Mike Rowe Makes A Huge Confession On What He Sees Wrong With This Election

[phill4paul]

A fan commented to Mike Rowe...

“Hey Mike, I have nothing but respect for you. Your no-nonsense outlook and incredible eloquence have really had a profound impact in my life. Can you please encourage your huge following to go out and vote this election? I would never impose on you by asking you to advocate one politician over another, but I do feel this election could really use your help. I know that there are many people out there who feel like there is nothing they can do. Please try to use your gifts to make them see that they can do something – that their vote counts.”

Mikes reply as spot on..

“Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I also share your concern for our country, and agree wholeheartedly that every vote counts. However, I’m afraid I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms. I would need to know a few things about them before offering that kind of encouragement. For instance, do they know how to care for a weapon? Can they afford the cost of the weapon? Do they have a history of violence? Are they mentally stable? In short, are they responsible citizens?”


“Casting a ballot is not so different. It’s an important right that we all share, and one that impacts our society in dramatic fashion. But it’s one thing to respect and acknowledge our collective rights, and quite another thing to affirmatively encourage people I’ve never met to exercise them. And yet, my friends in Hollywood do that very thing, and they’re at it again.”


“Every four years, celebrities and movie stars look earnestly into the camera and tell the country to ‘get out and vote.’ They tell us it’s our ‘most important civic duty,’ and they speak as if the very act of casting a ballot is more important than the outcome of the election. This strikes me as somewhat hysterical. Does anyone actually believe that Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ed Norton would encourage the ‘masses’ to vote, if they believed the ‘masses’ would elect Donald Trump?”


“Regardless of their political agenda, my celebrity pals are fundamentally mistaken about our ‘civic duty’ to vote. There is simply no such thing. Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation. Like all rights, the right to vote comes with some responsibilities, but let’s face it – the bar is not set very high. If you believe aliens from another planet walk among us, you are welcome at the polls. If you believe the world is flat, and the moon landing was completely staged, you are invited to cast a ballot. Astrologists, racists, ghost-hunters, sexists, and people who rely upon a Magic 8 Ball to determine their daily wardrobe are all allowed to participate. In fact, and to your point, they’re encouraged.”


“The undeniable reality is this: our right to vote does not require any understanding of current events, or any awareness of how our government works. So, when a celebrity reminds the country that ‘everybody’s vote counts,’ they are absolutely correct. But when they tell us that ‘everybody in the country should get out there and vote,’ regardless of what they think or believe, I gotta wonder what they’re smoking.”



“Look at our current candidates. No one appears to like either one of them. Their approval ratings are at record lows. It’s not about who you like more, it’s about who you hate less. Sure, we can blame the media, the system, and the candidates themselves, but let’s be honest – Donald and Hillary are there because we put them there. The electorate has tolerated the intolerable. We’ve treated this entire process like the final episode of American Idol. What did we expect?”


“So no, Jeremy – I can’t personally encourage everyone in the country to run out and vote. I wouldn’t do it, even if I thought it would benefit my personal choice. Because the truth is, the country doesn’t need voters who have to be cajoled, enticed, or persuaded to cast a ballot. We need voters who wish to participate in the process. So if you really want me to say something political, how about this – read more.”


“Spend a few hours every week studying American history, human nature, and economic theory. Start with “Economics in One Lesson.” Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.”


“Or, don’t. None of the freedoms spelled out in our Constitution were put there so people could cast uninformed ballots out of some misplaced sense of civic duty brought on by a celebrity guilt-trip. The right to assemble, to protest, to speak freely – these rights were included to help assure that the best ideas and the best candidates would emerge from the most transparent process possible.”


“Remember – there’s nothing virtuous or patriotic about voting just for the sake of voting, and the next time someone tells you otherwise, do me a favor – ask them who they’re voting for. Then tell them you’re voting for their opponent. Then, see if they’ll give you a ride to the polls.”


“In the meantime, dig into Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It sounds like a snooze but it really is a page turner, and you can download it for free.

– Mike

http://qpolitical.com/24-hours-after...this-election/

[Anti Federalist]

Mike Rowe for President.

[Anti Federalist]

Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.”

Which is why I'll be writing in Ron Paul.

Again.

[Anti Federalist]

Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.”

Which is why I'll be writing in Ron Paul.

Again.

[phill4paul]

Seriously Guys?

