What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Against a Universal Franchise

Proposition: It is far more important that the electorate be of outstanding moral character, prudence, and wisdom than it is to extend the franchise to as many people as possible or to insure that every conceivable interest group is formally represented by voters who are members of that group. Other things equal, it is better to live in a good polity without the right to vote than it is to live in a tyrannical, decadent polity with the right to vote.

(Cross-posted)

Comments (73)

The problem with floating ideas like this today is that people tend to regard not only voting, but voting in a post-Baker v. Carr manner as some type of moral imperative. But the truth is, of course, entirely different: voting is in and of itself morally neutral. Furthermore, the natural law does not appear to require any particular method of representation; a Montesquiean methodology that attempts to represent economic production, rather than simply population (see, e.g., the 1787 U.S. Constitution), or a Parliamentarian system that attempts to duplicate the importance of geographic communities apart from their constitutive members, is not, ipso facto, invalid. Furthermore, even after accepting that St. Thomas's political experiences were notably limited, he clearly indicates (and the Church continues to reiterate) that the divine and natural laws do not command one particular form of government (e.g. representative democracy).

So yea in favor of the proposition.

Not much to disagree with there Zippy.
The Articles of Confederation, 4th article I believe, prohibited "vagabonds" from voting, now illiterates are bused around town to participate in numbers counting orgies, some of which don't end for a month or two after the farce, er, election.
Progress is a wonderful thing.

Compare: "Would it be better for everyone to be healthy, happy, & wise for ever and ever or to live in a tyrannical, decadent polity with the right to vote?" The two have no necessary connection; we have no more basis for thinking we know how to go about producing the earthly paradise than we do a putative "good polity". So this is a little bit of cheating on your part, no?

As to the larger point, I would offer the following:

1). The most important goal of any form of government is to ensure that the subjects have the ability to change their rulers without resorting to violence. That, in and of itself, does more to safeguard people from tyranny than anything else. And thus far, our representative democracy, for all its flaws, has the best track record at enabling people to do that. Popper got this right, if nothing else.

2). If I am going to be subject to the laws and policy of the government under which I live, then I should have some say in those laws and that policy. That's the simplest argument for universal suffrage. It doesn't really matter how wicked, or stupid, or ignorant I am - I still should be able to take some responsibility, however small, for the ordering of the state in which I am going to have to live. This obviously needs to be qualified (insane people, children, &c.), and our system, equally obviously, only gives us the illusion of having such a "say", but neither of those points really constitutes any argument for a more limited franchise.

The emotional appeal of the proposition is obvious. The problem is that self-identified moral, prudent, and wise people rarely are any such thing, at least consistently. I would gladly give away my vote to live under the direct rule of Jesus. Short of that, no way. The thought of all the smart virtuous people making all my decisions for me makes me feel ill.

Sure, in the abstract that sounds great. The problem is that, even if you could agree on what constitutes outstanding moral character, prudence, and wisdom and could devise means to screen for them in the voter, it's still no guarantee that you would end up with better rulers.

I'm curious why you think the franchise is worth debating when you don't see any good from exercising the franchise. By limiting the franchise to men of good virtue would you not be seeking to remove good virtue from men?

Dean's first point just about has it. Democracy's purpose is not to ensure either "better" (in terms of either efficiency or of efficaciousness) or more "just" decisions. It is to act as a stabilizing system which short-circuits most recourse to political violence.

The most important goal of any form of government is to ensure that the subjects have the ability to change their rulers without resorting to violence. That, in and of itself, does more to safeguard people from tyranny than anything else.

Absolute hogswill: the tyranny of a voting majority is the most intransigent of all tyrannies, and that is precisely what the American Republic has, and western democracies in general have, morphed into.

Do recall that when the U.S. federal government was first created, that only land owners were allowed to vote. It was assumed at the time that people who owned their owned their own land had demonstrated the necessary self-discipline and self-reliance necessary to own that land.

The problem is that, even if you could agree on what constitutes outstanding moral character, prudence, and wisdom and could devise means to screen for them in the voter,

Actually, this is pretty easy: Marriage and Property Qualifications. Statistically those who are married and own property are more moral (less likely to commit crime, or even cheat on their taxes, more likely to take a long term view, more likely savers, more healthy, more likely to be able to defer gratification) than those who are otherwise. Of course it's not fool proof. But statistically it would work pretty well.

it's still no guarantee that you would end up with better rulers.

Who was talking about guarantees? There would be an undeniable *tendency* to have better rulers, if better people voted for them.

Absolute hogswill: the tyranny of a voting majority is the most intransigent of all tyrannies, and that is precisely what the American Republic has, and western democracies in general have, morphed into.

Not that there isn't some truth in what you say, of course, but you are way overstating your case. I didn't say "representative democracy is the best method of avoiding tyranny". I said (paraphrasing) that providing for the peaceful transition of power is the best way to avoid tyranny, and that thus far rep. democracy has, in turn, proven to be the system that most effectively provides for said peaceful transition.

