"This is the kind of thinking that leads to serfdom and sharecropping."

In an important and eloquent election-eve polemic, Deafening Silence at PoliGazette rips into the surprisingly long list of people -- including Peggy Noonan and John Stossel -- who have propagated the meme that some people are just too dumb or ignorant to vote, and should stay home.  They differ only on which demographic they thus label. 

Peck reminds us how long it took to wring that kind of patronizing exclusion out of our very Constitution and extend its promises to all adult citizens:

The Founding Fathers believed that only white, property-owning males age 21 and older had the necessary wisdom to cast votes.  Until the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, many colonies believed that only Christian Protestants could be trusted with the right to vote.  Jews, Catholics and Quakers need not apply.

The states of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey originally thought that women were wise enough to vote.  By 1807 they had been talked out of this irresponsible nonsense and barred women from the polls before they could make any more mischief.

In many states disenfranchised women could commiserate with poor white males; in many states, property restrictions kept them from voting for 68 years.

After all, if they were too lazy and shiftless to own property, how could they be trusted with the vote?

African American males,  being considered property, did not receive the right to vote until the 15th amendment was adopted in 1870.  Even then, the right merely existed on paper; ‘wiser’ men would devise ways of keeping them from exercising that right until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Women were not deemed wise enough to vote until the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920. (It should be noted that the 14th amendment stripped women of all races of full citizenship, even as it extended citizenship to African American males.)

Native Americans were not considered wise enough to vote in the land that was once theirs until 1924.

In each of these cases, ‘wiser’ hands took the vote from the unworthy.  In each case, the reasoning at the time seemed sound: unlettered men with no property to protect had no real stake in the new nation; women were too emotional; recently freed slaves couldn’t possibly understand politics and Native Americans were not ‘real’ citizens.

I can hear the sighs of frustration, see the eyes rolling now: That’s not what we meant and you know it!  We don’t want to take the right to vote from anyone.  We just want to persuade the ignorant and uninformed not to exercise it.  For the greater good, you see.

And who are these ignorant and uninformed voters?

Read on.  A must read, really, especially if you're feeling bitter and considering staying home and clinging to your TV remote.

Rather than seeing the vote as a privilege we have to deserve, let's see it as an honor that shames us into deserving it -- by better informing ourselves, by all means, but first of all by exercising it.  The worst than can happen -- it has already happened -- is that we'll get the leaders we deserve.

Comments

[Perfect Moment Project]

Get up, stand up! Love it.

My mamma voted for the first time since my dad died... and I'm so proud.

You go, mamma

[Meade]

"And what will you say, someday, to someone who wants to exclude you?"

I'll say, "But I thought I would vote for whoever YOU are voting for" and they will say, "Oh, well, in that case..." and then I'll vote for their opponent.

[RW Rogers]

That's wonderful, Sue. Here's hoping that she casts many more votes over the years.

[Melinda]

Sue, I'm so glad it worked out and that they got your mother another ballot!

[Danny]

Of course everyone should vote and should be allowed to vote, but to play devil's advocate and take the politically incorrect stance—I strongly agree with the people in that article who believe there is an appalling number of ignorant people in this country who do not know ANYTHING about our history or government and who are wildly misinformed about most topics. I know such observations drip with "elitism" but that doesn't make them any less true. Oh, and in NO WAY whatsoever am I making any allusions that there's more stupid people aligned with one political party over another. Nor am I positioning myself as some kind of scholar or suggesting that people need to pass some kind of basic achievement test before they're allowed into the voting booth. But having worked in history education for the past 25 years, you would be horrified if you were exposed to the terrifying ignorance that many American citizens frequently display about this country. There is no shortage of ignorant and uninformed voters in both parties (haven't you been writing about just that for months now?). But since "ignorance" can be quite a relative term depending on your point of view, I sure as hell don't want anyone deciding who is smart enough to vote. Let the chips fall where they may and let's all work on strengthening history education in our schools!

Of course I wouldn't be saying any of this if I were running for office—I'm not that much of an idiot!

[amba]

Danny,

Anyone who watched Leno when he did those "person on the street" segments knows how mind-boggling the ignorance out there is. And even those of us who aren't that ignorant are still pretty ignorant.

People recognize every contestant who's ever been on "American Idol," but can't recognize Joe Biden. Maybe we need to have a talent-and-personality competition for president. Oh wait, we already do.

Sue:

Your momma has inspired a lot of people to get up and stand up! GOOD for her.

My dad and mom are still "voting buddies" at 90 and almost 85. They made a HUGE impression on me as a small child with their reverence for voting, and I was even more impressed when they told me everyone's vote is his or her own and they didn't even have to tell EACH OTHER who they voted for.

