"
In a country like ours, where voters reign supreme, it seems as if concern about the patriotism of rulers ought to also apply to voters."
Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, in his famous novel Starship Troopers, envisioned a society where voters, too, had to demonstrate their patriotism before being allowed to vote. In his fictional society, the right to vote came only after some kind of dangerous public service — in the military, as a volunteer in dangerous medical experiments, or in other ways that demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice personally for the common good. The thought was that such voters would be more careful, and less selfish, in their voting.
So when the five-day wonder of questioning Barack Obama's patriotism is over, perhaps we should address another question: How patriotic is the electorate?
Maybe those Colorado voters, Chip referred to in the last post, would think more carefully about who they vote for, if they had some skin in the game... wait. I didn't mean to inject race in this post. "Skin in the game" is just a common phrase devoid of any racial overtones.
In the phrase, "skin" is a synecdoche for the person involved, and "game" is the metaphor for the actions on whatever field of play is at reference. The aphorism is particularly common in business, finance, and gambling, and is also used in politics.
Maybe it should be extended to voting.
12 comments:
"...where voters reign supreme..."
Except they don't. As patriotic voters who voted GOP in a landslide, twice, only to get bupkis, know too well.
I didn't watch the oscars but I read this AM that Patricia Arquete got in a bit of pro-Hillary propaganda. Prooganda.
That is always nice.
of course only a female will be able to solve the horrible income inequality here in horrible horrible America. America where we are all slaves and only the corruptocrats can save us.
Hillary paid females 76 for every dollar a dude made while she was in the senate. Does that count?
oh looksie -the hollwyood/ democrat party connection. made.
It seems to me that neither voters nor politicians reign supreme. I think the real power is in the hands of the sapsuckers. Those are the people like congressional staffers, big business, friends of politicians, and a wide ranging bunch of bureaucrats at many levels who write or massage the regulations and influence the lawmaking to create the mess that is the government behemoth. They live off the rich sap flowing from it's pus infected boils, and make it sicker and fatter to keep the flow going, while forcing the rest of us to feed it as we try to stay clear of its lumbering destructive feet as it staggers around knocking over furniture and breaking things without even looking up.
Some think loving the beast is patriotic, and some of us think the patriotic thing is to catch it, hold it down, and do emergency surgery. including a stomach stapling.
Professor Reynolds traffics in popular grievance.
He thinks it's funny, when he's the one who's doing it, and he should be ashamed of himself.
Althouse followed his lead.
I don't think her reasoning was any more complicated than: "Hey! I can do that, too!"
"And use my Amazon portal, it really encourages me!!!"
This ie obviously ridiculous. Obama doesn't even want voters to pass a citizenship test. Patriotism is not part of a Democrats vocabulary.
Obama would require a racism test.
How can the LCD voter even pass a patriotism test much less be able to read one. And haven't civics courses in schools basically been removed for PC reasons. Besides, at this stage in government run schools, patriotism is a visage of Karl Marx and Lenin on the classroom walls.
No.
Next question.
1. It's an unAmerican idea, antithetical to free thinking and the marketplace of ideas.
2. It will be gamed such that "patriotism" will come to mean "person who supports progressivism." Yes, it will, don't even bother arguing.
Go back to educated men owning property.
Worked before.
It's a great idea without a good practical application.
Yes, please, let voters at least be citizens! Other than that, what do you do?
When our country started out the "skin in the game" you had to have was land ownership. In my home town the non-landowners repeatedly vote in taxes on farmers to pay for new gymnasiums. The majority votes for the minority to have to pay for stuff. That shouldn't be possible. You shouldn't be able to vote for something that YOU will not have a part in paying for. But is there a practical way to figure that all out?
I don't think that there is.
Post a Comment