Old white people

Lots of commentary on the left that this election featured lots of old white people. They say it in a pejorative way. I understand the idea of demographics, that you cannot count on old white people’s % of the vote. But the pejorative part is unjustified. What we are really saying that old white people are the most responsible part of the electorate. They vote when it is less exciting. They take the time to understand the issues. The rest of the American population should be more like old white people

This is starting to get on my nerves. As an old white guy, I volunteer my money and labor. I work, pay my (too high) taxes, generally obey the laws, keep my bad habits in check and - in short - do what makes my country and society better.

I volunteer for some conservation organizations. The members work for nothing and contribute their money. We sometime get visits from various rights people complaining that we are "too pale and too male." Whose fault is that? I wish more diverse people would step up and pull their own weight.

I am getting ready to retire and - given that I am a responsible type guy - I am studying the permutations well in advance. There is much gnashing of teeth that people like me are leaving the workforce and taking the useful skills with us. WTF! Wouldn't it be better if we were gone? Seems like that is what many of our lefty friends think. But the country needs us.

President Obama explained that businesses owners didn't build it. His comments were a bit ambiguous. A charitable interpretation is that he meant that we all take and give from society. We can accomplish what we do only because we stand on the shoulders of those who went before. He is right, but you can take it too far.

Civilization is not based on charity; it is based on reciprocity. Good citizens do their part and can reasonably expect others to do theirs. Everybody gives and takes. The better citizens give in more than they take. W/o their efforts, everything goes to hell.

I have produced added value by supplying things that society wanted and needed. I believe in reciprocity and even charity, but I don't "owe" society anything, since I have been a net producer.

I worry about the future and not just the political one. Indeed, the slackers who don't vote in off-year elections don't do lots of other useful things. When people like me pass from the American scene, the country will be in trouble unless other people stop their "activism" and get to work, learning useful skills, volunteering their time and money and generally complaining less and doing more.

I voted in the last election and did my part. To those who failed in their civic duty, you gave people like me your proxy. If you don't like it, wise up yourself. I don't want to hear any complaining that it is unfair. If you are lazy or confused I will try to help you learn better habits because I am charitable, but I don't owe anything to you and you need to show a little more respect.

Posted by Christine & John at November 8, 2014 11:32 AM
Comments
Comment #385158

Oregon has vote by mail. While the rest of the country had a participation rate of 36%- the lowest since 1942- Oregon had a 69% participation rate. Democrats swept virtually every office.

Posted by: phx8 at November 8, 2014 4:43 PM
Comment #385159

Phx8

Yeah. Maybe the guys unwilling to bother to go down and vote do it more easily when they can just send it in. Maybe we should offer some kind of prizes to entice the unengaged to make an effort.

The problem I perceive is that lots of people are not pulling their own weight. Romney got trouble for talking about makers and takers, but he had a point. It has been a problem with democracy since the Greeks invented it that it can tempt the unproductive folk to vote themselves the benefits they are unwilling to earn.

Posted by: C&J at November 8, 2014 7:14 PM
Comment #385160

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2014/11/06/100627/why-young-minority-and-low-income-citizens-dont-vote/

The dems were able to get out the vote in 08 and 12 but by 14 those folks had seen little or no change in their economic well being so, they didn’t ‘waste time’ going to the polls again, IMO.

I do believe it is an ‘us or them’ situation. Those that feel they have a stake in America will vote to retain/increase their stake. Those who believe that they are at the ‘low end’ of everything feel no compunction to vote.

I rail against corporate wealth a whole lot but I’m certainly not angry, no strong negative feelings for corporate or wealthy persons. To the contrary, they are most often the most intelligent, possess the education and skills needed to succeed.

Therefore, it is only natural that those folks will rise to the top, having wealth, political clout, et al. They not only feel the urge to vote, they tend to back up their vote with green, and, more recently, great gobs of green.

So it is that the wealthy become proxy’s for the lesser of us. Ironically, one could say that the wealthy make better political decisions than the average joe therefore, we should encourage them in doing so while the lesser sit it out. For shure, the wealthy are better informed in public and private matters, connected with people in the know and so on - - -

Agree, situation has existed starting with the Greeks. Today, a politician will visit a city of some size with lots of business people to get his message out while as many or more residing in the countryside may not know the pol is in town.

Some have proposed making the vote mandatory. Joel Hirschorns book, “Delusional Democracy” had some good points re voting. I’m not at all convinced that mandatory voting would add anything to the integrity of elections.

I prefer reforms that involve teaching civics/gov’t in the classroom. Taking the money influence out of politics. Relying heavily on visual communications over the Internet as a low cost means to move information to and from candiates and voters. Something akin to several interactive cspans but on the Internet.