So there’s a website out there called seriouslyguys.com. One of their writers - a rather indignant scribe called Rick Snee – has taken umbrage with my recent comments on our right to vote, and expressed his disappointment over my apparent descent into cultural elitism. http://bit.ly/2eHFa9l

Unfortunately, Rick has not only misinterpreted my position, he’s used it to advance his own belief that any American with a pulse should cast a ballot in the coming election. Because the issue is important, I thought perhaps I’d take a moment to address a few of his concerns. Let’s begin with his overarching premise:

Rick Snee: “Even if you don’t think you know enough, VOTE! And don’t let anyone, especially Mike Rowe, tell you that it’s better if you don’t!”

Hi there, Rick Snee. Mike Rowe here. Nice to meet you.
For starters, I’d like to assure your readers that I’ve never told anyone they shouldn’t vote. I simply explained why I don’t publicly encourage people I’ve never met to cast a ballot.
Obviously, every eligible citizen who wishes to cast a vote should be welcomed at the polls. However, recognizing this right and acknowledging its importance is very different than publicly encouraging everyone to exercise it. Along with millions of responsible Americans, our electorate now includes a healthy mix of citizens with no understanding of how our government works, and no desire to learn. Yes - they too, have every right to vote. But no - I’m not encouraging them to do so. Just as I am not encouraging people who haven’t taken a gun safety course to run out and buy an AR-15. It’s just not responsible.

Rick Snee: So, who is “Mike Rowe-certified” to vote, since it’s apparently as dangerous as people arming themselves to the gills? People who “read more.”

It’s true – I am guilty of encouraging people to read books. But I didn’t just say “read more.” I mentioned very specific authors who impacted me, and very specific books that helped me form a worldview I could articulate and defend. “The Road to Serfdom” and “Economics in One Lesson” both helped me become a more informed voter. So I recommend them to everyone. Likewise, there are many books I do not recommend.


Rick Snee: “I’m suddenly curious to see Mike’s bookshelf. Because it would be funny if even Mike didn’t meet his own literacy standard for being encourage-able to vote.”

Yes, Rick. That would indeed be hysterical. Here’s a look at a few of my shelves at home. Try not to pee yourself with mirth. And don’t be confused - I’m not suggesting that reading is the only way to get educated. If you’d rather watch documentaries or listen to lectures on You Tube, that’s fine by me. The important thing is to form a worldview you can articulate and defend. That seems a sensible thing to do, before exercising a right that impacts everyone.


Rick Snee: “Fortunately, for possibly Mike and millions of voters who haven’t carved the time out of their 40-to-60-hour work week to study economics, we outlawed literacy tests, which racists used to prevent African-Americans from “voting against their own interest” during Jim Crow.”

In the words of your own site, 'Seriously Guy?" Are you seriously equating a book recommendation to a literacy test?
Here in modern times, everyone is welcome at the polls. Jim Crow is long gone. The poll tax is a thing of the past. Today, even dead people have managed to make their voices heard, (with a little help from super-dedicated campaign workers.) But that’s precisely why famous actors should think twice before telling the whole country to vote - because the whole country is listening. Forget about the apathetic and the willfully ignorant – what about the racists and the homophobes? The religious zealots? What about the tax-cheats and the wife-beaters? Do we really want to encourage bullies to vote? What about KKK enthusiasts? NAMBLA sympathizers? What about those who call for “more dead cops?” Can you think of no one who should maybe stay home on election day?
When I hit “publish” on this post, I have no idea who or how many people will read it. That’s why I limit my advice to modest suggestions like “read more,” “hold the door,” “avoid unnecessary debt,” and “try not to be an $#@!.” I’m old-fashioned that way.


Rick Snee: “When Mike Rowe says that people shouldn’t be encouraged to vote because they’re probably too stupid to do so, that’s not common sense. That’s called elitism, which seems out of character for the champion of the hard-working American.”

And when Rick Snee makes up quotes and attributes them to me, that’s not called journalism – that’s called “making stuff up.” (Actually, it’s called a “Straw-man argument,” and Rick’s whole analysis relies upon it.) As for elitism, that’s the deliberate attempt to exclude people, based on things like religion, money, and education. I have excluded no one for any reason. When I recommended those books, I recommended them to everyone. When I said, “don’t vote simply because a celebrity tells you to,” I was talking to everyone. I still am. My message is always egalitarian. At least, that’s the way I intend it.


Rick Snee: “What’s so surprising is that, for a guy who normally thinks everyone has the potential to shape and contribute to society with hard work, Mike thinks that there’s a class of better voters out there, and that stupid people should maybe sit out the election so that we don’t elect Trump or Hillary.”

