Well Well Well

As stated in prior posts, everyone is foolish. We recognize this, and wanted to make everyone else realize it as well. We were attempting to rile up some people, be the proverbial spoon that stirs the pot of controversy, and most importantly spark an interest and a desire for people to respond. By doing this, we felt as if we could get people to see and understand their own personal biases. Also, we wanted to make people realize that they could become more informed about the issues, and hopefully trigger some people to actually go and research more about important issues (whether because they wanted to become more informed or to tear our argument apart). That being said, if one is able to eliminate their own bias and look at the election with a non=partisan, unbiased outlook, then they will be able to make a well informed decision about whom to vote for. Thus, read on and see how to take an unbiased approach to examining an issue.

The policies of both candidates are predicated on numerous assumptions. These policies seem completed logical and necessary if you agree with all of the assumptions upon which the argument is predicated, if not then the argument seems nonsensical and does not resonate well with you. To demonstrate this predication of argument on assumed truth lets take a look at the debate on alternative energy policy.

Here we see Obama talking about his ideas for a carbon cap and trade policy. These ideas for a carbon cap and trade policy are only relevant under two assumptions, first that global warming is a problem that needs to and or can be fixed, along with the assumption that carbon cap and trade is effective. Although the first assumption is rather universal, there is much more controversy surrounding the effectiveness of carbon credits in capping emissions.



Here we see John McCain talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power does have some advantages such as it is cheap, extremely efficient and less harmful to the environment in terms of emissions. But a lot of McCain's beliefs in terms of revising our energy policy are predicated on national security and self-sufficiency, especially from countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Iraq.



Now for the tricky part. Under these circumstances, to predicate one's beliefs, one must have established opinions as to what direction the world is moving in (in this case the US and our global counterparts). However, as is the case most of the time, it's difficult to correctly foresee every event in the somewhat immediate future. Take for example the tragic events of 9/11 and Bush's pre-election proposals. With that tragic event, the whole course of Bush's intentions changed dramatically. From that we can posit that spontaneous, and sometimes devastating events can change planned events, which leads us to the question: What, if any, is the causal relationship between choosing a candidate based on their proposals and the possibility of those choices actually mattering?

...Welcome back fools

We posed the question in our last post, what, if any is the causal relationship between voting and being a fool? Now time to embellish...

There are many types of people that vote. There are single issue voters who make their election choices based upon a single issue, and voters who select a candidate based upon his or her style of dress or whether or not the candidate is deemed to be good looking. The fact of the matter is that not everyone that votes is going to agree completely with one candidate or another. Also, not every person that votes is going to know everything about the issues at stake. There is a certain amount of political apathy that exists among the population of the country today, and for that reason people who vote are fools. It would be foolish to let someone eat your ice cream cone on a 100 degree day when you are craving ice cream. Similarly, it is foolish to vote for a candidate who you do not completely agree with on every issue. If you are not going to be fully satisfied with a candidate (meaning that their views on issues do not agree with yours in every way), why vote for them? If there is no candidate that fulfills your predetermined criteria for president, why vote period? Because people fill as if it is important to vote (which it is), and as if it is their civic duty. And since there is no candidate that is in full accordance with a person's views, that person makes a compromise and votes for the candidate that best represents that person's stance on an issue. Because we are making compromises on who to vote for, we are being foolish because we are choosing a person who we do not agree with 100% on the issues.

As previously established, we live in a world where individuals are forced to compromise their own personal values in a systematic manner in order to justify/come to terms with voting for their desired candidate. That being said, it doesn't mean that there aren't those who do make informed decisions. And although individuals do have some solid reasoning for favoring a select political figure. We are solely trying to suggest that there isn't a single person who agrees completely with a candidate at hand. And because of this, like was said before, we habitually place more significance on the issues with which we agree with our candidate.

That being said, somehow, more foolish individuals exist. Those who base their preference off objective decisions that hardly pertain to the issues at hand. These individuals like to make their choices based off who they see as being the better speaker, parental influence, and the candidate their personally feel is socially correct to vote for. To demonstrate this, we'll take a look at the 1992 election between Clinton and Bush. In a random study that took place during the election, over 86 percent of the voters somehow knew that the Bush's family dog's name was Millie and that Bush's VP, Dan Quayle, publicly criticized a notable TV character at the time, Murphy Brown. While only a meager 15 percent knew Bush and Clinton both favored the death penalty, and an even smaller five percent knew that both candidates favored tax cuts within the capital gains tax. Therefore, in order to take a systematic approach towards voting, it's important to facilitate an unbiased informed discussion with yourself...

Voting is for Fools

Only fools vote for Barack Obama. Only fools vote for John McCain.

In a perfect world, one would obviously choose a presidential candidate that was in agreement with that person’s personal stances on the issues that were important to them. But the fact of the matter is that we do not live a world filled with unicorns and leprechauns who make delicious cereal. We live in a world in which making decisions is like putting two wrong pieces of a jug saw puzzle together, and a lot of the time we are forced to make compromises in order to complete the puzzle. In terms of the election, voters have to choose between two candidates of whose viewpoints they may not completely agree with. In order to exercise this democratic right, people must make compromises in their stances on issues, because no candidate will fully fulfill a person’s criteria for a president. Thus, people voluntarily become apathetic towards the issues they deem insignificant (such as issues that a person and their preferred candidate might not necessarily agree on). This apathy leads us to our central point of inquiry. What, if any, is the causal relationship between voting and being a fool?

To be continued…