At Chalupas Central today, a candid, if probably unintentional, outburst about democracy and rule-by-intellectuals.
7. I would be falling prey to the fallacy of mood affiliation if I simply assumed the author wanted policy to be more responsive to the wishes of the poor and middle class. Still I can ask whether this would be a desirable end. Aren’t they less educated and less well-informed on average? Don’t they also care about politics less and derive less of their status from political processes and outcomes? Do I want them to have a greater say over social issues, including gay marriage? No.
How should I parse this? Can I be excused for concluding that the writer does not wish policy to be more responsive to the wishes of the poor and middle class? Should I take it that policy ought to be directed by those who derive more of their status from political processes and outcomes? Do I discern here a blatant paternalism denying the common people a say over social issues that affect them more-or-less directly, including the devaluation of marriage i.a. by associating it with things that trigger gag reflex in those same common people? Yes.