If you have another candidate system of government in mind, I'd love to hear it. I don't mind being wrong, as long as I learn something.

Actually, this is pretty easy: Marriage and Property Qualifications. Statistically those who are married and own property are more moral (less likely to commit crime, or even cheat on their taxes, more likely to take a long term view, more likely savers, more healthy, more likely to be able to defer gratification) than those who are otherwise. Of course it's not fool proof. But statistically it would work pretty well.

Not to pick at nits, but how did restricting the franchise to property owners (the majority of whom were married no doubt) work out for all those without the franchise? Like black slaves, for example. How did the rule of the married, moral property owners work out for the Native Americans?

Actually, this is pretty easy: Marriage and Property Qualifications.

The latter was abandoned because property ownership, specifically land, isn't a good proxy for selecting the professional class in an industrial economy. If I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton had never owned a home when he entered the White House. (I'm having trouble varifying the claim.)

"It was assumed at the time that people who owned their owned their own land had demonstrated the necessary self-discipline and self-reliance necessary to own that land."

I don't think that's right. Much land was inherited in those days, and lots of land was free. The idea was that land ownership ties a man down and burdens him with social stability.

The idea that land ownership burdens a man with responsibilities is still true today and might serve as a good proxy, but in our times it also locks out some otherwise excellent voters. For example, the heads of large families - many of whose votes should be not only counted but weighed according to the size of their household - are often the least able to afford land ownership.

Furthermore, even after accepting that St. Thomas's political experiences were notably limited, he clearly indicates (and the Church continues to reiterate) that the divine and natural laws do not command one particular form of government (e.g. representative democracy).

Rubbish on both accounts --

On the latter, as can be adduced from Sir More's own Latin epigrams and his works, The History of Richard III as well as Utopia, he espoused a government of True Kingship (the monarch being a central symbol of the nation's unity and power where a legacy of tradition -- in which Catholicism played a central role -- was capital) as opposed to that of pure tyranny.

On the former, his political experience is more extensive than one is led to believe here. Of course, it would certainly be cut short (he had to resign from his last position as Lord Chancellor for obvious reasons) by truly reprehensible actions of the very King he had once treasured such high hopes for in the promise of a renewed Christendom who ultimately instead contributed monumentally to its very downfall -- but that's a whole other topic altogether.

Tocqueville mentions a visit to the Capitol so that he may view the Congress in practice.
His contrast between the House and Senate is most unfavorable to the former, a sort of vulgar brawl, while he is impressed by the decorum, the seriousness and quality of debate in the Senate. The difference in his view is the difference between direct election in the House and State appointment in the Senate. An anecdote to be dismissed if you wish but Tocqueville did have a reputation of sorts and there is a lesson or at least a thought to be drawn.

The issue I do believe is good governance, what is or can be the better. It is not what we would prefer as to some ideal total participation, or John Randolph's "King Numbers" in a more critical sense.

The notion that you are not represented if you don't vote is neither necessary nor accurate and the payoff, I think, of mass voting absent any restrictions of any type may be found in the current foul doings in Washington. The process of a nation's degeneration work slowly but it's fruition is presenting itself under our noses as we write.

How did the rule of the married, moral property owners work out for the Native Americans?

Unless one thinks that Americans in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were more friendly towards Native Americans than those with property (a dubious proposition), it's hard to see how the U.S.'s policy towards the Indian tribes can be laid at the feet of the restrictive franchise.

The notion that you are not represented if you don't vote is neither necessary nor accurate and the payoff, I think, of mass voting absent any restrictions of any type may be found in the current foul doings in Washington. The process of a nation's degeneration work slowly but it's fruition is presenting itself under our noses as we write.

If you can not vote, how exactly are you represented? What other form of political power can the average man in the street have (short of armed rebellion)?

And the present ill state of things does not, in itself, constitute any kind of argument that it would be better to hand over power to some restricted set of smart and virtuous people - and by "smart and virtuous" I obviously mean "more like us" (for some value of "us").

Blackadder - the U.S. policy towards Native Americans was set by people who were elected by a restrictive franchise. Where else do you lay the responsibility? The suggestion was that somehow restricting voting to a privileged few would give us a better society. I am merely pointing out that such a method has been tried and found extremely problematic - in many cases precisely for those who had no opportunity to vote.

Dean, you are, or were, represented the same way you are represented now, perhaps better.
Do you seriously think that not having a vote say in the 19th century, excluded you from proper governance, that for instance the Land Grant Acts did not include non-voters, or that government was more corrupt because fewer people voted, or that the debates over bi-metalism did not involve everybody, at least everybody that used US currency?
Get a grip! Consideration and thought was given to the polity, the nation, and minus the cant and altruistic hypocrisy of today's dying circus. Not perfect but better.
The armed rebellion remark is, politely put, overly excited. Mass and corrupted voting laws of today don't give you a voice my friend, certainly not more than in the past. What counts are the activist, fund raising, pressure groups, also a decadent and despicable media betraying it's already weak moral charter, in a word, the Ins and all in a drive for the God Power, whether you vote or not. I take it that that doesn't bother you.

