I heard Joe Scarborough say that and I will forever enjoy the simile. I knew exactly how appropriate it had to be. I have often wondered how it is, that what I hoped was one of the more intelligent populations in the world, such a thing could not happen.
I have written a number of articles that I had hoped would spark some intellectual conversation and debate. In reality it has done just the opposite and now I can see clearly how the curd often is the stuff that rises to the top.
I understand contrarians. I have dealt with some that would take the opposing side of any argument against the better minds of our species regardless of the subject, and if the better mind was convinced otherwise these people would follow in the opposite direction.
On a recent discussion about elements of our government that claimed in a NYT Op-Ed to be the adults in the room and protect us against the impulses of Trump, I stated simply that these are not people that the American public voted for. A cabal, so-to-speak, was not a thing sanctioned by our Constitution regardless of what kind of idiot we elected. Remember the line; "Stupid is as stupid does." Stupid is not illegal as far as I know, but a shadowy cabal is.
What surprised me most about the comments that poured in one after another on that thread is all types of nutty conspiracy theories. Some suggested the Mueller dig deeper into the Constitution and listen to the people who know what is happening--as if he was some sort of amateur--and that they knew things that no one else knew or understood. These are people that think I should drop all logic and change my world view to match their super intellect.
I read comments that the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama presidencies are a tag team of ideologues while Trump is the second coming. That the rich are a secret government. I agree with the idea that they are an obvious command of influence. So, if they were a secret government, how did some hayseed from Oklahoma stumble into their secret society of skulls and bones? One person suggested that the Onion was her source and when it was explained that the Onion was satire she claimed that satire is grounded in reality.
I really like the guy who said he didn't support either corporate party, but he supported Rand Paul for his stance against the feds. I wonder if he missed that Rand Paul--the libertarian--suggested Trump use a lie detector on his staff to find the Op-Ed "traitor"!
I read the secrets of how the opposing party of one person has run the country into poverty and disenchantment and caused the Great Depression. And that Democrats and Republicans set up shadow governments to start wars to protect corporations.
When I suggested that only we--the voters--could change the government to end those things that we disagreed with, regardless of whether we were Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Progressives, or simply Nut Balls, the first response to that was from one person that she was a card-carrying WILPF member and then went on to say we needed a second revolution or Civil War. WHAT? She followed it by blaming Woodrow Wilson and the Colonel--whom she didn't know--as the cause of our entry into WWI. Of course the Germans were blameless. In all, the entire demise of the U.S. was the fault of every government from Grant to Obama. Every person commenting seemed to have some inside information that was submitted to enlighten us to the evils of the American Oligarchy. They had the inside track.
Now don't get me wrong, I adhere to some of the beliefs stated, not because of the knowledge of the super-insiders on my thread, but that it seems plausible. That said I will never quote my beliefs as fact if I have no empirical evidence. I tend to reserve judgment. Not often easy, but always wise.
So back to my original thought, which was about an anonymous Op-Ed and how this type of thing is opposed to democratic principles. How did a mentally challenged con-man fool the American public and manage to get himself elected to the formerly most powerful position in the world? What does it say about 36% of our country that they still support the most obvious idiot ever to occupy the highest office in the land? But no, we had to go all "Black Helicopter" on the subject, from U.S. Grant to 9-11 and beyond. The answer--I believe--is shown above in the rhetoric that many believe. It seems that rhetoric is king and supersedes the reality of empirical evidence. Like the X-Files, "The Truth Is Out There!"; it's just that no one is looking.