A proposal to limit the franchise, cont.

This entry contains the continuation of the very long discussion that began here.

Kristor writes:

You should know that with this thread on limiting the franchise you have done it again: unearthed a thoughtlessly, deeply held assumption and exposed it to the light. I’m still trying to figure out what I think about the whole thing. Allowing only property owners to vote makes some sense, but the danger is that they would skew the economic playing field in their own favor, effectually ennobling themselves in legal terms without paying the blood price chivalry exacts from true nobles. One vote per household makes some sense, as does allowing only net taxpayers to vote; but these both open the door to endless political, judicial and bureaucratic wrangling over the definition of a household, or of the method of determining net tax (in re which, think of how hard it is for the IRS to define taxable income; compound that with similar complexities over computing government benefits received (e.g., how does one price the unlimited road rights we all enjoy?).

The biggest difficulty I can see with limiting the franchise is that, since ex hypothesi most of the electorate as presently constituted is too obtuse to understand that they’d be better off in the long run if folks such as they had no franchise, few of them will ever be convinced they should vote to surrender it. It’s hard to take away a government benefit. The US took the slaves of American slave-owners, valuable assets which the whole system of laws up to that time had made possible to them, and in which they were heavily invested. The cost was the devastation of the South, a massive shift of power to the federal government at the expense of the states, and 600,000 lives. Britain bought all the slaves, then freed them. No lives were lost. The lesson is that, while it is costly to take from people a good they have customarily derived from government—and, because any such taking is morally questionable, it is also more or less an outrage to them—it is far less controversial, thus cheaper, to buy it.

Ed L. writes:

Several comments:

Terry Morris’s snide remark about my not being married was wholly inappropriate for any public discussion. He doesn’t know me personally. He cavalierly and narrow-mindedly assumes that I’m some kind of San Francisco elitist who is anti-marriage on ideological grounds of sorts. Nothing could be further from the truth; I’m no more anti-marriage than you are. He is wrong; damnably and contemptibly wrong.

As for your posted reply, you and Laura are only giving me reason to be actively anti-traditionalist. You have only reinforced my conviction that certain aspects of the past should be swept away, destroyed, and replaced with something new. If that makes me more of a French Revolutionary than an American Revolutionary, so be it. It’s one thing to posit, as Summers and Watson did, that human beings are innately unequal, but it’s quite another for people to defend and advocate unfairness. Laura is going out of her way to argue that the 19th-century social order, in which women were unable to vote, was better than the present system. What kind of perverse idiocy is this? Does she, like “Rachel” in Spencer’s latest book, find so little to be proud of in contemporary Western society that all she can grope for is a return to the 19th century? In archly asserting that criticizing her viewpoint is “too low to address,” she sounds insufferably like Hillary.

It is downright flippant on your part to equate rejection of your draconian reactionary franchise idea with hysterical liberalism. How is the permanent social inequality that you and Laura explicitly endorse substantively different from sharia? We’re talking about formalizing the subordinate status, on an essentially permanent basis (certainly for women), of people who are part and parcel of our own core human society. This is entirely different from claiming that extraneous peoples—Muslims or Mexicans—should be pushed out and disenfranchised.

Your note about my hanging in with VFR was not lost on me. I appreciate it; I really do.

LA replies:

As a quick reply, let me say this: Ed does not seem to be aware of the way he comes across when he equates 19th century America with Islamic tyranny. If people in the thread were treating him with something less than respect, this was the reason. The language he uses in his latest comment continues the same problem. The problem is a liberal mindset that cannot conceive of anything outside the present liberal arrangement as other than irrational, perverse, tyrannical, and evil. A person who equates the condition of women in 19th century America with Islamic dhimmitude has a wildly prejudicial and negative view of his own civilization and believes only in liberalism in its contemporary incarnation.

Maureen writes:

Re Ed’s question: “How is the permanent social inequality that you and Laura explicitly endorse substantively different from sharia?”

Ed deserves an answer, not calumnies. He is not a raving liberal but one who recognizes the moral imperative of preserving the equality of men and women in society. He has pointed out that there are significant differences between the traditionalism of defending the American culture and that of adopting 19th century oppressions of women that basically consisted of shackling their bodies, their money, and their children in perpetuity to whatever dolt they married. Indeed, just what is the difference between your plan for institutionalized dhimmitude for women and Sharia law? Muslims will tell you that the Sharia prescription for having four wives is actually a “protection” for women—to make sure that women aren’t ever divorced and that all Laura W’s teeny weeny babies are under a man’s care.

The ire that this question arouses is an indication that more than “rational” thought is involved—perhaps even some of those emotions that only women are supposed to succumb to.

LA replies:

“…19th century oppressions of women that basically consisted of shackling their bodies, their money, and their children in perpetuity to whatever dolt they married….”

Oh my gosh. In her fiery indignation Maureen misses the point I have made over and over: I am not speaking of taking away property rights, civil rights, marital rights, parental rights, the right to an education, or the right to work, but only two things: voting and the holding of public office.

This discussion is as if I said some good things about medieval Christendom, and someone replied, “Do you want to take us back to the days of drawing and quartering?” No I don’t. But to see good things in the past, even things in the past that may have been better than what he have now, does not mean that one is subscribing to everything about the past.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

“Does she, like “Rachel” in Spencer’s latest book, find so little to be proud of in contemporary Western society that all she can grope for is a return to the 19th century?”