Your third para bespeaks a near total, I give you the benefit of the doubt, knowledge of American history plus, I hope not, a total misreading of my posts. Because I sense I am wasting my time I will only point out that ultimately you are not governed by this reprehensible junta of wise people, though you could do much worse than, say those aristocrats known as the Founding Fathers. No, you are, or were, governed by the finest Constitution ever written, honored in effusive word but not deed by our current ruling class, the ones you chose not to comment on, the fruits of modern Democracy and Motor Voter laws, the Democrat/Liberal economy savers.

Aristocles, I'm pretty sure that the St. Thomas he had in mind was Aquinas, not More.

Who was talking about guarantees? There would be an undeniable *tendency* to have better rulers, if better people voted for them.

Guarantee was obviously too strong a word. Tendency - possibly. If better voters means a tendency for better rulers to run in the first place, rather than the same old charlatans who simply play a different tune to a different crowd. Rather than a moral character, prudence and wisdom restriction on the voters, how about one on the candidates?

In act, if you put some of restrictions that have been suggested (never divirced headof household with children) on the candidates, you get an interesting result:

Reagan, Kerry, Giuliani and McCain would not qualify.

Carter, Obama, Ron Paul, the Bushes would.

sorry - that should be "In fact..."

and "divorced". Typing not in sync today.

Craig: Thomas of Aquinas, to my knowledge, did not have a political career whatsoever. In fact, if memory serves, that is the very reason why his own parents were quite upset with him because they originally wanted their son to take up positions of more notable repute (especially given they were of noble family, if I recall correctly) such as that more akin to a prominent ecclesial administrator type role or some other higher office within the Church (I think there is even a story of how his own brothers even went so far as to kidnap him all to try and strong-arm him into pursuing the kind of ambition their family had in mind for him) rather than what he finally decided upon in the end (at the age of 19, I believe) and that was as simply a humble Dominican.

you are, or were, represented the same way you are represented now, perhaps better.

While it may be true for me personally, this is factually false for whole groups of people. How were black slaves "represented"? How are unborn children represented now?

The proposition advanced by the (usually perspicacious) Zippy is that a small but virtuous electorate is preferable to a large, unruly, and wicked one. True, but only true in the way it's true that being immune to cancer and being able to breathe underwater are preferable to being tortured to death.

If you want the proposition to be interesting you have to be able to show that limiting the franchise will somehow improve the polity. I am contending that you can not do that. Limiting the franchise puts the now excluded people in a situation where they are subject to exploitation and oppression at the whim of the elite - Armenians in Ataturk's Turkey; Jews in Nazi Germany; Russians under Stalin; Christians in Iraq; Christians in modern Turkey; Christians in modern Kosovo; Christians in the modern Sudan; Irish during the famine; French Catholics in the Vendée; French Huguenots.

Don't object that giving all those people a vote wouldn't have magically helped them out. That is not the point. I am giving you examples (which could be multiplied, indefinitely, at will) where people with no political power were systematically persecuted by those who did have such power. They were/are being governed by people who were, for the most part, absolutely convinced of their rectitude and virtuousness, whether they called themselves revolutionary tribunals, proletarian vanguards, servants of Allah, or the Holy Inquisition.

So if you are going to take the vote away from the "unfit" (which is clearly what is implied here) what kind of political power are they going to have? What safeguard are they going to have?

Are you seriously suggesting that they rely on the goodwill of their new masters?

If it's not that, then what is it?

I can't remember who advanced it but I like the idea of elections in which each married man would have as many votes as he did children.

This is being done from memory so I may not have it exactly right but that was the essence of what I think a great idea.

Alan Carson just popped into my head. I think he was the individual with the idea I mentioned. I'll google a bit

Dr. Allan Carlson is his name.

http://www.profam.org/THC/Speakers/xthc_spk_br_acc.htm

I'll try and find his proposal

Dean, one of the wonders of the 20th century is a presumed increase in literacy. Again and depressingly so I see that presumptions are or can be the children of unjustified pride, worse yet, a collectivized, group pride. Truly I can't go on with you.

Prior to the 20th century, for that matter prior to the 1960's, even the last twenty years, Democracy as it is practiced today was unknown, recall my reference to the Motor Voter laws. Can you, from the depths of your considerable learning, from the foundation of your copious wisdom, blessed with vision unlimited, seriously and without a martini in your hand assert that Americans who didn't vote were not represented. I've given you examples, ignore them if you will and reveal yourself. And I rush to add that people, try women, could vote in local and state elections thereby participating with votes in the government most close to them.

But I can't go on. Your 3rd and 4th paragraphs trip over the edge. British and American law and more important, tradition, refute your porous position. If I missed Transylvania my apologies.

You have your blessed vote, you chose to ignore what mass democracy has done to our polity, to what is going on when that and hope and change replace reason combined with tradition and respect for constitutional verities. Barack is in, everybody votes, enjoy, because it's only beginning. And you probably will.

