| Friday, August 13, 2004 |
13:37 - Shows work, needs thought
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3746
|
(top)  |
Actually this article does bring up a pretty good discussion, and does so in a well-argued way. It's all about enfranchisement, really, and whether now that we've done away with barriers to voting such as sex and race (and, if some people get their way, age, citizenship status, criminal history, and species), we should think about instituting a few subjective criteria to narrow down who should be allowed to make political decisions in this democracy.
Namely, that people who are too apathetic to vote shouldn't be allowed to.
A pretty incendiary thought, but at least the author's got some reasoning behind it. He says that the "Rock the Vote"-style ad campaigns currently running on MTV and Comedy Central (which I mentioned last night) are playing a dangerous game with a delicate balance: they're appealing to the uninformed to convince them to vote like they're informed.
You know, this all begs an interesting question: what does it tell you about a group’s agenda and ideas if it thinks that it has a vested interest in getting out the idiot vote? That’s just a little food for thought for those whose drive to vote originates from within. But remember, if someone doesn’t want to vote, it’s probably for a very good reason. And, most of all, remember that when the wrong people choose, we all lose.
I disagree with this for a number of reasons, foremost among which is that, hey, I watch Comedy Central, thankyouverymuch, and so—I imagine—do a lot of people who would likely qualify as "informed". The audience selection criteria for ads on cable channels are not limited to "gullible idiots". Furthermore, acting as though they are betrays—or rather confirms—an elitism that the author is quite explicit in admitting. If being able to do a quadratic equation or explain the electoral college is to be a prerequisite for voter registration, we'll be selecting for the segment of voters who are either snooty academics in a moral miasma, or total political cranks—and disenfranchising anyone who votes on their heart's impulse, which is not altogether a bad thing.
However, that said—check out Stephen Green's response, and the addenda by his commenters. I don't agree with all of them either, but... they sure are worth a cathartic chuckle or two.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
