FT204: “The young and dumb vote liberal while the old and wise vote conservative.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 10th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Having the Ability to give Beautiful Young Women Nice Things helped Charlie Harper get them in Bed

On the show Two and a Half Men there was an episode where Charlie (played by Charlie Sheen) was having a conversation with someone where he was trying to defend himself and the choice he makes in women.  In broke off in mid sentence and said something like, “Yeah, you got me.  Young and dumb.  That’s how I like them.”  Or something like that.

Charlie Harper was about 40 years old.  Rich.  He drank to excess.  Smoked cigars.  Gambled.  Enjoyed strip bars and prostitutes.  And he womanized.  Getting beautiful young women back to his Malibu beach house for one night of passion.  Which was all he wanted.  One night.  The ladies thought he wanted more.  Because of the lies he told them to get them to his Malibu beach house.  And when they left in the morning they expected Charlie to call them.  But he never did.  Which is why he liked his women dumb.  For it was easier getting them into bed.  And out of it.

Charlie was skilled in the art of picking up women.  And what to do with them after picking them up.  Skill gained over years of experience.  And being rich helped, too.  Because being able to give beautiful young women nice things (expensive dinners, going to the best clubs, spending the night at a Malibu beach house, gifts, etc.) got their attention.  They liked that life.  And wanted more of it.  So they went to his bed with him.  Thinking that by doing whatever he wanted there would be more of this glamorous life to come.  But before that could happen Charlie was telling his lies to another young and dumb woman.

Every Communist Dictator that promised a Utopia to their People made their lives Absolutely Horrible

Charlie was engaged a few times.  The last time he was engaged to Chelsea (played superbly by Jennifer Taylor).  Who was a little older than most of the women he took to his bed.  Smart.  And wise.  She had a career.  Though he had a long engagement (for him) it did not last.  Because she could do better.  Eventually leaving him for someone more mature.  In fact, every age-appropriate relationship he had failed.  Because he did not do well unless they were young and dumb.  As Chelsea said one time when leaving after a breakup, “We both knew you were going to blow it eventually.”

You can learn a lot by watching Two and a Half Men.  For the world is full of Charlie Harpers.  People that lie and manipulate people to get what they want.  Who depend on people being young and dumb.  This is how liberals have risen to power.  By selling their utopian world view to the young and ignorant.  Before they get old and wise.  And learn the truth of their liberal utopia.

There was an article in Rolling Stone saying what America needs is full-blown communism.  The author is a young guy.  An academic type.  Knows everything.  But has experienced nothing.  His head was filled with communist ideals from his leftist professors.

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…

But what John Lennon doesn’t sing about in Imagine is that every communist dictator that promised these things to the people made their people’s lives absolutely horrible.  Where people lived in fear of the secret police.  Were tortured at the hands of the secret police.  And died at the hands of the secret police.  Communism as an ideology has killed more people than any other dictator or ideology in all of history.  Yet college kids everywhere still imagine a world where all the people live as one.  Under the boot of an oppressive police state.  That forces the people to live in a brotherhood of man.  Or die.

Liberals are in a lot of ways like Charlie Harper because they like their Electorate Young and Dumb

Joseph Stalin terrorized his people with the KGB.  The East Germans shot their own people who tried to escape climbing over the Berlin Wall.  Cambodia’s Pol Pot killed a greater percentage of a nation’s population than any other dictator in history.  Cubans risk their lives to float from Cuba to the United States.  The masses in North Korea still suffer famine because of their oppressive Stalinist state.  Where it’s the military first.  Then the people.  And so on.  Yet college students still wear shirts with pictures of Che Guevara wearing his beret.  This hero of ignorant college students.  A guy who had urged the Soviets to launch their nuclear missiles at the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And when the secret police wasn’t killing their people the people were going without the most basic necessities.  For their planned economies could not keep their store shelves stocked.  So people went without many of the things people in Western capitalist economies take for granted.  Things even ignorant college students take for granted.  Things they just couldn’t get in their beloved communist utopias.  Ronald Reagan won the Cold War not by waging nuclear war.  He won it by creating an arms race that the Soviet economy could not keep up with AND feed her people.  Like the Americans could.  In fact, the American economic output was so great that they could feed all Americans with enough left over to export to the Soviet Union.  So the Soviet people did not die from famine.