...you chose to ignore what mass democracy has done to our polity...

Clearly, there must be reason as to why Democracy was (ironically) not so pleasant an idea (in fact, ill-advised) to even the Greeks themselves, but, in particular, to Plato who regarded it with such an aversion.

Reagan, Kerry, Giuliani and McCain would not qualify.

In Reagan's case, his wife left him. Kerry, well, I believe he left to take up with a richer woman, the same as McCain. I don't care for either man. Giuliani's life is a mess and it would be a mistake to have him as a leader as well.

Personally, I go with you own your own home or are married. You can be divorced no more than once. You cannot receive any direct government assistance.

Anyone want to deny the franchise to women? :-)

Rather than a moral character, prudence and wisdom restriction on the voters, how about one on the candidates?

Well, I don't see why that's an either/or proposition? Better voters will (statistically, not perfectly) lead to better candidates. Given our status quo, i.e., requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to get elected president, and all that is required obtaining said dollars, the only people who are qualified morally to be president are today completely unelectable. We would be better off if state legislatures appointed presidential electors (and senators).

Anyone want to deny the franchise to women?

There should be one vote per property-owning household, and any one (1) registered voting adult residing therein ought be permitted to cast it. In my druthers that vote would be proportional to that household's stake in the future, which might roughly correlate to the number of dependents, but that would be strictly gravy.

Dean, the trouble with mass democracy is, from a high level: A) people want goodies ("health" care, cheap gas thanks to the DoD and food thanks to the DoA, income security in retirement, schools, &c.) from the government; when and only when B) they don't have to pay for them (because if they had to pay their fair share, per capita, then most would find the price exorbitant); ergo C) politicians get (and stay) elected by promising goodies to people, the majority of whom will not have to pay. This is the essence (unintended I think, but essence none the less) of mass democracy. Mass democracy in a school district or a borough is a fine thing, because, broadly speaking, those are small, relatively homogeneous places. Interests, expressions of the common good, are often held in common, and, failing this, people are not too terribly injured to simply uproot and go find another more favorable locale. But mass democracy across the total empire is complete insanity: the freeloaders will (always, eventually) overwhelm the check-writers.

Dean, the trouble with mass democracy is, from a high level...

I agree with pretty much all of what you wrote here. I would just be more inclined to seek a solution in greater local autonomy, where (as you said) real common interests exist, and things like votes mean more.

I suppose I am just a good deal less sanguine than you as to the effectiveness of any metric or system in identifying a more or less reliably good subset of the electorate.

More thoughts on the property requirement...

The propertied class today isn't the propertied class of yesterday. Today's propertied voters include a high percentage of cosmopolitan jet-setters, corporate ladder-climbers, and others without permanent roots in any particular place. A better proxy might be a requirement to have resided permanently in one zip code for five years or more. That would eliminate a fair number of the nouveau riche and enfranchise those who have stable but humble roots in their communities.

To summarize, in a better America I would propose that all voters:

1. Be age 21 or older.
2. Be head of a household (vote weighed according to size of household).
3. Reside in one zip code for five years or longer.
4. Pass a rigorous examination in English.

I think these requirements are very modest. Furthermore, they don't violate the American sense of egalitarian citizenship too radically and might be politically viable someday. One can dream ...

You cannot receive any direct government assistance.

Say goodbye to the millions of Americans employed by the military-industrial complex.


"1. Be age 21 or older. (enlistment age has to match)
2. Be head of a household (vote weighed according to size of household).
3. Reside in one zip code for five years or longer.
4. Pass a rigorous examination in English."

The character of the electorate has to be transformed by something greater and deeper than mere procedural changes. No greater tribute to its pervasive power can be made than to watch purported opponents comically argue on the terms and in the idiom set by Liberalism.

The character of the electorate has to be transformed by something greater and deeper than mere procedural changes.
That is unequestionably true; but Jeff's specific procedural recommendations are still very good. I'm very much a "both/and" kind of guy: yes, the problems are ultimately rooted in hearts and minds, but no, it does not follow that therefore every procedural or formal improvement can be laughed off the stage. Change hearts and minds and increase legal restrictions on abortion. Change hearts and minds and alter the franchise in sensible ways to increase the quality of the vote.

I think Dean raises some very good issues. Abstractly there is danger of leaving important things out in the electoral body (or the political authority more generally), and there is also danger of letting bad things in. But I think the latter, in this present place and time in history, has completely overwhelmed any concerns about the former.

Clearly, there must be reason as to why Democracy was (ironically) not so pleasant an idea (in fact, ill-advised) to even the Greeks themselves, but, in particular, to Plato who regarded it with such an aversion.

Because Athens lost the Peloponnesion War against Sparta. Plato's uncle and cousin were members of the Thirty Tyrants that seized control afterward. It is speculated that Socrates was put on trial because of his agitation of the aristocratic class for a counterrevolution against the democratic government when it reemerged, despite his having also earned the wrath of the Tyrants when they were in power (the danger of being a gadfly).

"1. Be age 21 or older. (enlistment age has to match)"

I ask: Why does the enlistment age have to match?

You may answer: So that men over 21 aren't sending 18 year old boys off to war without their representation.

I reply: Who said anything about reinstating the draft? Military service should be voluntary. But even if military service were compulsory, it does not follow that 18 year old men who can fight have sufficient maturity to vote. Furthermore, the interests of 18 year old men would be sufficiently "represented" by their fathers, uncles, and older brothers who love them. A final point: in my experience, the younger the male, the more quick on the trigger. Having an older electorate means a more cautious approach to war.

Having an older electorate means a more cautious approach to war.

The age elgibility for military service should be no younger than the average age of op-ed writers and "statesman". Good luck trying to argue that the 18 year old carting a carbine around in a distant locale is less mature than the Keyboard Kommandoes who sent him there.

3. Reside in one zip code for five years or longer.

Corporate America and the military will fight you tooth and nail on that one, so too all those American's who think hyper-mobility the key to life.

I appreciate your aim here, but procedural reforms will not take root in unprepared cultural soil. There are no shortcuts and Personalism is the best antidote to Liberalism's spirit-crushing creation; mass man.


Kevin:

procedural reforms will not take root in unprepared cultural soil
Talking about procedural reforms is part of preparing the soil. This "don't bother talking about or trying to implement legal/formal reforms, just reform the culture" is pure false dichotomy. Your comments always strike me as a kind of community version of Cartesian dualism: there is the formal/procedural (body), and there is the culture (mind), and they are utterly distinct. I don't buy that for a second. Both/and, not either/or.

How much cultural soil is prepared just having discussions like this one - discussions about procedural reforms?

Good luck trying to argue that the 18 year old carting a carbine around in a distant locale is less mature than the Keyboard Kommandoes who sent him there.

Nevermind that, as a rule, it is absolutely true. What is more, the "keyboard kommandoes" are more likely to have experienced the hell of war themselves, and will thus have been disabused of its romantic notions.

American history is instructive. Since the voting age was reduced to 18 in 1971, we have been at war pretty much non-stop. I don't mean to say that 18-20 year olds were leading the way. I do mean to say that giving them the vote has not improved their lot.

...it does not follow that 18 year old men who can fight have sufficient maturity to vote

And it logically follows that those who are 21 (or, for that matter, anyone anywhere in their twenties) actually do?

Must be the very reason why folks of this particular age (or, rather, age range) frequent the very pages of my local newspaper wherein such maturity is often well exhibited.


3. Reside in one zip code for five years or longer.

Bad luck for all those folks who often find themselves having to relocate ever so frequently due to dire occupational demands, financial hardships, hazards, layoffs as well as necessary and even imperative career changes, etc.


Talking about procedural reforms is part of preparing the soil.

Talking about procedural reforms is just that: TALK.

Indulging in spurious speculations of this sort seems merely an exercise in utter futility.

It's almost like contemplating on the merits of an election system where its voters are primarily comprised of members of the educated elite.

Bad luck for all those folks who often find themselves having to relocate ever so frequently due to dire occupational demands, financial hardships, hazards, layoffs as well as necessary and even imperative career changes, etc.

In the short run, perhaps. In the long run eligible voters will help make a more stable life possible for everyone. Keep in mind that this requirement will also serve as an incentive. Though many relocations are economically necessary these days - that can't be denied - many more are unnecessary and the result of chasing money and success. Perhaps those voters will think twice before accepting a promotion away from home.

Aristocles:

Talking about procedural reforms is just that: TALK.
Talk about anything is 'just talk'. Everything in the entire blogosphere and the media is 'just talk'. The Constitution is 'just talk', and the Bible is 'just talk'. Everything at www.vatican.va is 'just talk', and every interaction you and I have ever had is 'just talk'.

If you don't like this discussion or this kind of discussion and don't see any point to it, don't participate. Do something else. But don't expect me to be daunted and bedazzled by the old "shut up", he explained.

'Just talk' is part and parcel to reforming the culture. True, you can't make procedural and formal changes happen and stick without changing the culture; but you also can't change the culture without making procedural and formal changes which stick, and contemplating and implementing those changes is part of what changes the culture. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Though many relocations are economically necessary these days - that can't be denied - many more are unnecessary and the result of chasing money and success.

Actually, it's been that way for quite some time now.

Gone are the days when an employee ends up working at any one particular company for any substantial period of time.

One of the reasons being the periodic layoffs (courtesy of Welch's popular management style and his success at G.E. doing thus) that occur every so often within the history of today's company in order to make it more efficient, restructure it accordingly to properly enact the new company strategy, meet new cost structure, or even clean up the balance sheet just prior to its annual/quarterly reporting in order to better (or just barely) meet investor expectation; it is an activity that's become rather an almost regular necessity for the average worker in the modern fast-paced business environment.

Consider yourself particularly fortunate that you haven't been amongst the cadre of new generation workers where relocation is but a natural part of the typical employment/career cycle.

There have even been those workers (mostly, younger generation) who, in acknowledging the stark reality of the aforementioned circumstances, have come to embrace it by switching jobs periodically to take on new, more exciting career opportunities in order to spruce up their curriculum vitae so as to maximize their marketing potential to make them an even more attractive candidate for future employers -- all this in order to proactively take some measure of command over their own fate.

Of course, there are other equally (if not, more) valid and compelling reasons why folks need to relocate.

Among them being those monumentally special events such as the welcoming of new members (i.e., children) into the family (especially for first-time couples), which typically and ineluctably requires a more substantial income as well as greater living accommodations.

My response to the "lots of people have to move around these days" point is, basically, so what?

The idea is to make sure that the actual electorate is in fact morally upright, wise, and virtuous; it isn't to make sure that every morally upright, wise, and virtuous person is part of the electorate.

Zippy,

True, you can't make procedural and formal changes happen and stick without changing the culture; but you also can't change the culture without making procedural and formal changes which stick, and contemplating and implementing those changes is part of what changes the culture.

I believe I may have expressed myself rather inadequately with respect to the purpose of my previous comments.

The fact is the kind of procedural and formal changes being contemplated here reads off as more of a wish list that, while a nice thing to entertain as some form of exercise in thought, is not actually something that can be realized either now or in the near future in the real world. That is, I feel that such endeavour is not particularly conducive in resolving, let alone, approaching the matter in question.

Moreover, though Jeff Culbreath's attempt at such proposal is, in itself, quite laudable; nevertheless, there are problems with what he is suggesting even in that regard.

For example, I myself have concerns as to whether or not his proposed criteria is truly valid (elements of which I had addressed already, which Jeff kindly responded to in a subsequent reply to one of them) or that it would produce the kind of positive result we are all supposedly after and that is realizing the ideal of good government -- which is chiefly and oftentimes a matter that depends almost entirely and exclusively on the quality of the candidates themselves who run for government office.

Simply put, no matter what restrictions are placed on the kinds of voters we would like electing our government officials and the kind of prudential judgments we hope such members would typically exercise in the vital matter of voting, what use is it if the selection of candidates happen to range from the immensely awful to the positively abysmal?

Simply put, no matter what restrictions are placed on the kinds of voters we would like electing our government officials and the kind of prudential judgments we hope such members would typically exercise in the vital matter of voting, what use is it if the selection of candidates happen to range from the immensely awful to the positively abysmal?

Aristocles, I believe you will find that candidates generally reflect the electorate. If the electorate is mature (age limit), properly educated (exam), and responsible (head of household + stable residence), then candidates will emerge who appeal to them.

How much cultural soil is prepared just having discussions like this one - discussions about procedural reforms?

Zippy, the goal is to cultivate a morally upright, wise, and virtuous populace. While this is a good conversation, it seems to be moving in reverse. First, a critique of the social anomie resulting from a rootless, deracinated people should unfold before we start proposing 5 year residency requirements for voting. We're prematurely submitting a solution before sufficiently explaining the problem. Not a false dichotomy as much as a difference in emphasis and priorties.

As far as the "wisdom of age" canard (baby boomers are exhibit a?), I am unconvinced that raising the voting age achieves anything but disenfranchising the pool of young people who serve as cannon-fodder for middle-aged Empire builders.

"keyboard kommandoes" are more likely to have experienced the hell of war themselves, and will thus have been disabused of its romantic notions
.

Sorry Jeff, in Iraq the Pentagon brass was shut out by civilians who spent their youth as undergrads, not grunts in Vietnam. And we need not go into the 35 and older commentariat's lack of fighting experience, do we? If you want to make past combat experience a prerequisite for influencing foreign policy, I am receptive.

Glad to see the propertied class proposal has been shelved, since our biggest problem is a well-cushioned elite and not their victims on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.

If the electorate is mature (age limit), properly educated (exam), and responsible (head of household + stable residence), then candidates will emerge who appeal to them.

Robert Rubin, Allan Greenspan, Joe Biden and a host of others say: "Thanks, Jeff". As a rule though, our ruling class owns multiple residences and allegiances, and think the rest of us should be just as open to constant flight. Let's tell them why they're wrong.

Zippy,

Kevin hints at a possible requirement that I'd like to explore further -- voting eligibility determined soley on the basis of military experience. Of course, the great science fiction author Robert Heinlein contemplated such a future for America (and the world?) as we fought a ruthless alien lifeform that made constant warfare necessary. But I think there is something to be said for the notion, as Wikipedia puts it, that

"The primary explanation for the 'service as a prerequisite to the franchise' approach was that it resulted in a higher level of responsibility (from society's perspective) in those who cared enough to complete a term of service not under their control or influence (eg, money, social status, political pull, etc).[27][28] Furthermore, only veterans received the franchise; during their term of service, volunteers were not eligible."

Kevin,

While I do not want to divert the discussion to tangential matters, I just had to comment on this nonsense:

"Sorry Jeff, in Iraq the Pentagon brass was shut out by civilians who spent their youth as undergrads, not grunts in Vietnam. And we need not go into the 35 and older commentariat's lack of fighting experience, do we?"

To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman (HT to Roger Kimball), every word out of your mouth concerning Iraq is a lie, including "and" and "we".

Kevin:

While this is a good conversation, it seems to be moving in reverse. First, a critique of the social anomie resulting from a rootless, deracinated people should unfold before we start proposing 5 year residency requirements for voting.
You may have noticed that my writing covers a variety of different subjects. If anything, I give more emphasis to core issues of cultural/intellectual pathology than I do to questions of specific policy, and often the latter merely to illuminate and stimulate thought on the former - almost as if both the health of the patient's mind and of his body were both critically important, and indeed inextricably linked. This subject interests me as much for the purpose of revealing the cultural underpinnings of visceral resistance to non-universal suffrage as it does for its own sake; it is surrounded by posts dealing more directly with what lies beneath that visceral resistance; and that is often the madness beneath the method in what I write, for those following the play by play.

But even if that weren't the case - even if my writing were nothing but a continuous font of salutary food-for-thought policy prescriptions - I wouldn't apologize for it. There is room for all manner of soldiering in the culture war, and frankly I find the whole "ignore formal, legal, and practical matters; focus instead strictly on 'fixing the culture'" trope to be horribly misguided, if not perniciously evil.

Zippy,
O.k., I've been curled up in the fetal position since you called me a communitarian "version of Cartesian dualism" - you know that one would really hurt,admit it. But, now I'm engaged in something perniciously evil? Somehow, I don't think this will come up during Confession. Sarah Palin fantasies and angry outbursts do.

I don't advocate ignoring formalized customs and law, but reforming the electorate won't come through suggestions based on;
property, age, education, gender (see the other thread)or family size. I do appreciate the madness to your method, as well as the futility of such proposals.

The Left can use the blunt instrument of law to overturn social consensus because it is in conformity with the modern zeitgeist. We are swimming against Liberalism's current, so strenuous breast-strokes are our only option. A post on the pros and cons of a highly transient population might be more constructive.

Please note the irony of your enshrining the electoral process by using it as the carrot and stick for social reform. Last autumn you were deriding the very act of voting.

Kevin:

Please note the irony of your enshrining the electoral process by using it as the carrot and stick for social reform. Last autumn you were deriding the very act of voting.
There are several things at work here.

One is that, as I hope the general tenor of my writing shows, I am an ecumenical teddy bear, and I try to reach people where they are with concrete examples they understand from their daily lives.

Another though is that the universal democratic franchise is one of the main sacraments of our present form of liberalism: an outward sign of an inward commitment to the legitimacy of governance derived from the consent of the free and equal new man, the concomitant illegitimacy of enforceable authority not so derived. An attack on the universal franchise is blasphemy against that sacrament, heresy against the underlying doctrine.

Still another is that narrowing the franchise reduces the number of people placed in a near occasion of sin for the sake of things over which they have no real influence.

So while I take your point about a superficial appearance of irony, I think it is only a superficial appearance.

Jeff,

...such a future for America (and the world?) as we fought a ruthless alien lifeform that made constant warfare necessary.

Well, I guess that takes Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace to another level, and gives couch commandeers in Manhattan and D.C. something to look forward to after WWIV.

Zippy,

An attack on the universal franchise is blasphemy against that sacrament

You may have come to bury Liberalism, but by inordinately focusing on its legalisms, your inner teddy bear is praising it.

...your inner teddy bear is praising [liberalism].
What can I say? I'm an open-minded, inclusive, tolerant, modern guy.

Jeff Singer:
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on a veterans-only vote. The soldier Richard the Lionheart was arguably a better king than his more well rounded brother John, though that may in large part be a function of his continual absence on campaign. My gut tells me that I want more well-rounded rule than that implies, and a more homeland-focused rule for that matter. The deeper question then becomes 'what kind of fellow was William Marshal?'

I'd be somewhat more inclined to arrange things such that no military operations outside the home borders are permitted without an explicit declaration of war, and an explicit declaration of war cannot be obtained without (as a necessary but not sufficient condition) the approval of a majority of retired veterans.

I'd like to explore further -- voting eligibility determined soley on the basis of military experience

Jeff & Zippy, note under the property requirements posed by some here, many veterans would not be ineliglble to vote.

According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, nearly 200,000 American veterans are homeless on any given night, and over 400 of those homeless veterans served in Iraq.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,96237,00.html

"Kevin hints at a possible requirement that I'd like to explore further -- voting eligibility determined soley on the basis of military experience."

Well, no. Today's military too much resembles a closed and morally depraved totalitarian society. I've seen a few Army training videos recently, and virtue is not exactly what comes to mind. Criminey, it's the picture of hell - and not because of anything to do with warfare.

