judge to unilaterally declare a devorce, if even possible in the legal framework of the US, would require a pretty major rewrite of marriage/contract law (wait, I've heard that before too...)

 

[SOS2008]

This is quite a claim. What's your source for this?

It was on CNN at the time of the election--that Kerry supporters tended to have higher education than Bush supporters. The rest is based on regular interaction/debate with these folks... For example, ask the average "red" state person who Frist is. I've done it--most won't know what your talking about, even after the Schiavo case was contantly on the news. Frist has been third in line for 2008 presidential nomination. They don't know what goes on in their own party--they don't know what goes on period. Whether they do or don't know what's going on, they keep making excuses and rationalizations for everything Bush has done.

 

[russ_watters]

It was on CNN right after the election--that Kerry supporters tended to have higher education than Bush supporters.

Once again, SOS, that's not what you said before:

Bush supporters tend to have high school educations or less.

Those two statements are not identical, the difference matters, and people here notice such things.

It is true that overall, people who voted for Bush had lower education - but its not that much and certainly not your highly misleading "high school or less". And actually, what that tells me is that the poor (since education and income are very strongly correlated) aren't buying the victim mentality the Democrats are selling. Americans really do want the American dream: to succeed on their own merrit, without government interference or handouts.

 

[SOS2008]

Once again, SOS, that's not what you said before: Those two statements are not identical, the difference matters, and people here notice such things.

It is true that overall, people who voted for Bush had lower education - but its not that much and certainly not your highly misleading "high school or less".

Both findings were reported, and the one statement does correlate with the other.

 

[Townsend]

Both findings were reported, and the one statement does correlate with the other.

I would like to see exactly what was reported because I am fairly confident that this is a clear case of the liberal mind using "cognitive dissonance" to justify their world view. In their mind if a higher percentage of smart people believe something to be true then it is obviously the correct answer.

What is funny about this is that SOS2008 (no offense to you SOS2008) seems to be projecting his own internal fear on the majority who voted for Bush. I will never understand it but so often people tend to accuse other people of what they are doing themselves. Perhaps they believe that if they point the finger first, then no one will point it at them.

Let me tell you what I think is really happening. In any given population sample there will be a certain percentage of people with a certain level of education. If we assume that the population is fairly homogenous then the more people you select, the more people you can pick that have say a high school or lower education. So now you look at the election and see that Bush had more voters. Well clearly he is also going to have more voters with a high school or lower education than his opponent will. Clearly if Kerry had won he would have had more lower educated voters then Bush did.

I just don't think that in a realistic sample of Bush supporters that the average person is likely to have any higher or lower education then Kerry supporters. In fact I would be inclined to say that the average level of education in a city would be less than that of a rural population. In smaller communities where everyone knows everyone, you cannot just drop out of school and nobody notices. In a small community if you drop out of HS you are labeled as a loser and your friends will be very much like you. Since this is rarely a coveted thing in small communities not very many people fall into this category. On the other hand in large schools it can actually become very popular to drop out of school and start using drugs and get involved in gangs etc.

Now if you add to that the fact that rural communities tended to vote red, then what you have is the average Bush supporter would have a better chance of at least having a high school or better education. Of course I don't really know what the case is but in any case the population was almost perfectly divided between Bush and Kerry. Had the election been based on a strictly majority vote I think it would have come down to perhaps only a few hundred thousand people. Even within the same house there were extremely different views. Couples of equal education very often had different perspectives. In the end what it really comes down to is rational self-interest.

A really interesting and useful statistic would be what the average income of a GOP supporters is versus what the average income of a Democratic supporter is. I think it is rather clear, from a human standpoint, that what concerns the average person is what is in their own best interest. AKA rational self-interest. If you are a hard worker who has been successful in the business world then conservative economic polices are your best choice. If you're dependant on welfare or government run programs or are an employee of a government run agency then liberal policies are what is in your best interest. I also believe that most educators are liberal since government spending on education has a direct impact on their well being.

