Saturday, July 16, 2022

The Progressive Idiocy

6/27/22 American Greatness quoting California Lt. Governor's attack on Clarence Thomas about abortion:
"Who is Clarence Thomas? Is he my Saudi Arabian father who’s going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, with my life?”

Of course, the Court did no such thing.  It returned abortion law to the states either by legislative action or in states with an initiative process, the people.  Many states (especially hers) will do nothing to interfere in that process.  Oh yes, "my body, my vaccine choice."  I think refusing vaccination was for most people a poor choice, but suddenly progressives care about choice.

Progressives wonder why they usually have trouble accomplishing their goals democratically at the state level.  Perhaps it is their contempt for democratic processes and persuading people except at gunpoint.  

Do not get me started about a tyrannical Supreme Court. I am old enough to remember "Imprach Earl Warren" bumper stickers over the Miranda decision.  And where was this concern about judicial tyranny when they were making decisions in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas.  To progressives it is only judicial tyranny when they dislike the results.

I am no big fan of unlimited democracy.  Neither were the Framers, for the most part.  Unsurprisingly, no state governments granted the franchise to every adult male.  (A few granted it to free blacks.)

 I think mandating 18-year-old voting rights was a mistake, even more do with the juvenilization of Americans.  There are perfectly responsible and sensible 18-year-olds; there are many who have not had three years experience watching idiots destroy their jobs.  I want them to have enough real world experience to see that there are political differences in results before they vote.  If 18 is too long to buy a gun it is too young to vote.  We can reverse the juvenilization if we want.  Do we?


  1. My dream is that you *earn* the right to vote. I propose three methods, each with a reason:
    1) Own real property. This means you have a stake in the results of your votes. Own one piece of property or 1,000 is all the same - you get *one* vote. Own the property jointly? You (the owners) get to decide who casts your ballot.
    2) Have dependent children. This means you care about the future effects of your decisions. Again, one kid or a dozen, it's one vote and it's up to the folks involved to decide who, among those who can legally claim the dependent as to who casts the ballot.
    3) Be a member of a protective service - Police, EMT, military - if your butt is on the line for dealing with the policies enacted, you get a voice. This vote is obviously restricted just to that person.

    So yes, one person could get to cast up to three votes in an election and a lot of folks would not get to vote.

    Look, we've gone incredibly far down the 'let everybody vote' route and the results have been... let's just say 'less than optimal'. I think restricting the franchise to those who have some skin in the game is worth a try.

    1. #3 is a variant of the Starship Troopers idea and has great merit. Throughout English history, citizenship included right to vote, hold public office, and defend the state.

  2. "Who is Clarence Thomas? Is he my Saudi Arabian father who’s going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, with my life?”

    No. He's your Uncle Sam who says it's none of his business what you can and cannot do with your body, with your life, and that is the business of your state governor and your state legislators, who you seem to be voting for without realizing it.

    1. Subtle distinctions like that seem beyond these people.