RedStateEclectic

Glenn Beck

The ultimate fair-weather friend:

"Man, sometimes God really sucks."

Maybe he’s talking about democracy, the god that failed.

How the Kat Got the Catbird

This is an interesting election story, from my standpoint, because it happened in my back yard. In South Carolina politics, one can find the goodest of the Good Ol’ Boys. One in particular found himself too good to be true. Enter the antagonist of our tale: State Senator Jake Knotts, who’s held the seat since 2002.

Senator Knotts found himself in a rather unusual position heading into the election due to his boastful display of resistance to a cause. What cause? Only the reinstating of between 180 and 250 state and local candidates who were removed from South Carolina ballots due to a filing technicality. In SC, you have to submit an ethics statement at the same time you file your declaration for candidacy. Apparently, this was unknown to the hundreds of filers, while the incumbents already had theirs on file.

It is believed the blocking maneuver was orchestrated in part by Sen. Knotts, and made even more believable when one learns that his popular opponent was kicked off the ballot because of it. Enter our protagonist: Katrina Shealy, long-time Midlands resident and tea-party activist who challenged Knotts back in 2008.

When news of this red-taped gatekeeping ploy started spreading, an effort was made to bring forth a resolution for reinstatement. Such a move would require senators to suspend the rules. Senator Knotts responded that if senators did suspend the rules, he would introduce a pile of irrelevant amendments in order to stall the bill permanently. It is at this point that he went too far, because he let fly a boast of such magnitude that it became an instant classic – not to mention a rallying cry for Shealy’s supporters. Senator Knotts declared himself “in the catbird seat”.

"The catbird seat" is a phrase which means to be in an advantageous or prominent position. The catbird is real, and it always seeks out the highest point around from which to bellow a tune at sunrise, thus staking its territory. It is from this lofty height that Senator Knotts set himself up for the fall; from catbird to sitting duck with but one utterance too many.

While many candidates could not get on the ballot, Katrina Shealy whipped up a successful effort to become a petition candidate, foiling Knotts’ plan to coast into another term.

Along with the pertinent emails crisscrossing the state could be found this picture from the old “Dukes of Hazzard” show:

It was a perfect storm of political misstepping. Boy, did he step in it. Mrs. Shealy won the election with 51% of the vote.

I can’t help but wonder what will become of the catbird, now ousted by the Kat. It’s not as if all the candidates got back on the ballot. Incumbents from both sides of the aisle in South Carolina benefitted from Senator Knotts’ shenanigans. He was the fall guy, but I get the feeling he’ll do alright. In a certain sense, he’s still singing.

Victorious YAL Candidates

Below are some news links for victorious candidates endorsed by Young Americans for Liberty (YAL):

"GOP Rep. Amash wins 2nd term in Grand Rapids-area seat"

"Republican Bentivolio gets victory in 11th congressional district"

"Texas voters send Ted Cruz to Senate"

"U.S. Rep. Walter Jones on his way back to Congress"

"Labrador holds big lead in bid for 2nd term"

"Massie headed to Congress"

"Rep. David Schweikert wins Arizona's 6th Congressional District"

"Ted Yoho Declares His Victory 'A Win for the People'"

Justin Amash is the only one I’m familiar with. YAL is a Ron Paul endorsed organization, so I have a higher degree of confidence in their endorsements. Several names above also received RLC endorsements as well. Time will tell whether or not these candidates adhere to their principles and whether or not they have an impact at the federal level.

Number Crunching

The 2012 presidential election numbers:

% of eligible voters voting for No One: 46%

% of eligible voters voting for Obama: 28%

% of eligible voters voting for Romney: 26%

% of U.S. population voting for No One: 63%

% of U.S. population voting for Obama: 19%

% of U.S. population voting for Romney: 18%

By all accounts, this 'No One' fellow should be president.

Looking at it a different way, 2/5 of the population fought to become the 1/5 empowering their candidate to rule over the remaining 4/5. Or, by voter-eligible population, roughly 1/2 of the eligible voters fought to become the 1/4 empowering their candidate to rule over the remaining 4/5 of us.

So, we have tyranny of the minority. Probably differs very little from majority rule.

Election Results

In as much as the election was a complete bore, there lies a twinge of excitement within me this morning. Living among the red people, there is no better opportunity to discuss politics, and maybe plant the seeds of change, then when everyone is walking around feigning indignation.

While Bush was in office, I would get little else from them but the canned talk radio responses drummed into their heads. With the inauguration of Obama, that changed. No longer the willing spreaders of “everything’s fine” manure (let the democrats chuck it a while), SC conservatives were more receptive to open political discussion. It starts with joking about being racists, but then gets deeper. Before long we’re talking economic, domestic, and foreign policy – not to mention inalienable rights. 

With last night’s outcome, I wonder how many republicans and libertarians didn’t show up for team GOP? Was playing the progressive mini-me to Obama’s big blue hope a good tactic (hope which he promised last night is still coming, btw)? On top of that, they suggested that a surge in death and destruction was needed overseas – citizenship notwithstanding.

Then again, take away the socialist/military goodies that entice most conservatives and they may have garnered even fewer votes.