Regards

 

[wasteofo2]

Americans really do want the American dream: to succeed on their own merrit, without government interference or handouts.

That's why private investment accounts supplementing social security checks has SUCH a high margin of approval amongst the populace, right?

Americans love government handouts, they just hate having to pay for said handouts themselves. If you'll recall a thread I started a while ago, well over 2/3 of Americans thought the best way to fix Social Security was to simply tax the rich more. Rich Conservative pundits preach a mantra of rugged individualism, but the American people still overwhelmingly would prefer that such wealthy people are simply taxed and that money re-distributed to them in the form of government handouts.

 

[Informal Logic]

I would like to see exactly what was reported...Let me tell you what I think is really happening...

Of course we all make generalizations and express personal opinions since many of these topics are subjective and cannot always be quantified (per the scientific method). However, it would be interesting to see any studies, polls, etc. that may support your assertions.

Studies do show that the more education a person has, the more liberal they tend to become. Bush had more voters, but not by such a large margin that it would matter. The biggest problem I can see with your conclusions, is that many traditional Democrats, such as minorities (blacks, hispanics, women, etc.) voted for Bush in 2004.

 

[russ_watters]

That's why private investment accounts supplementing social security checks has SUCH a high margin of approval amongst the populace, right?

The thing about handouts is that they are opposed by most people who aren't getting them - including those who will soon be eligible. SS is no different and for those not currently on it, support for he plan is very high (though strangely, not as high with 25 year-olds as 50 year-olds).

There is also a difference between wanting a handout for yourself and wanting one for everyone.

 

[kat]

I've said this before -- Bush supporters tend to have high school educations or less.

I think you really need to "put up or shutup". I'm very sure that the majority of those with a high school education or less have tended to vote Democratic and not Republican. I think if you're going to continue to insult those of us on this forum who voted Republican this time around, you need to support your statements. Supporting your statements does not mean telling us that you think you...saw...it...on CNN. It means posting a link from a verifiable and dependable source. Otherwise, I think it's time you discontinue your insulting diatribes.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps SOS fell for THIS hoax?

Or perhaps read the 2004 Exit Poll Data with a mirror?

VOTE BY EDUCATION BUSH KERRY
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004

No High School (4%) 49% +10 50%
H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% +3 47%
Some College (32%) 54% +3 46%
College Graduate (26%) 52% +1 46%
Postgrad Study (16%) 44% +0 55%

I find it ironic that the two categories that voted most for Kerry were the most and least education.

In any case, I wasn't sure at first if what you said was wrong or just misleading, but clearly, both statements are factually wrong. That said, I don't doubt you heard some liberal pundit claim it on CNN.

 

[SOS2008]

To re-address posts in this thread. First, those who participate in PF obviously are NOT the population at large, and thus the word "tends" is used when making generalizations. In any event, the news report referenced was via T.V. broadcast (I thought it was on Lou Dobbs). After searching for awhile, I am not able to find a printed story on the topic. (Yeh, that news broadcast was before I started in PF -- now I record everything! ) Anyway, I do try to source, so if I can't find something I will admit it.

 

[SOS2008]

2004 Exit Poll Data

I was posting at the same time--In looking at this data it looks like there's not a large difference until the post-grad level (and looks like people with below high school level education don't tend to vote at all). Anyway, I may say things that people don't like, but I'm not nasty about it to anyone specific member.

 

[Informal Logic]

Thus far since participating in PF, and in reading some of the older threads, it seems threads often digresses from the forest to a tree, and it seems that the more right-wing conjectures that often are not sourced do not suffer this same consequence. Where are the “consistency cops” when you need one?

So back to the topic of this thread, and the general observations regarding good citizenship (not just voting, but voting intelligently) -- There are many variables involved (e.g., religious beliefs tend to make people more conservative, regardless of education). Another thing I’ve noticed is that more left-wing people tend to participate in academic forums such as this, which I came across while researching a topic online. So maybe the correlation isn’t so much how educated someone is, but how informed they are...