Paul Weyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/18145/2/Weyrich_on_voting.mov
And?
And I think the point is that it’s remarkable that somebody who claims to represent a constituency of Christians, a group known for many things, but amongst them a penchant for defining the moral high ground, would openly state that he doesn’t want people to vote and therefore exercise their democratic duty. He would rather they remain powerless and follow orders, evidently. In addition, I was under the distinct impression that our troops are over in Iraq fighting to bring said democracy to the Middle East. Or am I mistaken in believing the President’s words?
Now its misleading to confuse “Christian” leaders with Christianity, but at some point, especially when there is meaningful power being exercised in considerable volume, that the difference may be more a convenient rationalization than important distinction.
I would agree that there are a lot of people that really should not vote. They should not be denied a vote, but it would be nice if they chose not to.
I think most if not all people should vote.
However, I have a feeling you and I differ on who should or should not vote. Given that fairly recently the majority of Americans believed Saddam was directly involved in 9/11, one might argue that they perhaps haven’t the intellectual chops for democracy. I suspect those, like Weyrich, believe these are in fact the people who **should **vote.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.
There are a lot of stupid people out there and they should not vote. People who do not understand the propositions in CA should not vote. I listen to Sean Hannity sometimes. He has something called “man on the street” where his producer goes out and asks people (mostly younger) who the VP is, who is Nancy Pelosi, who Condy Rice is etc. Pretty easy questions. Usually they can’t answer but if you ask who one American Idol, they know. Those people should not vote.
Perhaps, but as an elitist, I suspect that is somewhere beyond the vast majority of people, probably less than 25%.
If you assume the 50% of people who don’t vote are too stupid or uninterested, then we wouldn’t want them to vote anyway.
Then of the 50% who do, at least half don’t have a clue, and probably decide their candidate at the last second based on who looks “presidential” or whoever panders the most in what I’ll call, in honor of this cycle, the most Romney-esque. Probably not good candidates for the vote.
So you’re left with at most 25% of the original electorate, and I’m being generous at that. It’s probably closer to 15%. But the problem is then within that 15% I strongly suspect you would have a high percentage of people who don’t necessarily have the best interests of the country at hand, in the sense that their loyalties are entirely selfish. As Soros once wrote, which I found interesting and valid, that capitalism is such a rousing success precisely because it is amoral. However, societies are precisely defined by the fact that they aren’t and can’t be amoral. Therein lies the problem
And… exactly what my SU said, this supposedly-Christian, right wing advocate disparages and even fears democracy. Period.
So the uninformed (idiot) vote is just as valid, and good, as the selfish (or as Soros has taught you "amoral" ) vote?
I think you misinterpreted my point.
I was saying that I would prefer that people vote, and on an informed basis. Unfortunately, that is clearly beyond a majority of the potential electorate. So clearly while you want everybody to vote, it’s a bit conflicting to encourage people to vote who haven’t bothered to understand what they’re voting about.
As for Soros, his point is that capitalism is successful because it’s amoral in the sense that capital seeks its highest risk-adjusted return, for the most part without prejudice or basis in any preconceived “moral” framework. That’s an observation, not a judgment. His argument is that you can’t run a society on that basis, nor would you want to, but at times you do have this active philosophical overextension into society being espoused by certain groups or individuals - “the market always does xxxx better”. This can be actively disputed by counterexamples, with the one coming to mind being healthcare finance and allocation in this country.
My point was that you may be damned if you do, damned if you don’t - you can have everybody vote, including uninformed idiots, or you can prefer only a small minority vote, but then you may end up with the overly self-interested and selfish. That’s a difficult choice, assuming that the optimal option is unavailable or unrealistic.
His argument is that you can’t run a society on that basis, nor would you want to, but at times you do have this active philosophical overextension into society being espoused by certain groups or individuals - “the market always does xxxx better”. This can be actively disputed by counterexamples, with the one coming to mind being healthcare finance and allocation in this country.
I don't really disagree with most of your thinking, but healthcare may be a slippery one to hang your hat on, as govt IS involved to such a great extent as purchaser and regulator, thus skewing market effects. At any rate, Soros misses the other end; that is that self interest is valid and good, even laudable, as it exists in most people's reality. I don't want to be the one to tell them that they have no opportunity to improve the future for themselves or their loved ones. You end up with the despair that communism often brings.
The argument is not whether self-interest is good or not. The problem is that from a voting standpoint, if you have only a small minority voting, you might have a very distorted outcome from the standpoint of society overall.
As for selfishness in social framework, I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t better themselves. My point is that you can’t extend selfishness and build and society and all that entails - institutions, government, communities, religion, etc., on that basis. To argue that capitalism can be extended to all realms of life is being intellectually lazy, in my opinion, and being dogmatic for the sake of doing so.
With respect to healthcare, my point was more regarding the HMO/insurance business, which I think is fundamentally flawed because those companies have a strong profit motive, and unfortunately, that profit motive strongly conflicts with the physical wellbeing of individuals. That is, they want to provide the least value for the highest price, and that often manifests itself on the basis of deciding not to pay for treatment, leaving customers who thought they were covered without recourse, or for that matter, treatment. Or denying coverage completely to people who might actually try and use it at some point. Mathematically, its most efficient for people to purchase insurance in groups, but that’s only available to employee groups at this point, and even large employee groups ultimately self-insure in order to remove this excess cost. I think we have to ask ourselves the larger question - is healthcare coverage something we only want wealthy and healthy individuals to be able to afford, and do we want to give essentially untrammeled power to insurance cos/HMOs to decline payment essentially at will. I think here is where you run into a serious conflict between capitalism and morality.
