More on Clinton Hatred, "Irrational" or Otherwise
---
I do not believe in the intrinsic superiority of "government by experts," or what I have called "scientocracy."
But neither do I believe that policy would be any better if it blindly kowtowed to the uninformed views of the Everyman. William F. Buckley's famous (if often misquoted) snark about the Cambridge phone book was cute, and perhaps correct in the context of Harvard Law School, but it is not a universal axiom of governance.
I hold an alternative view: Limit what government can do, and I become unconcerned about who's doing it.
A quick example: Another pundit bemoans "irrational" Clinton hatred:commented tried to comment*:
---
*The comment was never posted, either due to a technical malfunction or because Fish blocked it.
But neither do I believe that policy would be any better if it blindly kowtowed to the uninformed views of the Everyman. William F. Buckley's famous (if often misquoted) snark about the Cambridge phone book was cute, and perhaps correct in the context of Harvard Law School, but it is not a universal axiom of governance.
I hold an alternative view: Limit what government can do, and I become unconcerned about who's doing it.
A quick example: Another pundit bemoans "irrational" Clinton hatred:
These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the "strangeness" of her eyes ... she kills cats; she's a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).To which I
...
If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are "supported" by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don't.
A society that has decided, for better or worse, that the only qualification for voting is not having died for 18 years hardly has any standing to complain when such otherwise-unqualified people prove themselves as such.Allowing the ignorant, the irrational or the paranoid to vote might be better than the alternative of deciding how to exclude them from voting. I think it is. But the fact that they do vote is all the more reason to constrain ex ante both what (e.g., bigot amendments) and whom ("I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all...") such people can actually vote for.
The only thing that scares me more is that these people also serve as jurors.
---
*The comment was never posted, either due to a technical malfunction or because Fish blocked it.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Clinton Revs Up the "Throw 'Em Under" Bus
- It's 3 A.M. and the Phone Rings...
- More on Clinton Hatred, "Irrational" or Otherwise
- Quick Blogging Tip...
- Hillary 2008 Update -- Won't Commit to Full Senate Term?
- Hillary 2008 Update
- Hillary in 2006...or 2008...or Whatever
Posted by Kip on
5 February 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.