No doubt the GOP is readying itself for the implementation of Obamacare in 2014. Socialist streamliners that they are, they’ll have plenty of tweaks to offer up.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” – Albert Camus

Rational Ignorance and the Science of Fortune Telling

The standard argument underlying the theorem of rational voter ignorance strikes me as more evidence for (a) academics mindlessly copying academics (including even the excellent Mark Pennington) and (b) academics ignoring the real world.

Mind you, the conclusion that voters are rationally ignorant is correct in my view, but not on account of the reasons habitually given (see "conclusion" below).

It is true, people know infinitely less than they ought to in order to make an informed choice. Hence, voting is based on nonsense. And I agree with Bryan Caplan (hat tip to Laura), who belongs to the last of three schools: (i) the first arguing that democracy works well in that it faithfully reflects the will of the people, (ii) the second school holding that democracy is not working well at all, since it is NOT faithfully reflecting the will of the people, and (iii) the third school suggesting that democracy is a bit of a catastrophe because it DOES represent the will of a highly uninformed and ideologically misled electorate. 

As for my introductory propositions (a) and (b), in contradistinction to the theory, virtually no-one is making probability-based cost-benefit assessments in order to decide whether to go to the booth or not. People participate in voting simply because they have been conditioned into a number of habits that encourage them to vote.

Elections are a festival, a virtual orgy of the unthinking, including the fact that few things are less likely than finding a voter who has ever seriously thought through the pros and cons of democracy. When I was allowed to vote for the first time, voting was to me like a rite of passage, a proof of my maturity; and for a long time I did think that my vote mattered - vaguely following the line of reasoning, if at all, whereby my party would have no chance to win if each of its supporters thought their individual vote was not significant enough to warrant participation in the election.

 

People are divided in their opinion about who is going to win the presidential election. Just compare here (Obama very likely to win), here (Romney sure to win), and here (intuiting Romney will win) - the latter with an interesting link to an article on the manner polling works and fails.

Concerning the first link, I immediately concluded that Obama was very likely to win, but do the permutational options really support my expectation?

I am an uninterested and very superficial observer of the presidential election. But, again, how much gain is there in more extensive efforts at being in the picture?

Conclusion:

Voting is simply a different form of cheap talk. You can get a big kick at very little expense. Finding out what is really going on would be prohibitively expensive and without commensurate reward, indeed depressing. It is better to dream of nicer things, as everyone else does. One votes in order to do the done thing, feel socially accepted, even important.

If voting helps you feel good about yourself, so much the better. If it does not, never mind - what cost is there involved? The rational ignorance tenet should perhaps be rephrased thus: It is rational to vote, despite being uninformed and misinformed, for it can make you achieve a desired state of mind at little expense. And since long-term consequences, indeed any kind of consequences can be made part of achieving "a desired state of mind at little expense", they need not bother the voter.

PS

Bryan Caplan as well as his rather short, yet still too long book ("The Myth of the Rational Voter") are overrated, however I do not regret having read the book, and his main conclusion, reported above, alone is worth the reading. Mind you, Caplan seems to dream of a world ruled by economist kings (like himself), rather than representatives of 'the plebs' (i.e. people who do not know as much economics as he does). However, in his exorbitant confidence in the wisdom of economists, he comically fails to recognise the wide spectrum of divergent and incompatible views among economists and the fact that large numbers, probably the majority of them support the same irrational world for which 'the plebs' is casting their votes.

Generational Warfare

But this isn’t the old against the young, really.  This is the old and the young against the current producers.  Who is John Galt?

First the kids:

Then the seniors:

 

I don’t know who the original producer is of the music video with the kids.  The second one appears to be produced Michael Moore, so we’ll consider the source.

I’m not a particular fan of either Romney or Obama, but it seems to me that these videos say something more than just “Vote for Obama over Romney.” 

Health Care - An Introduction

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

Part 3

 

Part 4

 

Part 5

 

Part 6

 

See also Reading List on Health Care and Getting Fit- 

Debate Drinking Game

I may have to stick with water or Diet Coke—I have to teach in the morning…

Get Out the Vote

Hilarious satire from J. R. Hammond in response to Breitbart’s attempt to argue in favor of a Romney vote:

That’s why it’s silly to dismiss Romney as no different than Obama. Some wave off their obligation to choose with a cliché, that Romney is just “the lesser of two evils.”

That’s true, but the key is “lesser.” If you have to choose between pissing off Stalin or Hitler, you’d be a fool to shrug your shoulders and risk some face time with the dude with the funny mustache (no, the other one with the funny mustache). Make no mistake, you are obligated—obligated, I tell you—to choose between one of two pro-establishment candidates! Don’t throw away your vote by denying that obligation and refusing to lend legitimacy to the perpetuation of the status quo!

This is no time to “make a statement” or pout that Ron Paul got treated badly in Tampa. He did get treated badly in Tampa, and that was stupid and unnecessary. Again, let’s put that behind us! If you are truly dedicated to the Constitution you won’t let it be trampled on by a Democratic president in order to make some soon-to-be-moot point to the anonymous GOP party hacks responsible for not giving Ron Paul a primo speaking slot because they knew he would just repeat truths we really just don’t want to hear.

Priorities, people. Nothing less than the Constitution is at stake here. And I think we can all agree that it would be much better to have a Republican president trampling the Constitution.

Bravo, Mr. Hammond. Bravissimo.