Again, with the straw-man argument. You’re just making stuff up. There is no “better class” of voter out there; it’s just us, Rick – the good, the bad, and the ignorant - all jammed into one happy class. You and I agree, (I think,) that no one in the class should be denied their right to vote. The difference, is that you want EVERYONE in the class to cast a ballot – regardless of what kind of person they are. I don’t. But do you really think that makes me an elitist? If so, what does it make you? How do we describe a guy with a blog who affirmatively encourages the willfully ignorant to exercise a right that impacts us all?

Rick Snee: Admittedly, it’s too late to not vote for either (or possibly an equally detestable third-party kook) in the general election. But only “well-read” voters participating won’t prevent any of the above from winning. Instead, more of one party’s energized backers will decide for everyone, which might be a minority of a minority. Or, in other words: an oligarchy will decide our next four to eight years of national governance if everyone sits out.

Fundamentally, you’re arguing that an uninformed vote is better than no vote at all. I get it. I just don’t agree. Pulling a lever or checking a box doesn’t make you a better citizen. Being a curious and informed does. That’s why responsible voting is a year round job. It starts with a desire to learn, and leads to a lifetime of thoughtful analysis.
Pulling the lever every four years is the easy part. You’re correct - I really do believe that everyone has the potential to improve their lives with hard work - but not hard work alone. Intellectual laziness is no less an impediment to success than physical laziness. And voting just because your favorite celebrity told you to doesn’t make you responsible; it just makes you impressionable.

Rick Snee: This is something that every despot and unpopular political party has recognized: they can continue to win election after election so long as only a select group of people vote. Low voter turnout elects unpopular candidates. The solution to this isn’t fewer voters; it’s more.

The only “Select” group of people in this country who vote, are those who choose to. Unlike Australians, Americans are not fined if they fail to vote. Unlike despotic countries, no eligible citizen is forbidden from voting. But regardless, on what do you base your contention that lower turnout equals unpopular candidates? True - the Democratic primary vote was down 21% this year. But the GOP primary vote was up 62%. http://bit.ly/2doNDgG

Does that prove your point? Did the massive increase in voter turnout give the GOP get a superior candidate? Did the Dems get an inferior one, thanks to a 21% drop?

Obviously, opinions vary, but to me, it’s further proof that voter turnout has nothing to do with electing a quality candidate. When the dust settles, we always get the candidates we deserve, just as we always get the television we deserve. Honey Boo Boo wasn’t a hit because no one liked it, or because there was nothing better to watch. The real question is, what are we really looking for in our candidates? We say we want character and decency and honor. We say we value integrity and humility, but do we really?

If I didn’t know better, I’d say we were looking for candidates who are immune to humiliation. Candidates impervious to embarrassment. Candidates who can stand on the world stage - totally guilty of an endless list of moral failings - and boldly defend themselves by saying their opponent is worse. Seems to me, we’ve rewarded a lust for power, and in doing so, brought about the death of shame.

So no, Rick – I don’t think more voters lead to better candidates. I think better candidates rise from a more informed citizenry. And I’m not persuaded that anyone benefits from casting an uninformed vote, just because their favorite celebrity tells them to. Except of course, their favorite celebrity’s favorite candidate. Which brings me to the final point – the only one you didn’t address. Do you really think any celebrity would publicly “Rock the Vote,” if they suspected a larger turnout would disadvantage their candidate?

I think most sensible people realize that celebrities who lecture us on the importance of voting, are really trying to influence the outcome of the election. Honestly, I have no problem with that. But spare me the kabuki of “impartiality.” If you’re famous, and you want me to vote for Trump, just say so. Then tell me why. Make your case, and be prepared to defend it. Likewise, Clinton. If you think doing so publicly might be bad for your career, then let’s talk it over in a bar somewhere, privately. But please, don’t hide your agenda behind some clever Public Service Announcement that challenges people you’ve never met to exercise a “duty” that doesn’t exist. That’s cowardly, and your fans know it.

Rick Snee: Or, don’t listen to me. Nobody cares what I think. Nobody asked me, anyway. But at least I’m not trying to sell you a t-shirt off of apathy and low self-worth.
Cheer up, Rick. Maybe your site will see a bump in traffic after this? Who knows? Maybe one day, people will start asking for your opinion? But be careful what you wish for. The minute you start answering questions publicly, somebody’s bound misquote you.
See you at the polls.