As it is, the corpocracy is exceedingly happy with low turnouts,

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at November 8, 2014 9:00 PM
Comment #385161

Roy

It is not only the voting. We have real trouble recruiting “non traditional” folks for volunteer work. You know that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to volunteering and contributing to charity. We do more than any other country. We have to get others to take up our good civic habits. It has not been easy. Instead we get complaints. It is like me letting you buy and then watching you carry all the groceries into the house and then complaining that you didn’t get all my favorite foods.

Posted by: C&J at November 8, 2014 9:50 PM
Comment #385162

Evidently you guys were not listening to our president. The 2/3rds of Americans who stayed home and didn’t vote, were actually Obama supporters and the way Obama has it figured out, the 2/3rds that didn’t vote would have voted Democrat if they had voted…so that leaves Obama on top with the mandate of the 2/3rds. All of this as seen through the crystal ball of the left. If this logic sounds familiar…it is because Daugherty and a few others have been spouting it for years.

Posted by: George at November 8, 2014 10:12 PM
Comment #385163

George

Yeah, I know how Obama has spun this. He certainly dislikes his own voters, since he figures that those who support his policies are too lazy to be bothered to get out to vote.

I am sick of this whole thing. If people won’t vote, screw them. They have given people like us their proxies. They evidently understand that our judgement is better than theirs.

Posted by: C&J at November 8, 2014 10:19 PM
Comment #385166

Here is a map showing the Democrat control of the country when Obama was elected in 2008 compared to the same map in 2014.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2014/11/05/thanks-obama-2008-electoral-map-vs-2014/

The Democrats will spin this all they can; but what has happened is a clear rejection of liberal policy. This map does not even take into account the loss of Democrat seats in state and local governments. There has been a steady bleeding of Democrat leadership.

Yesterday, Debby Wassermann Schultz had a televised rebuttal to the Republican sweep. She admitted the Republicans had won, but could not accept the fact they had won. She believes, as Obama, that the two thirds who stayed home were all in agreement with Obama and his policies. I’m not sure how more detached the Democrats could be from reality; have we really come to the point that we base elections on the intent of those who fail to vote? Could it be that those who did not vote, did so because given a choice of voting for Obama’s failed policies, or voting for a Republican, they just stayed home. The problem with buying votes with free stuff is that when there is no free stuff, they don’t vote. The Democrats love to talk about the right wing who took over the Republican Party, but it is the very minority left wing who has hijacked the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party of today, is not the Democrat Party of JFK.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 9, 2014 9:07 AM
Comment #385178
what has happened is a clear rejection of liberal policy.

Leftist policy proposals won referenda across the country from legalizing marijuana to raising the minimum wage, yet you come here to claim that this is a rejection of liberal policy?

Perhaps more a serious problem for the Democratic party is the electorate’s rejection of Democratic leadership.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2014 7:59 AM
Comment #385215

Legalizing pot is not a leftist goal; I would consider it more of a libertarian goal. Although, the medical marijuana law in Florida did fail. Minimum wage is a liberal policy, but minimum wage voted on at the state level is the correct way to do it. Every Democrat who lost their election was in favor of the minimum wage; but whether it played a part in their losing, who knows?

Tell me Warren, have the Democrat leadership had leftist policies. And are you including Obama in the Democrat leadership?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 10, 2014 4:18 PM
Comment #385224

If you are going to be immature and intentionally misuse Democrat as an adjective rather than a noun, you’ll lose quite a bit of credibility here.

Every Democrat who lost their election was in favor of the minimum wage
Nope!
have the Democrat leadership had leftist policies. And are you including Obama in the Democrat leadership?

Yes and yes. Obama’s leadership hasn’t fared to well over the past 2 years. The PPACA exchange website was botched. Our foreign policy towards Syria was botched. Obama may not be to blame personally for these things, but the buck stops on his desk. Americans think the country is on the wrong track, but it isn’t due to liberalism (otherwise the GOP would have higher approval ratings right now).

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2014 10:27 PM
Comment #385272
Legalizing pot is not a leftist goal

Criminalizing marijuana use is certainly an illiberal position. On social issues such as this, libertarianism and liberalism are essential identical philosophies.

Every Democrat who lost their election was in favor of the minimum wage.
Mark Pryor opposed raising the Federal Minimum Wage. This isn’t to say that the minimum wage was a large factor in his loss; however, it is consistent with my hypothesis that the electorate continues to hold center-left policy positions while simultaneously being unhappy with the track the nation is on. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 12, 2014 11:32 AM
Comment #385327

http://www.fashionfast.net/
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
http://www.fashionfast.net/
Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
Jeans price is $34
Jewelry $15
Door to Door services!

Posted by: hksjhyr at November 12, 2014 11:34 PM
Post a comment