After a massive
search effort the Wall Street Journal found a conservative at Harvard that
they could present as their Saturday
interview. The person is someone
called Harvey Mansfield who first of all exhibits the self-pity of someone who
is not taken seriously.
"I live in a one-party state and very much more so a one-party
university," says the 80-year-old professor with a sigh. "It's
disgusting. I get along very well because everybody thinks the fact that I'm
here means the things I say about Harvard can't be true. I am a kind of pet—a
pet dissenter."
Ah yes, the finely aged whine of a Conservative, who
cannot understand why his generally crackpot ideas are regarded as crackpot
ideas. Of course, as for the "one-party" state was the just recently defeated Republican Mitt Romney a Governor in that state, and wasn't the just recently defeated Scott Brown a Senator? Oh sorry Harvey, reality is not a part of your world is it?
But Mr. Mansfield
waxes poetic as he complains about the stupidity of voters, you know, the
ones who don’t vote the way he thinks they should vote.
Consider voting. "You can count voters and
votes," Mr. Mansfield says. "And political science does that a lot,
and that's very useful because votes are in fact countable. One counts for one.
But if we get serious about what it means to vote, we immediately go to the
notion of an informed voter. And if you get serious about that, you go all the
way to voting as a wise choice. That would be a true voter. The others are all
lesser voters, or even not voting at all. They're just indicating a belief, or
a whim, but not making a wise choice. That's probably because they're not
wise."
By that measure, the electorate
that granted Barack Obama a second term was unwise—the
president achieved "a sneaky victory," Mr. Mansfield says.
Wow, that sneaky Mr. Obama and his overwhelming
victory. Just goes to show you cannot
trust voters in a democracy, not if they aren’t going to vote the way a Harvard
professor says they ought. Gosh Mr.
Mansfield you ought to go back to the 18th century. We are sure they are beginning to miss you.
The WSJ article is among the most bitter and misguided pieces I've seen. It's sad to see someone so well-read consistently misapply all of his sources - who in their right mind can study the Greek philosophers and Tocqueville and come away with this man's views?
ReplyDeleteHe talks a good game, but his argument comes down to the same nonsense as you'd hear on Limbaugh, that Democrats want to destroy the rich and use their money to create a permanent welfare class of dependent voters.