Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Barrister]

We are at a time when a morally bankrupt white supremacist populist nationalist movement is attempting to disenfranchise large parts of the electorate in an attempt to gain and seize power on a permanent basis in the US. No matter how unaligned you may feel you are, and no matter how intellectually rigorous and objective you may feel you are acting, you will be providing them rhetorical ammunition if you argue that it's okay to disenfranchise voters.

I very much dislike this type of argument.

It makes no attempt to address the text of the article - in fact you haven't read it.  But instead you argue that whether the article is right or wrong, it might give comfort to the Trumpists.

[Oexmelin]

People who wish to disenfranchise others rarely imagine themselves to ever be disenfranchised.

[Oexmelin]

I very much dislike this type of argument.

Do you think it's a coincidence that this article, pushing this very idea, is appearing in print right now?

[Barrister]

I very much dislike this type of argument.

Do you think it's a coincidence that this article, pushing this very idea, is appearing in print right now?

Of course not.  It's because those on the left are writing these paeans to democracy and so Williamson is pushing back.  Like I said, he's a contrarian.

I don't exactly love the article because it doesn't then make any counter-argument - it doesn't say how much democracy is too much, or not enough, or whatever.  It's kind of only half-formed.

But what it definitely isn't is a defence of Trumpists attempts to disenfranchise voters.

[Jacob]

I very much dislike this type of argument.

That's cool. Doesn't make it incorrect.

It makes no attempt to address the text of the article - in fact you haven't read it.  But instead you argue that whether the article is right or wrong, it might give comfort to the Trumpists.

More like I argue that restricting the franchise is a pernicious thought, and I'm not giving clicks to contrarians attempting to undermine democracy.

It also gives aid and comfort to Trumpists, of course, because they can argue that limiting the franchise is not just their idea but supported by respectable intellectuals who are otherwise against them.

[Oexmelin]

But what it definitely isn't is a defence of Trumpists attempts to disenfranchise voters.

No - but most people here don't associate the attempts to disenfranchise voters with Trumpism, who was mostly bellowing about fraud in his usual sort of projections, but with the Republicans and with conservatism in general. So, the author may very well dislike Trump, that would still make him belong squarely within a long history of disenfranchisement amongst conservatives.

[Malthus]

Because I figure you're probably not a regular National Review reader, but Kevin Williamson is a pretty smart and talented writer that usually delights in taking a fairly contrarian position.

He's also strongly anti-Trump.

The article itself is here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/why-not-fewer-voters/  You can agree or disagree with it as you like, but the article isn't as stupid as you probably think it is.

One excerpt:

Voters — individually and in majorities — are as apt to be wrong about things as right about them, often vote from low motives such as bigotry and spite, and very often are contentedly ignorant. That is one of the reasons why the original constitutional architecture of this country gave voters a narrowly limited say in most things and took some things — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. — off the voters' table entirely. It is easy to think of critical moments in American history when giving the majority its way would have produced horrifying results. If we'd had a fair and open national plebiscite about slavery on December 6, 1865, slavery would have won in a landslide. If we held a plebiscite on abolishing the death penalty today, the death penalty would be sustained.

I have read it - his argument mixes up some very different ideas, such as:

- the tyranny of the majority is not a good thing, which is why some things (such as fundamental rights) are rightly made very difficult to change by majority vote. This is something I agree with.

- he uses this to argue that 'more democracy' is not necessarily a good thing, and so more percentage voters is not necessarily a good thing. This does not follow at all from the preceding point: a tyranny of the majority situation would not be affected if everyone voted or not.

- he states voter fraud is something that should be prevented, and that if less people vote as a result of measures taken to prevent voter fraud, that's acceptable - because if the vote is important it is important enough to protect. Yet he provides no evidence that voter fraud is currently a significant problem. The suspicion is that it is not (at least, very little evidence for it had been out foreword) so the cost/benefit weighs highly against it - assuming, of course, that you see disenfranchising people as a "cost" rather than a "benefit"! 

- he makes the point that most Americans are dumb and so, if more of them vote, they would just vote ignorantly. This may be true, but there is no easy way of separating out the dumb from the smart, and historically, such methods as were used were used to discriminate against the poor and non-white - current events have proven that many dumb and/or insane voters are white and not poor (look at Trump voters).

[Jacob]

Of course not.  It's because those on the left are writing these paeans to democracy and so Williamson is pushing back.  Like I said, he's a contrarian.

And those on the left are writing paeans to democracy because democracy in parts of the US is under attack by a whole slew of legislation right now.

I don't exactly love the article because it doesn't then make any counter-argument - it doesn't say how much democracy is too much, or not enough, or whatever.  It's kind of only half-formed.

That makes it very versatile, though. Anyone - whatever the reason for their dislike for democracy - can pick it up and use it against those leftists with their "paeans to democracy."

But what it definitely isn't is a defence of Trumpists attempts to disenfranchise voters.

Of course not, it's about the real important issue which is that Georgia didn't elect a sufficient number of GOP senators. Which is something apparently even anti-Trumpist Conservatives like Williamson can agree is an example of too much democracy.

[PDH]

BB, writing about disenfranchisement is not being contrarian.  It is falling in line with centuries of people who feel that giving the vote "to them" is horrible because they are dumb, they are going to make decisions we wouldn't make, and most horribly they are not us.

[Admiral Yi]

Resident aliens are disenfranchised.  Illegal aliens are disenfranchised.

[viper37]

- he makes the point that most Americans are dumb and so, if more of them vote, they would just vote ignorantly. This may be true, but there is no easy way of separating out the dumb from the smart, and historically, such methods as were used were used to discriminate against the poor and non-white - current events have proven that many dumb and/or insane voters are white and not poor (look at Trump voters).

Most Trump voters are white, but they are often poorer than most white democratic voters.  Or they hide their wealth very, very, very well.
Republican donors&opinion leaders are anoter matter entirely though.

[DGuller]

Resident aliens are disenfranchised.  Illegal aliens are disenfranchised.

Both knew the terms when they chose their new country, they weren't born into it.

[Admiral Yi]

Both knew the terms when they chose their new country, they weren't born into it.

So does a person about to commit a felony.

[PDH]

I am not sure that his point is that there are disenfranchised people in the US, but rather that more disenfranchisement would be better.

[Malthus]

- he makes the point that most Americans are dumb and so, if more of them vote, they would just vote ignorantly. This may be true, but there is no easy way of separating out the dumb from the smart, and historically, such methods as were used were used to discriminate against the poor and non-white - current events have proven that many dumb and/or insane voters are white and not poor (look at Trump voters).

Most Trump voters are white, but they are often poorer than most white democratic voters.  Or they hide their wealth very, very, very well.
Republican donors&opinion leaders are anoter matter entirely though.

Thing is, this isn't actually the case. Trump voters tended to be economically better off than average.  https://www.google.ca/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/amp/