Irrationalism as public policy.

There is the sense of madness in the air. What I always find fascinating is how people tend to support people who are contrary to their interests. For instance, young people -- those under 30, voted for President Obama by overwhelming margins, even though he opposes allowing private Social Security accounts, which most young people support. President Obama prefers to lock in younger voters to the obsolete Social Security system that will be bankrupt by the time young people of today are retiring. Of course, this doesn't bother President Obama much because he will be a former president by the time these young people are aware that the money that the politicians have promised just isn't there. Or let's take the issue of blacks: as a group, they support Democrats by overwhelming margins, even though it is Democrats who are responsible for ensuring that inner-city government-run schools are institutions of chaos, rape, murder, mayhem, and disorder, and have done everything in their power to ensure that no competition is permitted. Blacks also support competition as opposed to the government-imposed school monopoly. In one striking excerpt from a poll done on the views of black parents on competition with regard to education: "87 percent of black parents aged 26-35 and 66.4 percent of blacks aged 18-25 support vouchers." Yet, blacks still vote for Democrats, the party that supports an unaccountable, bloated, bureaucratic and iron-clad government-run school system.

The other issue of madness that I have noticed is the literal religious devotion towards Obama in this nation. Americans newspapers are starting to sound very similar to the North Korean communist and government-run press. For one thing, it was liberals who showed an incredible degree of nastiness over the last eight years of President George W. Bush's administration. Now liberals are stating that "[President Obama] needs the support of every American in this, because for better or worse, he’s now at the helm of the ship of state during a violent storm," says letter writer Jeff Cox in the NY Times. So under President Bush, liberals are supposed to show mindless rage, but now that Obama is president, "every American" must give up their natural desire to yell 'halt' to unlimited sums of new federal spending. Obama wins the election, and we're supposed to say that spending $1 trillion more in federal dollars is a natural development in a republic when one president leaves and a new president enters the stage. Perhaps the funniest letter to the editor in the NY Times was from a Edmund R. Schroeder, who states that he is a "registered Republican of more than 50 years." He expects us to think that he is a Republican when he issues a statement such as: "Let [Obama] govern, even if you think he’s making mistakes. Give him his chance. Acknowledge that, contrary to your beliefs, he just might be
right." What kind of opposition party states that a President may spend to oblivion under the banner of "give him a chance"? Also, why do you sound like such a wimp, Edmund R. Schroeder? We do not need to give him a chance. We know he is wrong because this strategy of spending unlimited sums of money has never worked in human history, whether it was during the big government growth era of FDR in the 1930s or 1990s Japan. In both cases, it failed. We do not need to spend another $1 trillion to learn whether Obama "might be right." He is wrong, and the House Republicans were right in voting no on this phony stimulus package.