Progressives Explain Trump Voters: Racist or Ignorant

Progressives can’t believe they lost.  They are riding on an absolute gusher of denial.  They offer the standard racist and sexist explanations.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of counties who voted for Obama in 2008 that went Trump in 2016.  Did it take those voters 8 years to get new glasses and notice Obama was black?  But he sounded so white!  Sorry, that just doesn’t work.  So try ignorance.


This article likes the ignorance explanation to the point where it starts talking about tests voters should have to pass to qualify to vote.  http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/


I am old enough to remember when literacy tests were used to keep blacks from voting in Southern States. This article complains about voter ignorance and considers various ways to keep the "uninformed" from voting. I think "uninformed" is a progressive dog whistle for racial, religious and social class based discrimination against redneck whites. Coming from the same people who claim that requiring voters to show ID is racist, this is really sky high hypocrisy.


The Trump voters in this election were very informed about how government policies in the last 8 years have hurt them personally. They have watched factories close, regulations strangle local businesses and many of their friends become so discouraged in the search for work that they have given up trying to find a job. They know that the government values reduced carbon emissions over their livelihoods. They know that the government considers their religion worthless. They know that the government wants to completely destroy their culture. They know that the government encourages colleges to discriminate against their children on the basis of race. They're fed up with it all. They voted for a candidate that promised to fix it.


In order to really understand the paragraph above, liberals should imagine their outrage if the victims were black.

Big Data Does Not Make Big Government Work

Big government advocates are always looking for reasons why this time big government will work.  They have to do this because every time big government is tried, it fails.  Big government can’t work as well as a free market because the amount of information a central government can absorb and use to make decisions is far less than the information that markets process to set prices.  The latest excuse for big government is that computerized big data will finally make big government possible.  I think this is another big lie.

When you use any model, you have to check it against reality. No matter how big a model is, it involves simplification at some level because your computational power has limits and you can’t run the model with the behavior of every person in society mapped into the model. The temptation is to manage to the model, rather than manage to reality, because the model has a prettier dashboard display and is more accessible.  You can run lots of different “what if?” scenarios through your model and convince yourself you understand everything.  In fact, all you understand is how the model behaves, not how the real world is going to behave.

The fashion in big government at the moment is to assume that a central government can run everything more efficiently than a collection of disorganized private firms, charities, states, provinces and local governments. This conceit has led to world-wide malaise, economic stagnation and civic frustration. For one thing, it’s insulting. The old John Locke model of government by the consent of the governed implicitly assumes that the governed are smart enough to give informed consent. The current, Big Brother, style of government assumes that the government knows better than individuals what’s good for them. No matter how big your data is, that’s insulting and ridiculous.  You can never know someone better than they know themselves.

You should also take note that large political organizations have a tendency to resist innovation and then to implement innovation poorly. When they implement new technology, they tend to spend a lot of money and buy over designed garbage, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Government is good at sponsoring basic research and even proof of concept. They have no idea how to implement things efficiently. The Obamacare roll out disaster is a typical big government technical project.

If you check the growth rates in the US and UK under Reagan and Thatcher, and compare them to the last 8 years, you will notice a big difference. The lesson is that big government doesn’t work, even with big data.

Original article:

https://www.aei.org/publication/infinite-information-problem-and-what-proponents-of-state-centralization-miss/

Against Clinton, Not For Trump

I'm not voting for Trump because I like Trump. I'm voting for Trump because I believe Hillary Clinton is unfit for any Constitutional office, particularly the presidency. We have survived sleazy presidents, like Bill Clinton or Warren Harding, in the past. I don't think we have ever had a president who was willing to sell out the country for a big enough bribe. Also, consider the completely misplaced loyalty Hillary commands. Hillary ordered her cyber security subordinates to ignore her substandard insecure home email server, and they complied. She ordered them to cover it up, and they complied. Now we have a situation where the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and several dozen independent hackers have copies of her 33,000 deleted emails, but voters don't. Hillary is hanging out a mile wide for blackmail by a foreign power. The Russian Army lost World War I because they did not encrypt their radio messages for the first 6 months of the war. Do we need a president so clueless on cyber security that she leaks like a sieve, setting the American military up for total defeat?

Reversing Citizens United: The End of Free Speech

Block all of the free speech you find irredeemable. Once Hillary packs the Supreme Court and it reverses the Citizens United decision, then this will be standard operating procedure on a national scale. If you want to know how that will work out, just look at the amendment to the Bill of Rights that Democrats proposed in 2013. The Democrats actually proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate free speech. Here’s the most important part of the text: “Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections.” This amendment, S. J. Res. 19, was introduced by Tom Udall on June 18, 2013. It had 43 co-sponsors, all Democrats, in the Senate. Harry Reid enthusiastically supported the proposed amendment. Basically the Democrats have a problem with political spending by any incorporated group. The amendment also says, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” If passed, this amendment would mean that Congress would enact legislation that would define corporations that agree with them, like the New York Times, as “The Press.” In turn they could legislatively define the communications of other corporations, like for example Citizens United, as “speech.” So Congress could use legislation to muzzle opposition “speech” while allowing friendly opinions to appear in “The Press.” If this was enacted, say goodbye to Freedom of Speech. Even low information voters should be able to understand this. This proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights was the Democrats' reaction to the Citizens United decision. It shows you exactly where Democrats want to go if Citizens United is overturned.

The text of the amendment

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sjres19is/pdf/BILLS-113sjres19is.pdf