Posted on 12/15/2012 8:09:32 PM PST by PingPongChampion
There's not a big difference between slashing an enemy's tires and voting his rights away. Both acts probably stem from the same negative emotion and are accompanied by a heightened sense of vengeance, retribution, or justice. Our emotions play a crucial role in our lives and we'd likely be sterile robots without them. The only problem is that our emotions aren't always rational, logical, or supplemental to our survival. We often make decisions on a whim during moments of intense anger, sadness, or fear. These decisions can get us in trouble and lead us to a future of regret. It's fair to say that everyone is equally capable of having emotional outbursts, but there are those among us who not only have them more frequently but are unable to control or suppress them. We call these people neurotic. In a democracy, decisions are indirectly made by voters. Voters are people and people always have the potential to be neurotic. The real danger exists in group neuroticism. In a democracy, the biggest threats to individual freedom are emotionally charged mobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at poletical.com ...
Organizational Sclerosis: So many benefits to so many special interests that everyones standard of living is lowered.
This was the argument against giving women the vote. Like it or not, that’s the reality of it now, and unless you want to change the franchise, or change women, it’s what we have to work with.
The problem with the left is that they will willingly give up their freedoms for what they perceive as security and never think that somewhere down the road they might need those liberties.
There are emotional women, yes. But there are also emotional men. In my family, the men voted for 0 and the women voted against 0. Blanket statements are seldom accurate.
You’re of course right. There are always exceptions. I was suggesting that political arguments in this system, in order to be successful, need to take into consideration the emotionalism of the electorate. It can be done.
For instance, rather than talking about how illegal aliens are, in fact, illegal, end of argument, we will have to be arguing to emotions. We will have to be talking about how it affects the people in this country and their children, emotionally, how it threatens the security of our country, and thus us individually, when there are not controls on entrance, and how in the long run it’s not good for the illegal aliens, nor for the people of the countries they’ve come from who have only forestalled the changes they need to make there to make their own countries comfortable and livable, by the loss of those with initiative.
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”
Benjamin Franklin
Yes, and even that doesn’t make some people vote conservative. My dad has been adversely affected by the influx of illegal aliens into Branson, MO. Still, he votes for the Democrats. His argument is that there isn’t enough difference between the candidates. Given the poor choices we had last couple of elections, I can’t really dispute his statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.