All throughout history free market capitalism provided a better life than any planned economy.  Even in the United States.  When FDR increased government spending to end a recession it only stretched out that recession into the Great Depression.  Excessive government spending didn’t work in the 1970s for Nixon, Ford or Carter.  Nor did it work during the Great Recession for Obama.  But cuts in tax rates provided explosive economic growth for Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, JFK in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and even George W. Bush in the 2000s.  Yet the young and dumb buy the liberal lie that government spending can provide a better life for all despite history proving otherwise.  And keep voting liberal.  Until they get old and wise, that is.  And start voting conservative.

Liberals are in a lot of ways like Charlie Harper.  For they like their electorate young and dumb.  So they can more easily lie to them.  To get what they want.  By making promises they never intend to keep.  Such as that brotherhood of man sharing all of the world.  For after a century or so of promising this the only people who ever enjoyed the liberal/communist utopia were those few in power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Message of the 2010 Midterm Elections: The ‘Teenaged’ Voted for Maturity?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2010

Two Americas:  The Silly and the Sensible

Well, the 2010 midterm elections have come and gone.  And everyone has had their say about what they meant.  Few agree.  At least, few on different sides of the aisle agree.  Two interesting columns show the thought on these two sides.  The two Americas.  One sensible.  The other silly.  You decide which is which.

Graydon Carter, editor for Vanity Fair opines in Man Up, America!

What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged.

Meanwhile, Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal (see Americans Vote for Maturity):

‘The people have spoken, the bastards.” That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it? Was it worth following the president and the speaker in their mad pursuit of liberal legislation that the country would not, could not, like? And what will you do now? Which path will you take?

So one says the electorate is stupid, immature and churlish.  The other says the electorate is mature, sober and discerning.  One says the voters are idiots.  The other says that they are thoughtful.  One is a sore loser.  The other an objective realist.  One silly.  The other, sensible.

Conservatives, Moderates and Independents Exasperate the Liberal Elite

To make it clear, this is what the liberal elite think conservatives, moderates and independents are.  Too stupid to know what’s good for them.  It is just so exasperating that 80% of the electorate has the right to vote.  Like the children they are, they should be seen and not heard.  While those better than them tell them how they should live their lives.

Noonan further points out the folly of the silly by pointing out their negative ads.

Two small points on the election’s atmospherics that carry implications for the future. The first is that negative ads became boring, unpersuasive. Forty years ago they were new, exciting in a sort of prurient way. Now voters take for granted that politicians are no good, and such ads are just more polluted water going over the waterfall. The biggest long-term loser: liberalism. If all pols are sleazoid crooks, then why would people want to give them more governmental power to order our lives? The implicit message of two generations of negative ads: Vote conservative, limit the reach of the thieves.

For smart people, liberals are pretty dumb.

Ranaldo Magnus Earned his Rendezvous with Destiny

Too many people want to be politicians for the wrong reasons.  They want to be career politicians.  To be part of the ruling elite.  The American aristocracy.  For special privilege.  And because of this, a lot of inexperienced and unqualified people are in Washington.  President Obama perhaps being one of the most unqualified and inexperienced ever to hold elected office.  (Come on, be honest.  What qualifications and experience did he have?  Not as much as Sarah Palin.  And the Left ridiculed her.)

Ranaldo Magnus, on the other hand, did it the old fashioned way.  He earned it.  His rendezvous with destiny.  As Noonan points out so well:

Ronald Reagan was an artist who willed himself into leadership as president of a major American labor union (Screen Actors Guild, seven terms, 1947-59.) He led that union successfully through major upheavals (the Hollywood communist wars, labor-management struggles); discovered and honed his ability to speak persuasively by talking to workers on the line at General Electric for eight years; was elected to and completed two full terms as governor of California; challenged and almost unseated an incumbent president of his own party; and went on to popularize modern conservative political philosophy without the help of a conservative infrastructure. Then he was elected president.

