|Further proof the American Electorate is no longer intelligent.
||[Dec. 19th, 2012|01:58 pm]
In a recent survey, Rassmussen has shown that 73% of people surveyed want less government spending.|
And yet, 51% of voters voted for Obama. If the past four years are any indication, it is clear the man wants anything BUT less government spending.
This means that approximately 22% of Americans voted both for and against government spending.
The only conclusion I can come to is Americans do not think anymore.
The majority wants a master who will take care of them, even at the expense of them not being allowed to make important decisions for themselves. The sad thing is that the Republicans as a whole were unwilling to even make a coherent case against that, so the election wasn't a battle of "more freedom" versus "less freedom". It was less versus much less freedom, and more spending versus much more spending. It's been pointed out
that reducing the budget by one dollar
is considered crazy and extreme now.
I can't find it at the moment, but recently saw some poll showing that a majority of Republicans oppose cuts to Medicare/Medicaid/SS. Meanwhile, Boehner & Co. are preparing to raise the debt ceiling (possibly in a separate deal) without getting one penny of actual spending cuts (as opposed to reductions in increases), and House Republicans will re-elect him as speaker.
I can only hope for conditions to become ripe for peaceful secession, because I have no reason to respect most Americans or believe they are capable of freedom anymore. The trouble has been a long time coming, and it can no longer be fixed by electing another gang of thieving losers. The people who choose them are to blame.Edited at 2012-12-19 09:03 pm (UTC)
It depends on how the question is asked and how the results were interpreted, though.
If you just go up to people and ask "should government spend less", most people will agree with that sentiment in the abstract -- because in their minds, the question resolves to "should the government spend less on things I disapprove of or don't care about", not "should the government spend less on everything."
I'd be willing to bet if you quizzed that 22% on exactly what they think there should be less spending on, you'd get the typical leftwing responses of "less corporate welfare", "less subsidies for Big Oil", "less mililtary spending", and so on -- hence, the reason why they would vote for someone like Obama, who has at least cultivated the image of being against spending on those things even though he clearly intends to spend more money in general, because they assume he will spend it on the things they personally approve of and care about, and that's just fine.
It's the same reason why every election cycle, you hear rallying cries of "throw the bums out!", and yet far more often than not, the majority of incumbents still get reelected time after time. Everyone thinks it's all those other guys that should be thrown out; their Senator or Representative is just fine. By the same token, it's all that other spending that should be cut; the things they personally care about, it's just fine to spend money on.
Edited at 2012-12-20 06:18 pm (UTC)
This is a very astute and perceptive comment, IMO.
And that's why collapse is inevitable. Economic and political disaster would at least create the possibility of establishing a free country in the former United States. We're also the victim of long-term trends that are beyond party politics, like the relative decline of the West in competition with two billion ambitious Chinese and Indian people.
The problem is that, while Americans, "want," these things, a large chunk of Americans vote purely on personality. They make up their minds whom they're going to vote for based on whom they like, and then justify their vote afterward. Thus, all the people that suddenly decided the economy was okay, that the fiscal cliff would probably get resolved, etc etc.
This is why both Obama and George Bush managed to get re-elected despite having poor approval ratings for most of the 18 months leading up to their re-election. Each were personally well liked, and therefore even though people didn't approve of them, they rationalized their votes anyway.