This is why, no matter how fed up I get, I can't stay home.

[jason]

Well said, Annie!

After W was voted back into office the second time (I voted for him the first time, BTW), I flirted with the idea that some people couldn't be trusted with a ballot. Then I eventually came around to the realization that they get what they deserve.

The politically uneducated can indeed sway the country--and therefore the world--but a lack of wisdom, foresight, understanding and humanity does not negate their vote, nor does it negate their right to vote.

Such is the curse of true democracy. I for one accept that lest the contrary lead us down a dark and dangerous path.

[realpc]

I agree that most Americans are too dumb and ignorant to vote, but I would go even farther and say that ALL Americans are too dumb and ignorant to vote. How can any of us possibly know who would be a good president? And how can we possibly keep up with all the details of politics, in breadth and in depth?

So how can any of us decide who is qualified to vote, if none of us are qualified? Yes, there is a difference in ignorance level between the person who doesn't know who the first US president was, and the person who doesn't know who the 14th president was.

But those of us who are relatively less ignorant, because we have been reading and learning our whole lives, have a tendency to greatly underestimate our own ignorance, and to greatly overestimate the difference between us and everyone we might be enjoy feeling superior to.

I'm always reading and trying to understand things, and I have no idea who will be a better president. I am definitely not qualified to vote, but I will anyway. What the heck, it's only one little vote.

[amba]

Well said, real!!

[Donna B.]

Yeah. Ditto what Real wrote. That is all especially true in a presidential election, but there really isn't a need for that much ignorance on a local level.

I know the local aspects of politics is often cited yet mostly overlooked, but that's the breeding ground of national politicians. And that's where I'm going to focus from now on.

We've got to breed better politicians and I don't know of any other way to do it. I am open to suggestions.

[amba]

Related to that, my father once said, "You can't REALLY judge a politician unless you know them personally." That made a strong impression on me.

[amba]

By the way -- by way of being fair to Obama -- would someone tell me why "Obama's tax plan will kill small businesses" isn't a distortion if it is the personal income tax, not the corporate tax, for which $250,000 is the cutoff. (Or is it? Yes, I have noticed him and Biden saying other numbers, as if by mistake, or as if they hope people will become confused and not remember what they said in the first place. If they are actually trying to move the goalposts, that's a dishonest way to do it.) Obama claimed in an interview with Wolf Blitzer that he does not want to raise corporate taxes, rather to close loopholes. If so, the profits of small businesses should not see a higher tax rate -- only their CEOs' salaries beyond a certain point.

[Outis]

Such is the curse of true democracy.

Well, then, thank God (and the Founders) that we don't live in a true democracy, but instead live in a constitutional republic.

[Outis]

By the way -- by way of being fair to Obama -- would someone tell me why "Obama's tax plan will kill small businesses" isn't a distortion if it is the personal income tax, not the corporate tax, for which $250,000 is the cutoff.

For small companies the profit of the company IS the pay for the owner(s). They're called S-Corporations. The point of an S-Corp is to avoid double taxation by passing the 'corporate' tax burden directly to the shareholders via their personal income tax, and also to provide limited liability protections to the owners. (Note the clever use of a non-Wiki link. Thus I avoid being accused of knowing nothing except what's in Wikipedia.)

I know of one such comapny of about 35 people. It's certainly not GE or GM, but it is profitable - the owners do well for themselves. If Obama raises the taxes on the owners they will try to make up for their lost pay in some manner. The most likely way to do that is by getting fewer workers to do more work, thus increasing profits. Thus, lost jobs. It's also not that hard to figure out who's jobs will be the first to go.

So, slapping additional payroll tax (for which they, as the owners, are hit double) onto all income over $250K, as well as increased personal imcome tax rates, will cost the owners a pretty penny. I'd guess that one $30K job lost per owner should keep the owners flush, if they can get the same amount of work out of the reduced workforce. Add in the pressures from a weak economy and Obama's tax plan actually incents them to cut their workforce. (Which ought to incense those who will lose their jobs.)

On the other hand, if they replace those heads in a year or two they will get an entire $3,000 tax credit to make them whole! That's actually one MORE incentive for the company to cut headcount NOW - they can make a marginal tax gain later if they need to replace the lost people.

[Outis]

I should add that my estimates on what needs to be done to help the owners stay flush is based on a very rough idea of how much they make, as well as a rough idea of what kinds of benefit costs they will save from cutting headcount.

