The Iconoclast - New English Review

Friday, 16 November 2007

Loopy Larry

Sometimes people write to the problem pages of magazines, saying "a friend of mine has an embarrassing problem." The Agony Aunt gives the writer some advice to pass onto this "friend" who has BO, flatulence or whatever. Lawrence Auster has such a friend:

Here then is a proposal suggested by a friend recently, the basic principle and outline of which make a great deal of sense to me. I am not embracing the specific details, since a variety of means to obtain the same ends are possible. But to me the basic idea seems compelling.

The franchise, my friend said, should be limited to married men with children who are net tax payers.

This means that the vote, and the ability to serve in political office, would be limited to men who are responsible contributors to society. Men who are not married, or who do not have children born in wedlock, or who are not net tax payers, do not have a sufficient material stake in the society as an ongoing enterprise to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction. Therefore they should not have a direct voice--as voters and office holders--in its direction. Women, generally speaking, are too much guided by emotion and personal considerations to have a direct voice--as voters and office holders--in the direction of society. Look at the ridiculous things political parties today must do to appeal to women. The entire three day minority dog-and-pony show at the 2000 Republican Convention was basically for the purpose of convincing "soccer moms" that the GOP is "nice" to minorities. No serious politics is possible under such conditions. Married women are naturally represented in politics by their husbands, and can exert political influence through the influence they have with their husbands, but the husband is ultimately the one who votes for both of them. Unmarried women as a whole inevitably look to the state to be their provider, and therefore they should not have a direct voice in the government. Also, unmarried women under this proposal are barred from voting for the same reason that unmarried men are, which is that they do not have a sufficient material stake in the society to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction.

Unlike Auster, who obfuscated when challenged on this subject, the "friend" is direct in his desire to turn women into second class citizens. It is difficult to know where to begin with this nonsense, but here are two questions:

Jews tend to vote for left wing/democratic parties. Should they be disenfranchised?
Whatever happened to the idea of "No Taxation Without Representation"? It was the colonials who came up with that one after all.

Soon, no doubt, Auster will post comments from a motley crew of Stepford wives waxing lyrical about about the power of surrender. Auster's world is looking more and more like an Islamic state.

Posted on 11/16/2007 9:08 AM by Mary Jackson

Comments

17 Nov 2007

Carter

"Auster's world is looking more and more like an Islamic state."

Was the US "like an Islamic state" prior to 1920? Was Switzerland, prior to 1971?

While many do, conservatives who reject the modern liberal order aren’t obligated to support women’s suffrage.

18 Nov 2007
Laurium
Miss Jackson, you have so many good arguments to make when you choose to make them. This would seem like a perfect opportunity to put Mr. Auster in his place.

You could have argued the issue by pointing out that women are not mere "emotionalists" -- swayed by feelings more than thought.

Yet your first rhetorical weapon is taboo-maintenance: a fuzzy argumentum ad Hitlerum with that bit about disenfranchising the Jews.

George Wallace tried the same taboo-maintenance device (although not by appealing to Hitler) when discussing the Negro franchise and integrated education, by asking his audience whether they wanted Negroes to "marry their daughters". It is ultimately unpersuasive, Mary, and usually betrays an inability to rationally address real political questions.

First, you unintentionally support Mr. Auster's points of argument by failing to cite any examples of how the female franchise makes America (or any nation) a better and more secure country. The absence of any reasoned response (and by a woman!) inevitably reinforces Mr. Auster's arguments. Even the Suffragists of 1900 realized they had to make positive (although purely conjectural) arguments in favor of the female franchise. Surely there must be a hundred, a thousand, things you could point to as benefits of the female franchise.

Secondly, you support Mr. Auster's arguments by resorting to the very emotionalism that Mr. Auster uses as a reason to deny women the vote. He says that women are ill-equipped to deal rationally with political questions. And the logical force of your response is "Larry is a poopy-head!"

Please, Miss Jackson, say something positive for all voting women, something logically persuasive regarding the female franchise. Don't leave your post unmanned.

18 Nov 2007
Mary Jackson

On the contrary. It is not for me to argue why, in the absence of insanity, criminality or being underage, a rational human being� and citizen of a nation should have the vote. Auster does not believe, however, that women are rational human beings, and thinks that, regardless of their intelligence, knowledge, business acumen, contribution - financial or otherwise - to the common good, age, wisdom and experience, they should be lumped in with the insane, minors and the irresponsible or immature - his categorisation of the unmarried.

This is not a serious position and does not merit a serious argument, anymore than I should have to argue why women should not be stoned to death for adultery, or why slavery should not be reintroduced.

It is as absurd to have to justify female franchise as it is to have to justify male franchise. Indignation, when someone talks of taking away my rights and turning me into a second class citizen, is in fact a rational response.

Neither you nor Auster have made the case as to why it is acceptable to deprive women of their political rights and not, for example, Jews, or anyone who votes in a way that Auster doesn't like. The analogy with Jews is exact. Jews tend to vote Democrat, and so do women. So, regardless of whether they will in fact vote Democrat, all Jews, and all women should be deprived of the vote. If one is right, so is the other.

Neither of you have addressed the "no taxation without representation" argument. Auster makes the absurd assertion that "Unmarried women as a whole [sic] inevitably look to the state to be their provider". On the contrary, unmarried women and very many married women pay tax - a lot of tax. Should they continue to pay tax, even if they have no say in how their money is spent, and the government is to be elected only by men, many of whom may well pay less tax than they do? (I and many other women pay more tax than most men.)

18 Nov 2007

razib
just a note: the american tendency of women voting for the "left" party is not necessarily generalized to the rest of the world. e.g., in many catholic countries women tend to vote disproportionately for the clerical-catholic right-wing party and men for the more secular socialist party because the two sexes have a consistent cross-cultural difference in regards adherence to anti-religious sentiments (more are generally more pro).

21 Nov 2007
James
What's your criterion for allowing someone to vote? You exclude children, criminals, and the insane. What makes these classes the exception to your rule?