Sunday, April 13, 2008

Is the "Dumbing down of America" successful?

Fascinating article by Bradley Gitz from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that echoes some of my fears that the dumbing down of America may be successful.

Several political stories congealed in recent weeks with the cumulative effect of saying something troubling about the intelligence of the American electorate, or at least the intelligence of the American electorate as reflected in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For one, Clinton erred in making claims about touching down in Bosnia under sniper fire. Because there was no doubt about the discrepancy between what actually happened and what she said had happened, the word “lie” was beneficially reintroduced to our political vocabulary. Second, Obama gave an eloquent speech seeking to explain the views of his pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and to provide an explanation for his failure to disassociate himself from those views. Third, John McCain came under attack for allegedly having said that America will be fighting in Iraq decades after he, everyone he knows and the rest of us are all pushing up daisies.

snip



Per Gitz, Clinton thought we were all dumb enough to blindly accept she put herself in bodily harm to demonstrate her courage on our behalf. BHO sought to extract himself from the Wright association by claiming "everyone has racial baggage and, in the case of Wright, such baggage is understandable in light of our nation’s sorry history of racial discrimination."

In the case of McCain, Gitz points out that "anyone who read the full transcripts of his remarks would readily grasp that he did not remotely mean what his critics, among whose ranks are included Clinton and Obama, say he meant."

Certainly it takes a "dumbed down America" to buy into Clinton's repeated tale of her dangerous Bosnian visit. An America who lazily prefers to believe media headlines, and ignore facts not so readily provided until push comes to shove.

I can only add that a "dumb America", if you read the media reports, also chose to buy into Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech as perfectly logical, and managed to ignore the not-so-subtle promise of a more socialized American and increased affirmative action'esque policies under his WH admin. Even Americans craving socialism reject preferential treatment under affirmative action. So why they choose to miss this little tidbit boggles the mind.

For McCain, he didn't have much of a fighting chance - being the nominee of the party so many want to hate. Truth of statements would get in the way of that pure emotionalism.

Gitz considers the media slam on McCain as the worst of the three... with both DNC candidates and the media assuming that Americans would be too ignorant to read McCain's actual full statement, and realize that we may very well be in Iraq a century from now... just as we are still in Germany, Japan and Korea a half century plus after those wars were fought. Both the media and DNC assume we - dumbed down America - can not discern the difference between foreign base deploment, and an active fighting force.

Clinton's behavior he passes off very briefly - a sign of her and Bill's desperate ambition to reclaim 1600 Pennsylvania Ave again as their mailing address.

Obama - in the forefront of repeating the McCain's "100 year Iraq war" mischaracterization - proves himself hypocritical... passing himself off as a new and more honest politician while demonstrating just the opposite by perpetuating such insulting mistruths to rally supporters.

Gitz's last sentence?

The cumulative effect of it all was to convey a low regard for the intelligence of the American people. And also to create the nagging hunch that such low regard is perhaps justified.



And herein lies perhaps an ugly truth. The American electorate has been dumbed down enough to be dangerous. We are, in overwhelming numbers, willing to place our political and current events education in the hands of an politically driven media with an agenda. We allow our public schools to utilize textbooks with revisionist history, striking any language considered un-PC in today's hypersensitive world.

Even worse, we are anxious to elect a POTUS and Congress who will put in massive safety nets that provide government care and money from cradle to grave because we are too lazy, lack the ambition, or find it just too hard to take care of ourselves. And to achieve that false sense of security under government control, we're willing to believe anything. It is only when it is too late that the reality of what we lost for that safety net will come home to roost.

Which brings up the tacit notion that Democrats constantly infer by their political policy suggestions. That the majority of American citizens are incapable of making a wise decision for their own welfare, so the government must do that for them. They place government in the position of a doting Mom or Dad, constantly bailing the foolish teenager out of trouble. Tough love is not a position of the liberal progressives.

It's taken decades and generations of public education to indoctrinate our youth into adults who feel their future in the US - with all it's advantages and opportunities - is "hopeless". BHO and HRC both play on this "victimized class" for voters, with BHO actually having the audacity to use the label "hope" prominently in his campaign slogans. It's no surprise, and certainly no scandal that the man states in his speeches that Americans are "bitter". It is wholly in keeping of his view of dumbed down America... again incapable of rising to the changing business climate and world of global trade that costs the US high paying, union industrial jobs.

As for the GOP'ers. There are still a few of us - adamant holdouts for control of our own lives, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. But judging by Congressional membership voted in (when one of them actually decides to quit or dies....), and the GOP choice for POTUS this year (very liberal in domestic policies) even that segment of America is dying off.

So it may be that the long, hard task of dumbing down of America is, indeed, successful after all.

7 comments:

janice said...

Great post!

I've often thought the dumbing down was to facilitate the nanny state.

MataHarley said...

And what you "often thought" is, IMHO, entirely correct, Janice. The nanny state is all about control and power... and money for a select few at the helm.

Most done, of course, with great intents. "be your brother/sister's keeper", as Obama says. Socialism and Marxist is enticing in theory. Just ugly in reality.

And I fear there is no turning back for the US. It will ever so slowly continue to move in that direction by the re-education of the youth.

BTW, many thanks for visiting!

MH

TrekMedic251 said...

The TrekMedic decloaks to add this to the discussion:

In a country where 25 million people vote for a lame, semi-talented singer every week, but can't commit to walking to a polling place twice a year is already about as dumbed-down as the MSM and DNC want it.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Ken Hoop said...

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind04172008.html

Conservative Lind shows there is no real Iraqi government.
Basra proved it. Maliki asked us to stay? LOL.

MataHarley said...

No, Ken Hoop. Maliki was not the spokesman who asked the US to stay. It was the Iraqi President, Talabani. Remember that the Iraq govt structure has a President, two VPs and a prime minister.

I have contended that as long as the Iraqi govt formally requests our presence formally, we stay. How will it improve our "int'l standing" by refusing a fledgling democracy in the ME aid when they request it?

If Iraq govt says leave, then I say we leave and withdraw with expedient speed that allows for the safety of the lst brigades left behind.

Jrod said...

I like your style Mataharley, tho I'm a dualsport rider myself ;-)

Indeed, it seems the 40+ years that liberals have had their sticky, grimy fingers wrapped around the steering wheel of education is finally starting to bear fruit.

Your post reminds me of the following quote. I'd bet you're familiar with it already:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (bounty, gifts, donations, generous giving, etc.) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. Democracies progress through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again to bondage."--Alexander Tyler 1770

I think it's pretty clear where we are in the cycle. Whether or not we return to bondage remains to be seen. I'd wager there's enough good citizens who know the meaning of "...cold, dead hands" to keep us out of bondage; tho that's pure conjecture on my part.

MataHarley said...

Hey jrod. INRE your comment, "I'd wager there's enough good citizens who know the meaning of ", ... from your lips to reality, I hope.

But again, I sure we are able to reverse any policies and programs that are put into place that shake the electorate into the ugly reality of govt care from cradle to grave.

It can be one expensive lesson learned. And unfortunately, it's easier to keep legislation from being passed than to reverse it.

Ride safe... and remember, da rubber side goes down!