Today's military... it's the picture of hell - and not because of anything to do with warfare.

Yeah, nothing dehumanizing about warfare. The citizen-soldier ethos began to die in 1973 (2 years after draft eligible 18yr olds were allowed to vote) with the advent of the all-volunteer military. You now have professional soldiers who constitute a small subset (0.05%) of the total population and are on constant war-footing, and viewed as expendable or invisible by the rest of us. Hell is about right.

Yeah, nothing dehumanizing about warfare.

Jeff knows what he's talking about. One of my best friends just left the military for this very reason. The sheer amount of debauchery that was common culture in the Army was killing him as a Christian. He couldn't escape it in the military, so he had to get out of the military.

The citizen-soldier ethos began to die in 1973 (2 years after draft eligible 18yr olds were allowed to vote) with the advent of the all-volunteer military.

Can you explain how we had a vital one all the way until World War II when most people didn't have to be drafted? This is especially non-sensical in the pre-Civil War US military which was composed entirely of volunteers, and most war-time forces were militia mustered into regular service.

You now have professional soldiers who constitute a small subset (0.05%) of the total population and are on constant war-footing, and viewed as expendable or invisible by the rest of us.

The same could be said of law enforcement, except that many members of law enforcement are willing to make the public expendable in their own defense (think SWAT raids on anyone who even might have the capacity to fight back, let alone a history of anything).

Kevin,

I think the solution to some of the problems you cite is to dramatically decrease the size of the active duty military, Navy aside, and return the ground forces to a heavy reliance on the citizenry. Eliminating the reserves and national guard in favor of a reconstructed state militia system would be a good step in that direction.

Amen to what Jeff Culbreath says. Let's not get starry-eyed about the military. If our goal is to be ruled by the virtuous, the last thing we want to do is to make voting contingent on military service. The graveyard of virtue. This is partly, but only partly, related to the problem of women in the military. One big social science experiment, the military is. I get worried and a bit sad when I hear of young men of my acquaintance, wonderful young home-schooled guys with many of the qualities one could want in a husband for one's daughters, planning to go into the military (instead of college, sometimes) in a burst of patriotism and idealism.

One single requirement: a net worth of $1 or more.

Can you explain how we had a vital one all the way until World War II when most people didn't have to be drafted?

Mike T.,
I have no idea if the military was "vital" pre-WWI, I do know, despite adventures in Cuba and the Phillipines, it had less demands place on it, was naturally smaller and likely less divorced from the general culture of those years.

An authoritian, hierarchial organization that inculcates a sense of sacrifice, obedience and honor is going to find itself at odds with the individualistic, hedonistic, eqalitiarian society from which it draws its members. Add ill-defined missions in the service of an economy based on consumption and the utopian goals of globalist, social engineers and military life will be rife with unhealthy cross-currents.

To borrow Bill Kaufman's withering phrase, instead of growing faint at the sight of men in uniform, conservatives should ponder the enormous toll military life, as it is currently structured, takes on the men and women who directly experience it. Too often those who return from the horrors of war find themselves stuck in the strange twilight between the regimentation and capricious discipline of service and the sensate, "freedom" of civilian life.

I wholeheartedly agree with your proposed remedies.

I have no idea if the military was "vital" pre-WWI

I was referring to the vitality of the citizen-soldier ethos. It was undeniably at its strongest when the US military was small, and the Congress had to rely on the states to supply servicemen. We've always had a professional military; even George Washington commanded one. The difference is that it wasn't until the 20th century that we had a professional military capable of fighting a serious war without flooding its ranks with volunteers (or even conscripts *shudder*). Before then, the US military was little more than a rapid reaction, self-defense force similar to what Japan has today.

I wholeheartedly welcome the return of the US military to nothing more than a self-defense force and the recreation of the state militias.

We've always had a professional military; even George Washington commanded one.

They were farmers, craftsmen and merchants who often came and went according to the seasons, the ability of the Continental Congress to make payroll and the geographical distance from their homes. They won because of the nature of their mission and the quality of their leadership. Quite a contrast to today's military.

They were farmers, craftsmen and merchants who often came and went according to the seasons, the ability of the Continental Congress to make payroll and the geographical distance from their homes. They won because of the nature of their mission and the quality of their leadership. Quite a contrast to today's military.

We had a standing army under George Washington starting in 1791. As I said, the difference between then and now is that it was never big enough to be more than a rapid reaction force to protect the country until a more powerful army could be raised.

I'm quite certain we have never had a military as separated (alienated?)from the general population, or as overextended as we do now, but I guess the Hessians, following an ancient Roman practice, set the precedent for this relatively new development;

"But the new effort, for the first time since the Vietnam War, will open the armed forces to temporary immigrants if they have lived in the United States for a minimum of two years, according to military officials familiar with the plan.

Recruiters expect that the temporary immigrants will have more education, foreign language skills and professional expertise than many Americans who enlist, helping the military to fill shortages in medical care, language interpretation and field intelligence analysis."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/15/america/15immig.php

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.