This article is interesting in it reveals why the Left reach a level, and then spiral out of control:
Michael Moore Blames Democrats for Not Abolishing Electoral College in 2000
This is typical Leftist ideology: if they do not excel in something, they want everyone else to change and rig it to their advantage.
You are flunking at math? Do away with math for everyone no matter how important it is, and then your grade point average will just shoot up and you can brag to the little people just how brilliant you are without having to put in any effort or be faced with your own weaknesses.
Never mind if you become mathematically and logically illiterate — and the rest of the world, creating weaknesses and blindspots needlessly instead of just hunkering down and learning as you admit that you are with flaw, just like everyone else.
Math builds logic, and the lack of a strong mathematical background may explain why Moore and other people on the Left don’t have the developed logic to understand their nation’s own political system:
Referring to them as “these two disasters,” Moore spoke of the similarities of Bush and Trump coming to power. “Bush and Trump both lost the election. Both got the least number of votes. Al Gore won by a half a million votes. Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes,” he said. “If we were a democracy, they should have been the presidents.”
“The left, the Democrats, the liberals after Gore was denied the White House, should have fought to remove that clause of the Constitution that allows the loser to sit in the White House,” he said. “We should have done that 16 years ago.”
The electoral college serves more than one purpose. The first is extremely important: ensuring that large states do not trample over the smaller ones. If it were a simple majority, then candidates would never bother campaigning or pandering to any state other than New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California.
This isn’t Hollywood where they can ignore small states and focus on shows and movie that merely appeal to big states and big cities.
The second purpose is a more subtle one: it is a rig that tests a candidate’s ability to navigate a nation with an effective strategy.
It prevents inferior candidates from winning. It tests how well a candidate understands a democratic process. Do they have a national vision of the future — or do they miss the purpose and go after redundant votes?
There is nothing difficult about this system. It is not oppressive, undemocratic, inaccessible, or unfair.
It understands that democracy is more than just about individuals being represented — but also collectives. You may be an individual citizen, but your state is your collective.
I have always been in awe with the US system of governance. It is literally child’s play and there is a certain elegance in addressing individual and collective representation at once.
A candidate must aim for two kinds of majorities: popular vote, but also collective vote, which is the more important vote to capture.
A system strictly based on popular vote alone is imprecise and buries flaws and deficiencies in a candidate’s understanding of what they will be expected to do for the next four years: tend to the needs of the entire nation.
The secondary rig — the collective vote — ensures that a candidate with more savvy in the subtleties of the job wins.
That is the reason Trump beat Clinton: she was obtuse and had a plebeian understanding of the position. She understood the window-dressing of it, not the deep realities of the game. Trump understood it: it was the reason he stumped in smaller areas. He won because he deserved to win. Clinton lost because she earned her defeat: when you have all those rigs in your favour and you still lose, you are not a good candidate for president. The end.
If this were a patriarchal story and I told you the strategies of the winner and the loser of that contest — but left out the identities and political affiliations of both: Trump would be the clear-cut hero of this Hero’s Journey, and Clinton would be the bumbling villain whose death machine malfunctioned.
And for all the talk how Clinton got 3 million more votes — the public still gave Republicans a majority in the House, Senate and two thirds of state governor races — that means Clinton was not given the vote of confidence in her abilities no matter how you slice it.
If you understand leadership and your mandate, you should have no trouble winning a presidency. You have the privilege of travelling through the entire country, from big cities to tiny rural areas to get a lay of the land, and connect with people and also regions.
If it were up to Moore, the big states would have all the say and all the power, and the smaller regions could go screw themselves.
That is democracy according to Michael Moore.
But his blinders go beyond that:
“We will always, always, always hold George W. Bush responsible for war crimes for invading Iraq, a country that did nothing to us,” said Moore.
But he does not hold Bill Clinton responsible for war crimes for bombing Serbia, a country that did nothing to the US, either.
Or this knee-slapper:
Moore also said the popular narrative of Trump winning the working class vote in 2016 is wrong. “A better way to put it is he won the white vote,” he said.
Mr. Moore, you are a well-heeled famous white male, and you are issuing various decrees of all of the failings of the government, the media, and the public who did not behave the way you did. What makes you any different than your Right-leaning colleagues?
The inherent selfishness and me-centred narrative Moore presents explains why the Left can’t ever get their act together: they always have a beef with the public, pretend they are without flaw, and then want everyone else to change as some They does all the heavy lifting, and then, when all those changes do not bring the eternal and infinity happiness and superiority, they move the goalposts and demand more. It is never enough. It is never good enough.
And it is always someone else’s fault. It is an ideology that is obsessed with external changes, but expects internal stagnation.
It is a party of Fairy Princesses and Damsels in Distress.
The article is a long laundry list of how everyone in the universe is responsible for making Lefties sad and neurotic, but I will mention this passage as well:
Moore also blamed the media for “dumbing down” America by turning news into entertainment. “If you allow rich corporations to buy up and control most of the media, and then put things on the media that are intended to appeal to the stupidity that’s in all of us, you will have a dumb-downed nation,” he said.
Ah, yes, if people weren’t so stupid, they would serve the whims of Michael Moor. It is the media’s fault that everyone who isn’t Michael Moore is a moron.
That’s right, Mr. Moore, alienate audiences by insulting them and then wonder why your agitprop doesn’t draw in the crowds like it used to do.
Journalism is dead: they can spew, but it isn’t dumbing down or smartening up anyone anymore.
Not everyone’s life requirements are served by Leftist ideology. They aren’t stupid if they go with the party that addresses their needs. They are in a different place with different priorities.
The Left have some cultish desire to force everyone to think like them, but refuse to admit their own flaws, change, and grow. They never consider whether their policies may be harmful to people, either. They want everyone else to cater to their decrees and demands, but to do something for others doesn’t cross their minds.
It wasn’t always such selfish garbage from the Left. Remember JFK’s sentiment:
Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.
Moore can do no better than gripe about his country.
When I started Chaser the first time, that idea was deeply ingrained in me: the cycle of give and take, teach and learn, sew and reap. It was about informational negotiation: reality is messy and filled with competing and conflicting interests and you have to navigate through it.
Moore’s idea of democracy is to just sit on his duff and tell people what to think, and if they have their own ideas, they are stupid and the system has to change to accommodate him.
The Left thrives in anarchy where external systems need change, but once those systems change, the onus is now on individuals to evolve and grow without reactionary temper tantrums. They must confront their own shortcomings and then learn from them to create strengths to thrive in it.
That is alchemy and the Left never got the nuances of that. They got into a habit of begging, wallowing in self-pity, and throwing temper tantrums, and throwing diva fits demanding others to clean up their messes.
And we are now on the eve of alchemy, where the solutions are not found by hassling institutions, but pushing yourself.
Chaser will be that kind of informational guide. It will present facts. It will use F.R.E.E.D., but it is not going to fear-monger.
It will not cheerlead institutions. It will ask hard questions, but it is not about absolving people or validating them.
Just facts. Not excuses like the ones Michael Moore holds on to as if they had any value…