The Ignorant American Voter

Reader Comments
Back to article

Sorry but you guys are slightly silly with no political insight at all....
The political class just pump out ads knowing that the typical American voter (with all of the negative connotations that term evokes) will just lap it up....
It is very very sad and disquieting

Philip Leo 10:30PM May 30, 2012

My word:
ignorantavore, (ig nor rawnt' a vor) -- one who preys on the ignorant, particularly political pundits and candidates.

Diane Schwartz of OH 8:17AM March 13, 2012

My word:
ignorantavore, (ig nor rawnt' a vor) -- one who preys on the ignorant, particularly political pundits and candidates.

Diane Schwartz of OH 8:15AM March 13, 2012

Orwell warns we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history.
As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
Huxley v. Orwell: comic strip where you can actually read everything
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=135828
♥
Huxley v. Orwell: comic strip put to cool music ala video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3fAHE6IQxY&feature=player_embedded#at=64
Foreward to Neil Postman's 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death.
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
-- Neil Postman
Foreward to the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Nadein Lumley 9:12AM May 26, 2011

I always found it rather funny that here in Indiana, I hear so many people complaining about our Socialist President.
So many of these people can't spell Socialism , don't know the definition and a lot of them actually are dependent on one social program or another ie: Medicare , Medicaid , etc….. That is what I have deemed
Good Old Fashioned American STUPID .
Are we going to let the Rich and the Huge Corps. take everything from us ? Wake up Americans, before you can't...

Michael Hittle of IN 10:41PM April 14, 2011

I'm sick of lazy apathetic fools that repeat these mantras over and over. "My vote doesn't count" and "Democrats and Republicans are the same". Pick an issue, ANY ISSUE, and research a little. You will find out that there is a big damn difference between the two parties. Of course both parties have many selfish individuals who put their own political and financial interests before the needs of their constituents. This is where the voting comes in. Vote those people out of office!

Robert Marley of LA 12:19PM November 03, 2010

Americans don't like to ponder topics. They like very short and precise solutions to very complex problems, some of which may even be un-solvable. One of John Kerrey's problems was he didn't try to offer slogans as solutions and no one wanted very much to think about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the middle east, etal. Mr. Bush told us he was against evil and for good, and that satisfied a lot of voters- and too bad, it still does. If the answer to a problem takes more than three words to resolve, very few have interest enough to hear it out. And they vote accordingly. And we spend trillions on wars that shouldn't have been fought. We guess wrong on Israel and Hamas. We don't like the new medical care legislation, and we don't much like financial regulation legislation, even though our insurer cancels us if we get sick and we lose our homes as a result of wildly speculative banking. Shenkman's right; problem is, can this problem be fixed? The founding fathers (or at least some of them) didn't think so; they wanted to restrict voting to those capable of understanding and making rational decisions. Too bad, the majority won and in the end, we lost.

Don Ewaldz of IL 4:27PM September 02, 2010

as long as american people think that their vote really counts this game will go on same as past 180 years and now other countrys are learning and doing the same (voting ) like iran , but the reality is that they just want people to vote but they choose who ever they want , if people stop voting less than 50% then they will be canselled automaticly and this is some thing they don't want , that's why we see people are getting ingnorant more and more by tv -movies -banks loans tax , and they don't even want to talk about reality they are happy with this kinde of life becouse they can't imaging a life with out lies -tax -payment for house , why no one in america can't own a home of their own with out life time payment that's becouase they want people to be busy working and paying and have no time to think about any of this , THIS IS LIFE IN A GOLDEN CAGE , in the past they slave human but now they slave humanity . and so far they done a good job about it .

amir of CA 7:37PM July 25, 2009

PVOVB8

Htuqbpto of WI 6:54AM July 14, 2009

The same type of people who voted for Bush, voted for Obama. The American public divides itself with catch phrases and propaganda dolled out by both sides.
The easiest way to teach children to become "smart" is to teach them logical fallacies in high school.
For instance, During bush's campaign he would use phrases like "If you don't support me, your with the terrorist." In Obama's campaign he didn't go at it directly but accomplished the same with his "old politics" phrases and anti-bush statements. Especially the "new" images. If you are trained in any way, shape or form you know that these are all logical fallacies. Bandwagon, and novelty. Popularity doesn't equate to what is correct, nor does something new. The ignorance of the American public is believing in these catch phrases and nuances. This is accomplished with calls of authority through the news media. They are just as much to blame as well.
A truly smart American knows that our political system is closed to any influence through voters except on a local level. It has been this way for a while. Through restructuring of voter laws every election, voter drives, and media coverage, any person with a lot of money can buy an election. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think, a person with the right amount of money and influence can change the rules of the game each election. This election is was Obama. He had enough money to buy the right people in certain key states to get them to change their election laws to favor metropolitan centers through voter registration, lessing of voter registration requirements, and extended voting time. This in combination with the money to actually huddle people to the polls by providing transportation, won him the election.
To simplify this let me ask you a simple question. When is the last time a president won the election without having the majority of political support (through being a democrat or republican) and the MOST amount of money compared to the other candidates? The pattern is quite clear.

Darryl Touchet of AL 4:40PM February 03, 2009