Too smart to vote Democrat

Bill Maher gave a recent soliloquy on people who live in Middle America, in which he alleged that the liberals are like (British) royalty and "red state voters" want to "be us."  He doesn't think red-staters hate liberals; it's just envy because we aren't able to join their "big prosperity party."  I gather he doesn't take walks in downtown San Francisco.

Does he know that the United States is not a monarchy?  Of course.  Does he know that liberals (including him) act as if they believe they are natural aristocrats, as opposed to the "deplorable" nature of voters in flyover country?  Of that, I'm not sure.  Does he know that a lot of blue-state voters are moving to red states because they have been taxed up one side and down the other to support the alleged "prosperity party" and that business owners are taking their businesses with them?  He should, but I doubt it.  By the way, I hear that the California state budget is experiencing shortfalls, which seems odd if they have all that prosperity going on.  Doubtless, he will insist on paying higher taxes to make it up.

Liberals often behave as though they think they have the right to rule (not lead) because they are the smartest people in the world.  Sen. Mazie Hirono says Democrats are too smart and thus cannot connect with voters.  They can't simplify their ideas to the point where the average person can perceive their brilliance.  And yet, despite their emphasis on intelligence, they never post their I.Q. scores when running for office.  If "smart" is such a qualifier, and even though it's not a constitutional qualifier (being a modern metric), why not make it part of the advertising?  "Politics is complicated.  Elect smart people.  My I.Q. is 101."  (The average I.Q. is 100.)

To be fair, I doubt they know their actual I.Q. scores.  Personally, I made several attempts to get my own score from tests I took in elementary school, and in the end, no one could or would tell me.  I took a few online tests that I don't trust, and the highest score I got was 138.  I don't think it's even relevant to politics, but I would enjoy the sheer comedy of reviewing the scores of politicians.  Congressman Hank "Guam May Capsize" Johnson, anyone?

So, Bill, chill.  We don't want to be you, and we wish you would back off and let us be us, without trying to change us.  Maybe we're too smart to vote for Democrat ideas, or maybe it's being too wise.  Wisdom is a whole different thing from intelligence.  Either way, your ideas don't accomplish our goals.

Bill, you're smarter than this.  Go walk around downtown S.F. and look for signs of prosperity.  Check the stats on people leaving California for red states like Texas.  Consider whether people just want the same freedom to make their own choices that you, as a wealthy person, enjoy.  Maybe we don't want mansions and caviar — just a quiet place to drink a beer without being harangued.

Bill Maher gave a recent soliloquy on people who live in Middle America, in which he alleged that the liberals are like (British) royalty and "red state voters" want to "be us."  He doesn't think red-staters hate liberals; it's just envy because we aren't able to join their "big prosperity party."  I gather he doesn't take walks in downtown San Francisco.

Does he know that the United States is not a monarchy?  Of course.  Does he know that liberals (including him) act as if they believe they are natural aristocrats, as opposed to the "deplorable" nature of voters in flyover country?  Of that, I'm not sure.  Does he know that a lot of blue-state voters are moving to red states because they have been taxed up one side and down the other to support the alleged "prosperity party" and that business owners are taking their businesses with them?  He should, but I doubt it.  By the way, I hear that the California state budget is experiencing shortfalls, which seems odd if they have all that prosperity going on.  Doubtless, he will insist on paying higher taxes to make it up.

Liberals often behave as though they think they have the right to rule (not lead) because they are the smartest people in the world.  Sen. Mazie Hirono says Democrats are too smart and thus cannot connect with voters.  They can't simplify their ideas to the point where the average person can perceive their brilliance.  And yet, despite their emphasis on intelligence, they never post their I.Q. scores when running for office.  If "smart" is such a qualifier, and even though it's not a constitutional qualifier (being a modern metric), why not make it part of the advertising?  "Politics is complicated.  Elect smart people.  My I.Q. is 101."  (The average I.Q. is 100.)

To be fair, I doubt they know their actual I.Q. scores.  Personally, I made several attempts to get my own score from tests I took in elementary school, and in the end, no one could or would tell me.  I took a few online tests that I don't trust, and the highest score I got was 138.  I don't think it's even relevant to politics, but I would enjoy the sheer comedy of reviewing the scores of politicians.  Congressman Hank "Guam May Capsize" Johnson, anyone?

So, Bill, chill.  We don't want to be you, and we wish you would back off and let us be us, without trying to change us.  Maybe we're too smart to vote for Democrat ideas, or maybe it's being too wise.  Wisdom is a whole different thing from intelligence.  Either way, your ideas don't accomplish our goals.

Bill, you're smarter than this.  Go walk around downtown S.F. and look for signs of prosperity.  Check the stats on people leaving California for red states like Texas.  Consider whether people just want the same freedom to make their own choices that you, as a wealthy person, enjoy.  Maybe we don't want mansions and caviar — just a quiet place to drink a beer without being harangued.