In The Economist. John is promoting his new book, We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
From the interview: “There are a lot of people—I get email from them, and meet them at events—who hate the ever-growing federal power and the sight of our liberties withering away, yet who just can’t swallow the ghosts’n’angels stuff. They are secular conservatives. Like the Son of Man, though, they have no place to rest their heads, and we don’t seem to have attracted them with Secular Right. Perhaps we’re not very good bloggers. In my case, too damn lazy.”
Secular Right attracted me from the beginning, but has somewhat disappointed by just not providing that much in the way of readable blogging. Of course, perhaps I should respect the fact that the bloggers here wait until they actually have something to say before saying it.
I do look forward to everything that Derb writes, Heather MacDonald, and Andrew Stuttaford also.
Wow, Derb was in a Bruce Lee movie! Who knew?
Was he also the inspiration for C3PO?
i thought everyone knew that derb was in that bruce lee movie?
I have no statistical evidence to back this up–just my own observation–but I think people on the secular right are in general pretty dispirited (no pun intended). They can’t go left because of ideological reasons. But the divide between secular conservatives and the Christian right seems just as wide. To a fundie, you can’t be a conservative unless you’re a believer, presumably because conservative ideology comes directly from God. As JD said in the interview, secular righties have nowhere to rest their weary heads.
Maybe a cocktail party to benefit the homeless secular conservative?
Susan,
It isn’t just the “religious right” or fundamentalists who see conservativism as inherently religious. No less a paleo-con than Russell Kirk held, in his book The Conservative Mind, that one of the seven basic principles of conservatism was a belief in a transcendent spiritual order — an order that Kirk consistenly believed was made present to us through religion. Another of Kirk’s fairly constant refrains was that conservative was grounded in a defense of culture, and that culture had its roots in “cult” — in religious sensibility and worship. I’m not arguing here that Kirk’s assertions were correct — I am simply noting them in support of my broader point regarding the roots of modern conservatism.
As long as conservatives on differing sides of the “faith issue” see it simply as an argument between (to be stereotypical) mindless fundamentalists and (to use Teddy Roosevelt’s phrase) “filthy atheists,” the real nature of the dispute won’t be understood. Modern conservatism developed from two very different strands — a skeptical Tory strand exemplified by David Hume and a more traditionalist strand exemplified by the Whig Edmund Burke. Burke’s conservatism was grounded in religion. Hume’s was most definitely not. Thus, the “faith issue” within conservatism is an old issue — not a recent abberation.
One thing I think is relatively recent is the lack of respect that some adherents of the two differing schools of conservatism have shown to each other. That, I think, is where the problems are developing. And to be completely honest, while atheist and agnostic pleas for tolerance and a seat at the table are completely legitimate, the distain that some non-believers show for people of faith does not help in making that case. In politics, a commitment to ideological purity can be a hinderance. One may not like the people that one disagrees with regarding religion, but if one is in a coalition with such folks on political issues, one has to learn to be a bit diplomatic.
Here is where the trouble begins and ends, I think. If you dedicate yourself to the Truth, regardless where it leads, and regardless how unpleasant it may be, you are well on your way to being pretty much screwed, in this society. And that is also regardless of Party. Of course, (as Johnson said) “When the facts change, I change my mind” warns us to always be open to new and persuasive information that might shed light on a new , now-needs-to-be-modified, Truth. But we know enough about a lot of unpleasant realities that if you state some of them, you are welcome in neither Party. So we truth seekers are essentially political nomads.
Secular Right is as good as any label for me, but there is no Party I can ever count on.
Well, nobody should ever count on a party anyway. Parties, in the grand scheme of things, come and ago. They also shift in their ideological orientation. The Republicans weren’t always the more conservative of the two political parties. Parties are vehicles to get people elected to public office. That’s their function. I would put far more importance in ideas and values, in public spiritedness, in civic participation, than I do in parties. Not that parties aren’t necessary — but they aren’t substitutes for substance, either.
Mark: I dispute nothing you say about Kirk, Hume, and Burke. And, as someone who was brought up by nonreligious parents, and thereby escaped any form of theological indoctrination, I have no particular objection to believers in general–with two exceptions. I certainly object to people whose relgious beliefs entail flying large planes into larger buildings; butchering women for the crime of dating the wrong guy; butchering homosexuals for being homosexuals…well, you get the point. I also object to those extremely vocal Christian fundamentalists who insist that you can’t be a conservative without being a CF. They don’t want ME at the table. While I don’t fear being killed in a terrorist attack by Christian fundamentalists, I do fear that they’ll become just a sufficiently powerful enough force to change permanently electoral politics, and not for the better, from my standpoint.
Susan,
I agree with you completely when it comes to the need for conservative religious belivers to be respectful of non-religious conservatives. You are quite right that there often is a good deal of intolerance by believers towards those who are not religious or who identify as agnostics or atheists. And, speaking from a strictly political perspective, that’s a tremendous error when it comes to coalition-building. For a vibrant public square to function, there has to be respect — if not respect for particular ideas, then respect for the people who we may disagree with. That doesn’t mean agreement, or even timidness regarding debate of matters of public policy. Conservativism, secular or otherwise, is made better by debate and the exchange of ideas — iron sharpens iron.
My ideal is a conservative movement where both John Derbyshire and John West sit at the table, argue with each other, disagree about Darwinism and intelligent design, and then go out and support school vouchers so parents can rescue their children from the public school system.
I believe that’s what I wrote. In any event, as imperfect as they are, a Party in power is the only way to effect change. Since no Party I can imagine would ever admit, to the point of having it inform their social policy, something even as obvious as the Races of Man and their differences, our “ideas” have no nurturing soil.
For the Republicans ( especially CF’s), it would mean that God did not create all men equal – and they can’t accept that. For Democrats, telling the truth about Race would end the coalition of minorities that give them their majority – and they can’t accept that.
And an actual Truth Party could not get elected Dog Catcher.
We are, as Derb might say, “doomed”.
Mark, if you can arrange the occasion, I’ll put the food on the table; I’m a good cook. But I think a lot of stone-religious conservatives don’t WANT a coalition; at least, that’s the impression I get from reading what they write and listening to what they say. Their position is that their views and their ideas (so to speak) have been consistently ignored or derided by the “country club Republicans” who control the party, although I can’t say that I’ve ever heard a CCR in a public forum openly or even covertly mock a fundie for his or her beliefs. Actually I think most candidates go out of their way to cater to fundies, hence all that tiresome campaign rhetoric from them about how important “faith” is in their lives. (But then, how much good does that do? Remember the woman interviewed at the Iowa caucuses who said that, because she was a Christian, she couldn’t vote for Giuliani or Romney? What does she think they are–Druids?)
The fundies are falling in line behind Sarah Palin in large part because they feel she shares their religious convictions. (“Sarah loves the Lord, and that’s enough for me,” as one of them said.) If these people form a third party, with or without Palin to front it off, then that guarantees Obama a second term.
Susan,
Deal! I like fried chicken! Just a little joke there. I agree with you completely that respect has to be a two-way street, and there needs to be more of it made towards people of good will who aren’t religious or who are affirmatively atheistic or agnostic. And I would say that this particularly applies in the political arena, where the job of the political activist is to build coalitions of like-minded individuals who agree on matters of public policy. As Martin Luther once observed, “better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.”
As for Sarah Palin, I think that while much of her support comes from fundamentalists who like her religious background, I don’t think that all of it does. This blog’s very own John Derbyshire, in one of his “Radio Derb” podcasts for National Review, waxed eloquently about a possible Palin presidency. I think that for conservatives of a populist/non-elitist mindset, Palin has a certain appeal.
I think that one thing that both Hume-ian and Burke-ian conservatism can agree upon regarding the “big picture question” about religion and politics is the need to respect people’s consciences. While I certainly may disagree with a given person’s positions, I can respect and honor and defend their right to conscience. It is that right that serves as the basis of our First Amendment guarantees in our system, and it serves as the best legal and political refuge for both the believer and un-believer alike. To believe or not to believe, to worship or not to worship — liberty of conscience can be the unifying point.
But that means that we have to sacrifice a certain ideological purity, of putting up with infidelity on the part of atheists & agnostics or wishful thinking on the part of believers (depending on one’s perspective, of course). But I’m willing to pay that price for the freedom of conscience, and for the possibility of building a stable coalition for conservatives.
One other point that I think is helpful here is to clearly distinguish between political motivation and political purpose. I think that both believers and non-believers must be free to be motivated by their particular convictions in the public square. This is a critical component to the freedom of conscience. Religious believers have the right to be who they are in the public square, as do non-believers. But when it comes to the purpose of a particular public policy, in our system I think that the laws have to be secular — they have to serve a secular rather than a purely religious purpose. Otherwise, the state could be co-opted for religious purposes — exceeding its competence under our system of limited, constitutional government.
Mr. Derbyshire, the book sounds wonderful. I cannot wait to purchase my copy. And let me tell you, I stopped buying “political” books a long time ago, even the conservative ones. Last political book I bought was JIMMY CARTER: OUR WORST PRESIDENT, or something like that. I haven’t read it; I don’t really need a book to tell me Carter sucked wind.
It will be nice to read some common sense, deftly written, even if there is virtually zero chance that anyone will heed it.
As to your blogging, I don’t know how you guys blog at all. In the current climate I’m too depressed to even bother commenting on most issues. I’ve been this way since about half way through the Bush train wreck.
Why does anyone think that republicans need the religious right? Social conservative issues are more often a negative in general elections. They are only positive in primary elections where you have republicans combating republicans. For example in the 2000 republican primary Bush gave that speech at Bob Jones university in order to defeat McCain. He then had to apologize for it to defeat Gore.
This republican on republican conflict is giving the religious right so much power in the party that they have almost come to define the party. In a recent thread over at Darwin central there was even support for lying about being a creationist in order to get elected. Does nobody see how destructive this is to both religion and the republican party?
I believe a more secular conservative could do well in a general election. The problem is they will never make it to the general election because of the influence of the religious right in the primaries. The religious right is an inescapable curse on the republican party.
I have nothing against religious people in general. But the combination of religion and politics has always been and always will be toxic. This fact is the source of the Harlot metaphor in the bible. The republican party needs a way out of this trap or it becomes the beast that the harlot is riding.
What’s the way out of the trap, ppnl? You yourself said that the religious right was an inescapable curse on the Republican party. What’s the solution? How do you neutralize the curse?
If I might presume to answer in place of ppnl: the way out is to stop making the assumptions that make us vulnerable to the trap.
An excellent point – in this society, where tailless monkeys make up the vast majority, rational and honest thinkers cannot direct politics under a democratic system.
The obvious solutions: form another society, or abolish democracy.
@Susan
Maybe the solution is to have a big multi state primary vote at the beginning of the primaries, rather than giving priority to a few small states like Iowa. That way a perfect candidate for the religious right (e.g. Mike Huckabee) who is nonviable in a general election can’t spoil it for everyone else.
Susan,
Part of the problem is the primary system itself. Both parties are pulled toward opposite extremes before facing each other. This gives wingnuts far to much influence. If you had a combined primary system where both parties compete for the same pool of voters then both parties would distance themselves from the wingnuts on either end.
Now centrists aren’t always the best choice but it would give politicians more independence from the “factions and majorities” in their own party.
But I doubt either party wants this so I don’t see any way to get there from here.
>>The obvious solutions: form another society, or abolish democracy.
I haven’t given up on the value of “lying”, quite yet.
Specifically, while never being able to publicly acknowledge that facts of Race and ability, we can still craft the correct social mechanisms and remedies, we just can’t say WHY we are doing so.
So we need well-informed solutions, and terrific spinners who can weave a PC narrative.
It is down to making a horrible situation, a bit less horrible.
That’s attacking our enemies’ strengths with our weaknesses, while leaving our own weaknesses open to their strengths, Ivan Karamazov.
We’ll never be better propagandists than the people who dedicate themselves to manipulating the polis to their own ends.
You don’t defeat Stalin by patterning yourself after him. All you accomplish that way is make people even more vulnerable to Stalin’s methods, which permits him to take over your supporters. You don’t customize people to respond to the enemy’s style if you want to persist.
Go down in defeat, then, your honor intact. Me, I’m in favor of anything that makes the horrible situation, just a bit better. While I do not, of course, believe that God designed the world, I’m starting to think that the Devil may have.
Ivan Karamazov:
“Specifically, while never being able to publicly acknowledge that facts of Race and ability, we can still craft the correct social mechanisms and remedies, we just can’t say WHY we are doing so.”
I’m almost afraid to ask. With the absence of specifics this could mean anything.
Caledonian:
“We’ll never be better propagandists than the people who dedicate themselves to manipulating the polis to their own ends.”
Again a lack of specifics removes any meaning. A creationist will see that the liberal biased university system is so good at propaganda that Ben Stein’s truth stood no chance of being heard.
All politicians are very good at propaganda. Anyone who doubts that their own side uses propaganda as much as the other is living proof of the effectiveness of propaganda.
ppnl,
The GOP has to have religious conservative voters in order to be demographically competitive. For the Republicans to ditch the religious right would be like the Democrats abandoning the African-American vote. It isn’t going to happen because the math then becomes impossible for the part to manage.
To see what the GOP would look like without religious conservatives, look at the Libertarian Party. That’s basically it.
As for Ron Paul, I wonder how many secular libertarians realize, for example, that Paul is very strongly pro-life and doesn’t believe in evolution.
One more thing — Washington state had an open primary for years, and state office holders were not any more moderate and less “wingnutty” than in other parts of the country. Back in the mid-1990’s one of the finalist candidates for governor was one of the most radical religious-right candidates in the country at that time. The state Democratic party is left of left. So, the idea that open primaries will somehow result in a move to the center simply isn’t the story in Washington state. It might be in some other state, but here, it just ain’t the case.
Republicans in themselves are not demographically competitive even with the religious right. But there are a huge number independents and democrats who will cross party lines. Every religious right voter you alienate is a one vote swing since they aren’t going to vote democrat anyway. Every independent voter you alienate is a two vote swing.
A Washington state style open primary will have more of an effect on a national level with many states. Also electoral votes should be proportional. Remember the point of federalism was to create a national perspective to counter balance local factions and majorities.
As things stand I don’t think I have ever participated in a presidential election where my vote mattered.
In theory, I think, semi-closed primaries are supposed to produce the most moderate candidates, since they allow independents as well as party members to vote. I don’t know if that’s always true, but it seems to be the prevailing wisdom. Massachusetts is one of the four states that holds semi-closed primaries, and as far as I recall, Romney and Obama won those.
ppnl,
Do you have any statistical evidence that a Republican coalition that includes religious conservatives is unable to win an election over time? The Republican coalition in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 all had huge religious conservative components, and those where also years where the Republican candidates did well with independent and cross-over Democrat voters. Bad Repubican years were 1976, 1992 and 2008. All of those years had factors that indicated that no matter what the Republicans did, they were doomed at the polls. 1976 had the Watergate hangover (and even then, Ford barely lost — but the Congressional GOP was decimated), 1992 had a terrible recession, and 2008 had the current recession + a Bush hangover. I don’t see that idea that the current Republican coalition is a huge loser over the last few elections. What kills the GOP is when the economy tanks, not that it has religious conservatives in its coalition.
“Do you have any statistical evidence that a Republican coalition that includes religious conservatives is unable to win an election over time?”
No thats silly. Yes republicans can win with religious conservatives. But what have we won? What I’m saying is that the combination of religion and politics degrades both. The republican party self destructs every few decades. It collapses under its own weight in wingnuts. This will continue to happen as long as the “base” of the party is a bunch of extreme authoritarian followers.
Even after “Bush the Lesser” Obama only won by a few percentage points in popular vote. Take the Bush albatross off the republicans, get through the primaries without kissing religious right ass and go for the independent vote and the democrats are toast.
But republicans can’t avoid that religious right ass. I’m saying republicans don’t need the religious right except to defeat other republicans. The 2000 primaries showed exactly how that works. Liberals aren’t the problem. We are doing it to ourselves.
A coalition is one thing, a third party of religious conservatives is quite another. To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, I’d rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
What I’m saying is that the combination of religion and politics degrades both.
Both religion and politics are variants of ideology. Religiously inspired voters are no different than voters inspired by neoconservatism, liberalism, progressivism, marxism, etc. They all have sets of beliefs. Some beliefs are axiomatic and others are empirical. The fact that a religious voter votes as they do because they think god is favoring their choice is no different than a liberal voting for more government intervention in people’s lives because they believe that philosopher kings know better how people should live their lives than the people themselves.
From a pragmatic POV what counts is the sheer number of votes that one can assemble within a coalition of interests and that the size of the coalition is larger than the other party.
Susan,
Well said! I think you are right on your point re: the coalition. First, while the GOP cannot win with religious conservatives alone (and any statement to the contrary is not grounded in reality), it cannot win without them. They are an essential component of the conservative coalition — perhaps it would be better if that were not the case, perhaps not, but one goes into an election with the electorate that one has, not the electorate that one wishes to have. If religious conservatives were driven out of the GOP, it would cripple the Republican Party electorally. Particularly given the fact that religious conservatives are more numerous in parts of the country (mid-west, south, Ohio) that the GOP must do well in to be competitive. Whatever independents the GOP might gain in California and New York would not be sufficient to carry those states for the Republicans. Hence, the electoral suicide if religious conservatives are expelled from the party.
By the way, the proposal made by ppnl for electoral victory was essentially the path undertaken by John McCain in 2000 and (to a lesser extent) 2008. How’d that work out? It was precisely the base’s hostility to McCain that prevented him from getting any mojo. And McCain lost critical support among religious conservatives, notably church-going white Catholic voters. Those voters were critical to Bush’s electoral college win in 2000 and his overall win in 2004.
BTW, this is why I think it is critical from both a religious and a non-religious perspective to demonstrate why a secular politics is not hostile to religion or the participation of religionists in public life. I think that a secular state and secular politics is good for everybody involved — good for the operation of the state, good for non-believers, but especially good for religious believers and for freedom of religion. A constitutional order provides for a limited government, with the government specifically being denied competence over religious issues, with a strong institutional separation of church and state is a very good thing, it turns out, for religion. Having one’s church/synogogue/mosque/temple run by somebody other than the same people who run the IRS turns out to be good for religion. So long as the rights of conscience for all are protected, a secular order isn’t the enemy of religion. It turns out, at least in an American context to be its best friend.
Open primaries would bring in more moderate candidates, and that is exactly why I’m against them. As Goldwater put it, I want a choice, not an echo. With open primaries, the winners of both parties would be hardly distinguishable. When the general election came around, it would hardly even matter who won. Having closed primaries allows people with more sharply defined beliefs (ideologes or idealists depending on your point of view) to get elected. When an occasional conservative wins, he might actually implement conservative beliefs. Sure, sometimes a liberal will win, but at least we’ll know who to fight. The problem with always running things by consensus is that when the consensus is proven wrong, there is nobody to turn to. In a strong two-party system, there always is somebody else. With open primaries we would have gotten George HW Bush instead of Reagan in 1980, and McCain instead of George W Bush in 2000. I’m glad things turned out as they did.
Humm, I’m not so sure. I think we are all very sloppy in using the broad category word “religion”. I bet when people do, they actually mean “MY religion”.
Lets see how your post reads when we substitute in an actual specific religious belief system, albeit one picked to make the point.
“Both Zeus worship and politics are variants of ideology. Zeus inspired voters are no different than voters inspired by neoconservatism, liberalism, progressivism, marxism, etc. They all have sets of beliefs. Some beliefs are axiomatic and others are empirical. The fact that a Zeus voter votes as they do because they think Zeus is favoring their choice is no different than a liberal voting for more government intervention in people’s lives because they believe that philosopher kings know better how people should live their lives than the people themselves.
From a pragmatic POV what counts is the sheer number of votes that one can assemble within a coalition of interests and that the size of the coalition is larger than the other party.”
Now, how does that sound? Still think that “religious” ideology is on par with a particular secular ideology, like, say, liberalism or neoconservative-ism?
You may say “Zeus obviously doesn’t exist”, but I bet lots of Americans don’t think Allah does either.
As for Ron Paul, I wonder how many secular libertarians realize, for example, that Paul is very strongly pro-life and doesn’t believe in evolution.
We are well aware of this. It makes no difference. I’m a secular libertarian. Yet, I have no problem with any social conservative as long as they are “conservative” on economic issues. I would have voted for Mike Huckabee if he favored the same economic policies as Ron Paul. The problem is that many social conservatives, like Mike Huckabee and Pat Buchanan, tend to be economic “populists” or even socialistic with regards to economic issues. This is silly because people who support socialistic economic policies are really looking for hand-outs from the government and, as well all know well, the democrats are far better at this than any republican.
Now, how does that sound? Still think that “religious” ideology is on par with a particular secular ideology, like, say, liberalism or neoconservative-ism?
You may say “Zeus obviously doesn’t exist”, but I bet lots of Americans don’t think Allah does either.
I think you example sounds fine. It doesn’t matter whether you or I accept the notion of Zeus existing anymore than it matters to a liberal voter that we accept their premise of wise philosopher kings existing and being better able to guide the peons in their lives. In other words, the basis for one’s vote doesn’t have to be universally recognized. Whatever concerns and philosophies inform my vote are, I’m sure, completely ignored and deemed irrelevant, by some other voters, just as you and I completely dismiss their religious basis for voting as they do.
Sorry, I can’t buy the equivalency you are trying to make.
In one case, we are talking about invisible fictions, and in the other, a discussion of which types of actual human beings, ought to rule. A test could be designed to determine if it is a true or false assertion that “better” governance would come from being ruled by , on the one hand, “from among our brightest”, or, “from among whomever the people chose to elect, and for whatever reason”. If there were parallel universes, we could theoretically try both and see whether philosopher kings work out better or not.
They would or they wouldn’t, but folks who think beforehand that they WOULD are on WAY firmer ground than folks who claim to be informed by belief in the various gods Man has postulated.
@John Having a choice means little if the only available options are wrong ones.
Our current system rewards politicians who exploit polarization on a few issues, pushing positions as far to the extremes of the public’s tolerance as they can to reap the resulting benefits, while being functionally identical on the vast majority of topics, which are never mentioned.
Can’t argue with that, as far as it goes, except to say “But that tactic doesn’t work on me. I see through it.” I assume you would say the same. So doesn’t that mean that the problem, at root, is not the politicians, but the (too dumb) electorate? I’m not sure that it is wise to structure a society in which everyone has the equal right to vote. It’s one of those things that sounds good, near unassailable in fact, but is, in reality, a slow drift toward the cliff.
Well, how do you decide who votes? Or, much more important than that, who gets to decide who votes? If you go by the definition of that professor at the University of North Carolina who, when asked why the university didn’t hire conservatives to teach, replied that conservatives weren’t smart enough to do so, obviously I’d be denied the right to vote. A hardcore fundamentalist might deny me the right to vote because of my lack of religious beliefs. On the other hand, Milton Friedman, if he were still above ground, would probably think I was smart enough to vote.
One argument I’ve heard is that only property owners should be allowed to vote. At present, I don’t happen to own a house. Barbra Streisand–you know, the one who didn’t want Bush to overthrow the IRANIAN dictator Saddam Hussein–owns several houses. Should this empower her and not me to vote? Which of us would you rather have making critical decisions on foreign policy at the polls? I mean, for Gawd’s sake, at least I know the difference between Iraq and Iran, even if I don’t own 27 million dollars worth of real estate in Santa Monica.
Susan – you need to look at the big picture. For every wealthy Hollywood lib, how many hundreds of thousands of middle class property owners are there? I can guarantee you that the makeup of Congress would be vastly different – in a Conservative direction – if voting were restricted to property owners. They tend to be older (which correlates with becoming more conservative), harder working, better educated, and (most importantly) they have a tangible stake in the future of the country.
In one case, we are talking about invisible fictions, and in the other, a discussion of which types of actual human beings, ought to rule.
Religious voter = “Politician A is who god tells me to vote her.” Politician A satisfies the voter’s bias, which is informed by his own view of reality.
Leftist voter = “Politician B speaks to all of the leftist hot-buttons.” Politician B satisfied the voter’s bias, which is informed by his own view of reality.
There is no empirical test to which individual bias must be subjected, and pass, in order to be deemed eligible to serve as the basis for voting decisions.
In the two cases above, I hold a religiously informed opinion to have as much merit as a marxist informed opinion.
To entertain the notion that some viewpoints are ineligible for informing voter behavior is like having an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nothing will come of such a discussion.
Well gee, let me think for a second. I got it! How about only those who can get above a certain grade on an IQ / civics test. That would certainly be better than letting EVERYONE vote.
But I’m no fool, of course. I know it will never happen. People don’t like to make difficult judgments anymore, so lets just let EVERYONE vote. And so the “average” voter is a fairly uninformed and not very bright one. And we get what we now have. Happy?
I don’t think an IQ/Civics test would work either, Ivan. Or at least not in the sense of sorting out the conservative wheat from the liberal chaff, which is what I assume you want. There are plenty of people with IQs of 145 and a huge general knowledge base who firmly believe people live far, far better in present-day China than they do in present-day America. And frankly I know some conservatives who don’t know Milton Friedman from Milton Berle. Or Milton Bradley.
But that was my point. There IS no test that would pass the test. So…everybody votes.
Hey maybe Ivan Karamazov has a point. Since we have decided that the pursuit of the truth is not a viable option and trying to limit the influence of the religious right is a recipe for defeat the only option is to take away their right to vote. Problem solved. What could possibly go wrong?
jesus christ people. I give up…
Yes I have regained conservative pessimism. I am pessimistic that, after years of republicans catering to idiot, there are enough functioning brain cells in the party to order lunch.
>>jesus christ people. I give up
Congrats. You’ve finally stumbled on a rational response.
There is no fix. Whatever the cause for the citizenry that has evolved over the last several decades, it is not one that will be making the correct decisions at the ballot box. So batten down the hatches, things are going to get a LOT worse before they ( if ever ) get better.
I’m glad I only have a couple of decades ( at best ) to live.
Things don’t have to work out in the end, you know.
Oh, well, in that case…anybody want a drink?
I never would have guessed:-)
Ok, fine. Make fun of me if you will. But it is very painful to have to sit back at watch things you held dear, go down the drain. Further, to know some things that would help reverse it all, but to also know that those things can/will never happen. It is quite painful. A burden that will happily be put down, one day, by the sleep one does not awaken from.