“And I think the point is that it’s remarkable that somebody who claims to represent a constituency of Christians, a group known for many things, but amongst them a penchant for defining the moral high ground, would openly state that he doesn’t want people to vote and therefore exercise their democratic duty. He would rather they remain powerless and follow orders, evidently. In addition, I was under the distinct impression that our troops are over in Iraq fighting to bring said democracy to the Middle East. Or am I mistaken in believing the President’s words?”
This may be one of the few issues where I would agree with Weyrich. Personally, I don’t regard democracy as any kind of an ideal (this country’s founders didn’t either, BTW), and I don’t pay homage to the shibboleth that everyone should vote. I desire to live in a free society, based on individual rights; I have absolutely no desire to live in a dictatorship of the majority. In fact, one of the major beefs I have had with Bush’s Middle East policy was his stated goal of bringing “democracy” to the region–especially since democracy, in this context, would mean Islamic theocracy and the brutal imposition of Sharia law, since those appear to enjoy the support of the majority in that area.
Puh-lease.
He is, basically, leader of a special interest group. If you can find me a special interest group that doesn’t feel exactly the same way, I’ll show you an unsuccessful special interest group, because that’s a group that does not understand the realities of democracy.
He wants to be successful. The higher the proportion of voters that are in his group in any election, the better for him. He can achieve that by getting more voters in his group. He can also see it realized for him if fewer voters outside his group vote. This isn’t rocket science. This isn’t some big secret. This isn’t controversial. I’m getting a little tired of the faux indignation from the anti-religious right types. You guys are shocked- shocked!- that a political advocacy group considers political strategy. Give me a break.
If you don’t like it, go vote. Otherwise, shut up.
Oh, and as for whether or not everyone should vote. If you think everyone should vote, you must not be paying attention. Look around. I say that everyone with a base level understanding of American civics should vote. From what I can tell, if we use that standard, a voter turnout of 35% is far too high.
Good, we agree, religious right = special interest group. That, and nothing more.
Gimme a break.
I think you need to contextualize within contemporary politics. While Weyrich may just be somebody trying to coalesce his own political power by weakening that of others, let’s consider this within the larger landscape.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nobody on the left openly advocating that NRA members, evangelicals, libertarians, or rich white guys should not vote. That’s not to say they don’t hope so, but they don’t come out and say that and make it a talking point, nor an electoral strategy. However, Weyrich, and I suspect others on the right, feel perfectly at home verbalizing this notion, as if its lovely civics.
You combine this with news that the USA firings appear to be part of a larger electoral strategy to challenge the voting rights of traditionally Democratic constituencies, and this is no longer just some wingnut, but can be perceived as part of a larger idea or strategy that the right espouses.
You can say that this is about one guy and his ambitions, but I’m amused that you think that he, as a self-proclaimed Christian, shouldn’t see the inherent hypocrisy of somebody arguing people shouldn’t vote, rather than focusing on what should be the persuasive power of his “message”, which presumably based on his adherence, should be more convincing, no? It’s interesting that we don’t the groups with the “moral” message to their own standards of morality when it comes to politics, which seems to be excluded from that.
Has anyone ever said otherwise? They’re a special interest group just like NOW is, just like the ACLU is, just like the NRA is, just like the Sierra Club is . . . So what? This is a revelation?
No, no revelation, just highlighting the lack of any so-called moral authority on the part of this particular special interest group. No matter how hard it seems to sputter on about “family” and “founding fathers” and “values”, in the end it is a largely amoral enterprise that will do whatever it can to get its way, including disparaging the most fundamental values of the nation.
Weyrich may just be somebody trying to coalesce his own political power by weakening that of others
Full stop. That sentence is fundamentally flawed. Weyrich isn’t weakening the political power of others. He’s taking advantage of other’s self-imposed weakness, if he can. There’s a very big difference. Weyrich isn’t disenfranchising anyone. He’s hoping for low turnout among the opposition’s voters. Appalling, I know.
there is nobody on the left openly advocating that NRA members, evangelicals, libertarians, or rich white guys should not vote. That’s not to say they don’t hope so, but they don’t come out and say that and make it a talking point, nor an electoral strategy.
So what is really horrifying here is that Weyrich actually said what we all know every last one of his counterpoints in any other organization thinks? Are you serious?
You combine this with news that the USA firings appear to be part of a larger electoral strategy to challenge the voting rights of traditionally Democratic constituencies, and this is no longer just some wingnut, but can be perceived as part of a larger idea or strategy that the right espouses.
Now you must be joking. Trio, I didn’t have you pegged for a tin foil hat type.
I’m amused that you think that he, as a self-proclaimed Christian, shouldn’t see the inherent hypocrisy of somebody arguing people shouldn’t vote,
I don’t see what’s so amusing, and I don’t see the hypocrisy, either. Is “Go forth and vote” the 11th Commandment, or something?
rather than focusing on what should be the persuasive power of his “message”, which presumably based on his adherence, should be more convincing, no? It’s interesting that we don’t the groups with the “moral” message to their own standards of morality when it comes to politics, which seems to be excluded from that.
I don’t know why you’re pretending that focusing on persuasion and engaging in political strategy- actually, not even that, just hoping for advantageous political realities- are mutually exclusive. And what “moral” message do you think Weyrich has exempted himself from here?
just highlighting the lack of any so-called moral authority on the part of this particular special interest group.
Step me through that logical reasoning. Special interest group=no moral authority. How’s that?
in the end it is a largely amoral enterprise that will do whatever it can to get its way, including disparaging the most fundamental values of the nation.
Yeah, he’s a regular Machiavelli, alright. Get real.