Mike

PS. Incidentally, the T-shirt you referred to has helped my foundation raise over $4 million dollars in work ethic scholarships. Thanks to the support from the people on this page, we’ve trained over 500 people to work as welders, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, and HVAC (@HVACTech)specialists. Modest, by most foundation standards, but not bad for a bunch of elitists, trading in apathy and low self-worth!

[georgiaboy]

Well hallelujah.

[Anti Federalist]

Rick Snee = destroyed.

I wish Mike Rowe would post here...

[CPUd]

I think anyone who is a HVAC tech should be automatically qualified to vote.

[osan]

Mike Rowe for President.

He's not stupid, you know...

There was a reason landed gentry were the one's intended to vote. Of course, even that arrangement has its problems.

I say pass out the pistols and let us settle the problems of humanity the old fashioned way.

[Brian4Liberty]

The push for more immigration is an extension of this left wing celebrity "get out the vote" phenomenon. They rightly believe that the great majority of imported voters will end up being Democrat voters. They are correct. Keeping the voters ignorant and "compliant" has long been their plan, and what better way to do that then to bring in people who don't have any depth of experience with American politics.

[Spikender]

By the Grace of God, Mike Rowe annihilated Rick Star-Bellied Sneech.

That was such a monstrous take down I'm going to read it a second time.

[JK/SEA]

do you think all those that fought and died for the right to vote would agree with Rowe?..

[Anti Federalist]

The push for more immigration is an extension of this left wing celebrity "get out the vote" phenomenon. They rightly believe that the great majority of imported voters will end up being Democrat voters. They are correct. Keeping the voters ignorant and "compliant" has long been their plan, and what better way to do that then to bring in people who don't have any depth of experience with American politics.

Oh yeah, that Rubicon has been crossed.

"Theye" have created or imported enough government dependent trash that there will never again be a president that even pays lip service to limited government ideas.

[Kotin]

Wow he recommended economics in one lesson? Cool!!

[Anti Federalist]

do you think all those that fought and died for the right to vote would agree with Rowe?..

Considering that most of who have fought and died in AmeriKa's wars were forced there at the barrel of a government gun (drafted), authorized by votes, I would say yes.

[JK/SEA]

Considering that most of who have fought and died in AmeriKa's wars were forced there at the barrel of a government gun (drafted), authorized by votes, I would say yes.

including the Revolutionary War?...

[Brian4Liberty]

Oh yeah, that Rubicon has been crossed.

"Theye" have created or imported enough government dependent trash that there will never again be a president that even pays lip service to limited government ideas.

It goes far beyond "government dependent". Educated and employed immigrants usually become Democrats, even if they profess ideas that would be considered more conservative, right wing or libertarian. They are much more susceptible to media propaganda, and just don't have a lifetime of experience with US politics. They are easy prey for the left.

There are districts in Commiefornia where recent immigrants are the majority. You will find a candidate from each ethnic group, but they will all be Democrats. The general election is between the top two, which, for instance, results in an Asian Democrat vs. an Indian Democrat, or a Hispanic Democrat vs. an Asian Democrat. Bottom line is that the top two are always Democrats. That also means that you will never be able to vote for a Libertarian in the general.

[Anti Federalist]

including the Revolutionary War?...

No, since there was no such thing as United States at the time.

Even in a volunteer army, the troops did not want a candidate who would send them to war.

Thus the Ron Paul support.

[Anti Federalist]

It goes far beyond "government dependent". Educated and employed immigrants usually become Democrats, even if they profess ideas that would be considered more conservative, right wing or libertarian. They are much more susceptible to media propaganda, and just don't have a lifetime of experience with US politics. They are easy prey for the left.

There are districts in Commiefornia where recent immigrants are the majority. You will find a candidate from each ethnic group, but they will all be Democrats. The general election is between the top two, which, for instance, results in an Asian Democrat vs. an Indian Democrat, or a Hispanic Democrat vs. an Asian Democrat. Bottom line is that the top two are always Democrats. That also means that you will never be able to vote for a Libertarian in the general.

Sure, makes sense, since throughout most of history, government was there to do something to somebody or do something for somebody.

The idea of government being in place solely for the purpose of protecting the right of the individual to be left alone to their own devices is a uniquely western idea and philosophy.

One that has been roundly rejected by most of the teeming billions.

The more of them that get imported, the less likely you will ever be able to turn this around.

[Anti Federalist]

Mike on Reason TV: