Friday, June 29, 2012

Because Some People Just Shouldn't Vote

CNBC's John Carney has stumbled upon an idea he can really get behind: Eliminate Universal Suffrage.

While hobnobing with the global intelectual elite at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Mr. Carney's fancy was tickled.
His argument had two parts. The first was that some people simply are not ready for democracy. They have no functional conception of the state in their minds, much less an understanding of representative, deliberative democracy. Some are so poor that they can be bribed to vote this way or that for "five dollars," he said. The application of the principle of universal suffrage was not a recipe for successful government in these circumstances, the speaker argued.
Yes, so rather than address the issues of inequality that might lead to these circumstances, much better to strip the poor of their franchise.
The second point of his argument was that the developed Western democracies did not start out with universal suffrage. Almost all allowed only a portion of their citizens to vote at first, only slowly expanding the right to participate in elections over the course of decades. Why force the developing world into instant universal suffrage?
Rather than dismiss this notion out of hand, Mr. Carney suggests that
just because an answer isn't at hand doesn't mean we shouldn't ask the question. Perhaps if people started taking them seriously, we'd be at the beginning of something truly new in world politics.
Yes. Or something truly horrific.

6 comments:

  1. And this would be the Aspen Ideas Festival sponsored by the Aspen Institute, peddlers of the Innovation Economy that the Obama Administration and State Department are so very keen on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So wait... This is somehow Obama's idea??? Seriously??? You're funny.

      Congratulations! You have given a textbook demonstration of the Association Fallacy. Thanks!

      Delete
  2. No, I’m not saying this was Obama’s idea at all. You drew that conclusion. I’m drawing attention to the Aspen Institute because it underscores the ideology behind the Democratic approach to economic development: increased globalization favoring narrow investment interests and exacerbating the blurred distinction between public and private sectors.

    Nor am I condoning the argument presented about universal suffrage. But you must admit, it does have an imperialistic element that is intricately tied to global investment interests. As much as it goes against the grain, I don’t think it is in any way appropriate to export democracy. And I certainly don’t think it is appropriate to do so in the name of economic development. I think democracy and universal suffrage are dandy, but I also respect the idea that sovereign peoples may choose whichever sort of governing body they wish.

    Again, not condoning the argument here, but within it is a kernel of truth, and one that should be recognized as occurring even now, here in these great United States. Thomas Jefferson alluded to it and so did the creators of democracy in the Greek symposia. In order for democracy to function properly, the people must be learned, discerning, critical thinkers. Democracy is easily distorted and undermined by those who take hold of minds through distortions and propaganda. It is easy to manipulate the least advantaged - it is this principle that allows disaster capitalism and dictatorial regimes to thrive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again, not condoning the argument here, but within it is a kernel of truth, and one that should be recognized as occurring even now, here in these great United States. Thomas Jefferson alluded to it and so did the creators of democracy in the Greek symposia. In order for democracy to function properly, the people must be learned, discerning, critical thinkers. Democracy is easily distorted and undermined by those who take hold of minds through distortions and propaganda. It is easy to manipulate the least advantaged - it is this principle that allows disaster capitalism and dictatorial regimes to thrive.

    The struggle, then, is who gets to decide who is worthy of the franchise and who is not. Do we take the Robert Heinlein approach and say only people who have served in the military can be citizens? How do we make that distinction?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sadly I concede that I haven’t read much Heinlein - he’s on my very long to-do list, I’m afraid. So, I’m not sure I grasp your context, but I think I get your gist.

    My thinking on suffrage trends toward it isn’t a matter of determining who is worthy, being human determines worthiness for suffrage. I think universal suffrage is the best method. My point is that it isn’t a panacea or cure-all for securing justice or equality if those who vote do so with skewed priorities shaped by distorting forces. Voting is a tremendous responsibility because one is essentially determining political direction when one votes. One’s vote does not merely impact one’s own interests but everybody else’s collective interest. This is the matter at hand when one considers the necessity for a learned, discerning, critical, and actively thinking body of voters whose minds are open - even to the flaws of those one supports, not merely the faults of those with opposing political views. I also diverge from the position I believe you hold - not voting disqualifies one from dissenting opinion. I disagree. I am responsible for who I vote for, I am not responsible for putting into power someone I haven’t voted for. Universal suffrage without vibrant intellectualism or political diversity isn’t going to enhance democracy, it will only weaken it.

    Fill me in on the Heinlein approach if you would. If I’m not mistaken the approach of mandatory military service isn’t so fictional. I’d also take recommendations for the best Heinlein titles to begin reading - for someone who is only tangentially familiar with his work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Phil is referring to is Heinlein’s book “Starship Troopers”. The movie was based on it but messed up pretty badly IMO. In the book in order to be considered a “full citizen” you needed to perform a certain amount of Federal service. Full citizenship was defined as being able to vote and hold public office.

    Wikipedia sums it up fairly well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers

    “…the rights of a full Citizen (to vote, and hold public office) must be earned through some form of volunteer Federal service. Those residents who have not exercised their right to perform this Federal Service retain all other rights generally associated with a modern democracy (free speech, assembly, etc.), but they cannot vote or hold public office. This structure arose ad hoc after the collapse of the "20th century Western democracies", brought on by both social failures at home (among which appear to be poor handling of juvenile delinquency) and military defeat by the Chinese Hegemony overseas.”

    ReplyDelete