And what did President Obama do?  A partial term as U.S. senator.  Before that?  Community organizer.  A pretty sparse resume.

We Need More Like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington Entering Public Service

Whatever irrationality there was that swept Obama and his Democrats into power is gone.  The grownups spoke this past Tuesday.  And they voted for maturity.  Let’s hope the grownups build on this.  And from them another Ronald Reagan earns his or her rendezvous with destiny.  Again, from Noonan:

Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can’t just bully them, you can’t just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.

This is the true American tradition.  Benjamin Franklin.  George Washington.  The two grand old men of the Founding.  These men were in the autumn of their years when they entered public service.  Old but wise.  Experienced.  With real-world talent.  Masters of persuasion.  Everything that Obama and his Democrats are not.  We need these wise and experienced.  To answer the call of service.  After having a life and a string of accomplishments.  The question is, are they out there?  Yes.  They are.  As we saw this past Tuesday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Delaware – Small State; Big Stakes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 18th, 2010

If Charles Krauthammer told me I was spelling my name wrong, I’d change the way I was spelling it.  The guy’s smart.  Put him in a room full of people and he’ll always be the smartest one in there.  Karl Rove got George W. Bush elected twice.  Of course, you could argue he did that against two weak candidates.  Dick Morris did the impossible.  He got Bill Clinton reelected after a ‘vote of no confidence’ in the prior midterm election.

Delaware.  The Republican primary.  Tea Party (Christine O’Donnell) versus the Republican establishment (Mike Castle).  Ideology versus pragmatism.  Conservative versus moderate/liberal.  The prize?  Joe Biden’s senate seat. 

The conservative O’Donnell defeated the liberal Castle.  Now she will face off with the very liberal Chris Coons in the general election.  In liberal Delaware.  So, yes, there’s cause for concern.  If you’re a Republican.  The Obama administration is perhaps the most liberal ever.  And the nation is suffering.  Record unemployment.  And an abysmal economic outlook.  A liberal Republican versus a liberal Democrat would have been a slam-dunk.  A sure senate win for the Republicans.  Perhaps giving them that coveted 51st seat.  A majority.  To stop Obama.  And the far Left.  From further destroying our economy.  So what if we have to give a little on some social issues?  At least so goes the argument put forth by Krauthammer and Rove (and many others).  They see the O’Donnell win as a gift to the Democrats.  Because liberal Delaware will not vote conservative.

Dick Morris sees it differently (as do others).  If the economy was good, the social issues would take center stage.  But it’s not.  So the economy takes center stage.  And what fixes the economy?  Jobs.  And who creates jobs?  Businesses.  And which is the party of business?  That’s right.  Republicans.

Of course, general elections are not primary elections.  Turnout is a lot bigger.  Which means there are a lot more people to vote against you.  But they can also vote for you.  Ronald Reagan won over the Reagan Democrats.  Dick Morris got Clinton reelected by moving him to the center.  We elected Obama because he said he was going to govern from the center.  (Which he hasn’t.)  History has shown that running as a true liberal does not do well at the ballot box.  At the national level, at least.  And how will they chose in Delaware this fall?  Well, I guess that depends on the economy.  And their patience.  If the economy has recovered they’ll probably vote liberal.  If not, and they’ve tired of waiting for Obamanomics to kick in, they may opt for the tried and true.  And vote conservative.  They may not like it.  They may not have liked Reagan or Bush.  But they had jobs.  And, sometimes, having jobs is enough.

The Washington establishment needs to be disestablished.  But is this the time?  Guess we’ll find out in November.  And let us hope that – I never thought I would utter these words – Charles Krauthammer is wrong.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,