[Outis]

Also, there may or may not be a semantic difference between "closing loopholes" and "raising tax rates", but the effect is the same: tax rates go up. Also, one legal entity's loophole is another LE's deduction - what are deductions for mortgage payments if not loopholes? The best solution would be to quit with the cronyism and social engineering and set fixed rates, no exceptions. Of course, that would kill off the tax accounting industry, the tax lawyer industry, and worst of all a large chunk of the lobbying industry, amongst other things. Which means that people wouldn't have to grease the palms of politicians to get what they wanted/needed. A complicated tax code is just a way for politicians to make sure they get rich while screwing everyone else, and also another way for politicians to buy votes come election time.

[Donna B.]

Don't forget sole proprietorships. It works just like an S-Corporation with the limited liability benefit.

[amba]

No, tax rates don't go up; taxes go up. LOL!

So small business owners will be motivated to cut people now in order to hire them later?? Crazy.

I certainly agree with you about -- you're not saying flat tax, as far as I can tell (that's another discussion), but a vastly simplified tax code with lower rates but no loopholes.

[Outis]

So small business owners will be motivated to cut people now in order to hire them later??

Perhaps. For the small companies I doubt it will make THAT much difference - but it will be one more thing for them to consider. For the big companies? You know I worked for a large employer, and given the kind of turnover THAT company had, they would seriously have to consider letting some positions go for awhile (NOT the same thing as letting people go) in order to bring them back for the tax break. Do that for 1000 jobs and the company could get a $3M tax savings.

Which is another problem with Obama's plan. Who decides if a company is creating a new job, or simply filling an old position? There will need to be regulators to figure out what's which and which is what. The main job creation of this tax credit will be more IRS agents. Yay Team IRS Auditor!

I certainly agree with you about -- you're not saying flat tax, as far as I can tell (that's another discussion), but a vastly simplified tax code with lower rates but no loopholes.

Correct, I'm not saying a flat tax. Theoretically I favor one, but I haven't thought out all the implications. Plus, I doubt that the voters would accept such under any circumstances.

[jason]

I wasn't playing at semantics by saying "true democracy," Outis, at least not in terms of a form of government; I was, however poorly, referring to the definition of democracy as free and equal representation of people--a system wherein all people have a right to participate in government, including the right to vote. My apologies for not clarifying which definition of the word I was using since, as you made clear, it's an important civics lesson to understand its various meanings.

[Callimachus]

Continuing in the devil's advocate vein, how about this: Everyone gets a vote. Every year, there's a national test you can choose to take on the Constitution, American history, and very basic current events. Depending on your score, you get as many as three votes in every national election.

By nature I'm in the Al Hamilton, Polybius, mixed-government class of anti-democratic snobs, but I can't deny that in my lifetime the reflexiveness of the small-town American mob has been right a bit more often than the reflectiveness of the American intelligensia. I still don't like pure democracy; I just have to admit it works. So far.

[amba]

This separation of thought and action is an awful thing. Whatever happened to the classical ideal of the cultivated man (or woman, now) of action? David Petraeus being proof that it's possible.

[RW Rogers]

Speaking of getting people to vote, look what I ran across:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has hired forensic accounting specialists to investigate more than $1 million in church funding to voter-registration group ACORN, fearing the money may have been spent in partisan or fraudulent ways that could jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status.

The investigation is "thorough, serious and ongoing," according to a July 11 letter to more than 200 bishops from New Orleans Bishop Robert Morin, chairman of the committee that oversees the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

The CCHD sent $1,037,000 to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in 2007, including a $40,000 grant to an ACORN affiliate in Las Vegas that was raided last month by the Nevada attorney general's office in a voter-fraud probe.

The Catholic aid agency has given more than $7.3 million to ACORN over the past decade for about 320 projects, according to the Catholic News Service.

Note the date of the Bishop's letter and the fact that it is only coming to light now. (Our fourth estate in action: all the news fit to print long past it's sell-by date)

What really caught my eye, though, was the end:

In June, ACORN disclosed the embezzlement of $948,607 from the organization in 1999 and 2000 by Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. The embezzlement was kept secret from most of ACORN's board members until a whistleblower publicized the matter, and Dale Rathke subsequently was dismissed from the national board.

He still organizes ACORN's international nonprofit arm.

WTF? They let him sit on the board for eight years after he stole $1 million? Has no one ever heard of fiduciary responsibility? Anyone care to make a guess when the post-partisan Obama will investigate this ongoing fraud committed against the donors to this charity? Note also that this man is STILL EMPLOYED by this organization.

[jason]

Assuming we're talking about Obama's plan, Annie, Outis's remarks are outlandish and deceptive. See my comment on "Small-Business Owners Targeting Obama Voters for Layoff?" for a link to the truth of how those tax changes could impact small businesses.

And one assumes we aren't lumping in small business owners with an abundance of wealth with small business owners as a whole. If those owners are making a large bit of money, yes, they will see taxes go up. But then one is left to question their intentions, as we are with Outis.