By Selwyn Duke
I received an email from a young man who is addressing a very interesting topic. Here is his email:
Hello,
I'm in my final year at school and I'm writing an essay on:
Would democracy be better if some groups in society were denied the right to
vote? And I have hit a wall. My mum strongly disagrees with me but this is what
I believe in. I agree with what you said in your article "Why Most Voters
Shouldn't Vote" but outside your articles I can't find much to back up my
argument. I was wondering if you could send me some more of your thoughts on
the subject or anything you think would improve my argument.
I don't wish to plagiarize. I'm just looking for something
that will make my essay A+ material and I believe you can help.
Thank you,
H
Dear H,
It’s great to hear from students, so I’m glad you wrote.
First, I don’t know if you read the piece, “Iraq: The Folly of Deifying Democracy,” but here is a link: http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2007/10/between-iraq-an.html. It doesn’t directly relate to what you ask about, but it does tangentially.
Then, there are a few points that come to mind (maybe you’ve thought of one of them already). Man has a habit of putting forth arguments that sound or feel good but that don’t really hold water when scrutinized. For instance, we love to say that “everyone should be treated equally,” but we can’t really believe that. If we did, we wouldn’t have separate tours, leagues and teams for female athletes and military conscription for only boys/men. Thus, what we really should say, to be accurate, is that we believe everyone should be treated equally within the confines of his role. (It may sound stifling, but everyone has a role.).
This relates to the issue at hand because we do not, in fact, afford everyone the right to vote. If you ‘re younger than 18, for example, you may not vote in the U.S. For that matter, there’s a whole host of other things you can’t do until you reach a certain age, such as entering into contracts, buying alcohol and cigarettes, etc.
The point is that we don’t believe in treating “everyone” equally, and we do all draw lines; it’s just a question of where they’ll be drawn. This brings us to an interesting point. As I’m sure you know, “one man, one vote” is a phenomenon of modern times; it’s not at all in accordance with the norms of the history of “democracy.” Yet, again, these civilizations weren’t different because they drew lines, but only because of where they drew them. Here comes the interesting part (I thought of this while pondering your question).
Those more restrictive voting models are part of a now discarded Western tradition. But what is tradition? The great philosopher G.K. Chesterton called tradition “. . . democracy extended through time” and the “. . . democracy of the dead.” His point was that tradition only comes to be because the majority of the people throughout the ages preferred things that way; metaphorically speaking, they “voted” for the tradition.
Thus, what do we say when we thoughtlessly dispense with tradition without even considering that it may hold wisdom that has now escaped us? In essence, we are saying that we’ll deny our forebears their votes. In other words, in the name of perpetuating what is perhaps a distorted democracy of the living, we are saying that we’ll completely and totally disenfranchise the dead. After all, we won’t even give the norms of the past their day in court; our minds are closed. We won’t even consider, in a sober and fair way, whether or not they hold any validity. It’s an obvious prejudice, where we simply assume that they lived a long time ago so they must have been wrong about everything.
This isn’t to say that every tradition should be retained. And I also understand that people will point out that it is only the living who have to suffer the governments we elect, so of course only their votes should matter.
But that misses the point.
The issue is that we need to discern Truth, and that can’t be done very well if you ignore the “scientific experiments and findings” of the past. We should have respect for what was left to us philosophically just as we respect what was left physically. We don’t fail to notice a palace’s or antique car’s beauty simply because it’s old and then say, “Let’s just tear it down/junk it; something new will always be preferable.” We should try to look at matters objectively, and come to understand the unstable structures that should be condemned and great architectural masterpieces that can’t easily be recreated once lost.
And one more thing about respect: Ancestors in general, like the ancestors we call parents, bequeath us certain things because they believe it’s in our best interest. Now, if our parents died, would we play fast and loose with their legacy and treat it like refuse simply because they’re gone?
As far as specificity goes, one given is that people on the government dole should not be allowed to vote. Perhaps you’ve heard the figure of speech, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Well, in this equation, those receiving government benefits are Paul, and, if they have the right to vote, they’ll rob Peter every time.
Protected by Copyright
Comments