Given your obvious contempt for pre-1920 America, Ed, this question can be turned around very easily on you: Do you find so little to be proud of in the historic America that all you can grope for is the barrenness of contemporary liberal society in its stead?

The answer to him is quite simple—it is the traditionalist who truly loves Western society, because he does not define its greatness by its adherence to contemporary liberal dogmas. Its greatness stretches on into the mists of its pre-liberal past, which compose nearly all of its history, produced nearly all of its greatest works of art, contains the seeds of its religion and its political order, and was ruled by men more learned than any contemporary American politician. If you limit the greatness of a civilization to its attachments to liberal notions like the universal franchise, however, you will find almost nothing to love in the whole history of Western civilization. Ed’s view of a decent and moral Western order is an incredibly impoverished one, comprised of a mere few decades of post-feminist social upheaval and deepening cultural illiteracy.

In the words of that most profound of traditionalist thinkers, G.K. Chesterton: “They think us barbarians because we look to the past. We think them barbarians because they do not look to the past.”

Terry Morris writes:

Ed wrote:

“Terry Morris’s snide remark about my not being married was wholly inappropriate for any public discussion. He doesn’t know me personally. He cavalierly and narrow-mindedly assumes that I’m some kind of San Francisco elitist who is anti-marriage on ideological grounds of sorts. Nothing could be further from the truth; I’m no more anti-marriage than you are. He is wrong; damnably and contemptibly wrong.”

Damnably wrong? Contemptibly wrong?? Whoa! LOL.

LA replies:

I just went back to the earlier thread to read Terry M.’s comment that Ed found so offensive, and I must say I think Ed has somewhat overreacted. While Terry was clearly having a bit of fun at Ed’s expense, it seems to me that he was being acerbic, not actually insulting in a personal sense. Even the marriage comment was just a witty extension of Ed’s earlier statement.

Mark P. writes:

I read the comments by Maureen and Ed. Boy, talk about people who don’t get it.

The substantive point of the traditionalist-conservative approach is precisely to compare and contrast the modern liberal order with the older, pre-liberal order. To argue that the certain subjects are off limits because they violate the modern order misses the point of this whole exercise.

Do Maureen and Ed not understand that their liberal society is slowly collapsing? Do they not understand that this collapse is due to many of the principles they champion? Do not get that examining these principles in detail, including universal suffrage, is a way out of this?

Their righteous indignation seems to be influenced by an almost surreal surely-it-can’t-happen-here attitude that must color their thinking. Somehow, events will just change course to avoid the worst outcome. It never occurs to them that they may one day be making their pleas in front of a Muslim/Mestizo court system backed a Muslim/Mestizo public opinion. What then?

Oh, well. I certainly won’t be the one wearing the burqa.

LA replies:

I don’t think Mark is being fair. The subject here is not immigration, and in any case Maureen is a strong restrictionist. Ed is probably also a restrictionist.

Ran M. writes:

You’re probably aware of it, but here’s a study on Women’s suffrage and the size of government. Also, commentary on the paper.

But the real comment I wanted to make was that the Founders knew what they were doing. Below is an exchange between Abigail and John Adams. Note his idea of “despotism of the petticoat.” A great phrase.

Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31, 1776:

“In the new code of laws, which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than [were] your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to [instigate] a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

“That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute. But such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend. Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity…? Men of sense in all ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your sex. Regard us then as beings, placed by providence under your protection, and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.”

John to Abigail, April 14, 1776:

“As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bands of government everywhere. That children and apprentices were disobedient, that schools and colleges were grown turbulent, that Indians slighted their guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their masters. But your letter was the first intimation that anther tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest [had] grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out.

“Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know, we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave heroes would fight … “

Maureen writes:

For Mark P:

Regarding my comment, “Muslims will tell you that the Sharia prescription for having four wives is actually a ‘protection’ for women—to make sure that women aren’t ever divorced and that all Laura W’s teeny weeny babies are under a man’s care.”

That comment, Mark P, was an ironic comment—meaning that I am NOT in agreement with the Muslims who make this argument.

(Dictionary definition of irony: “A method of humorous or sarcastic expression in which the intended meaning of the words used is the direct opposite of their usual sense.”)

My point, and I will say this slowly, is that Lawrence’s—position—on—women—and—the—vote—differs—only—in—degree —not—in—kind—from—Sharia—Law.

Lawrence’s willingness to give women an education, drive a car, etc, is admirable. It is, admittedly, an advance over Sharia Law, but these Lawrencian rights for women, without the vote for women, can be maintained only on the sufferance of men—an advanced, Lawrencian form of Sharia.

LA replies:

Really, Maureen. If this is the level on which this discussion has to take place, “Is a Western society without the women’s franchise in essence the same as a society under sharia law?”, then I lose interest in continuing the discussion.

Tim W. writes:

One way of looking at this issue is to imagine what society would look like if either sex were deprived of the vote. Would it be possible to maintain a free and healthy society if only men could vote? Would it be possible to maintain a free and healthy society if only women could vote?

I would submit that the former is possible, but the latter is not. A male electorate established America and her Bill of Rights. What would a female-only electorate have established? Nothing comparable to our Bill of Rights, that’s for sure. We’d have gotten a Bill of Benefits, followed by an immediate proposal to patch things up with Britain and a halt to westward expansion.

The female vote is sort of like having women in the army. Some female presence is the military can be beneficial. They can do behind-the-scenes tasks which free men up to go to the front and fight. On very rare occasion, a Joan of Arc may even arise. But a heavily female military, with women on combat ships and on the front lines, is simply a detriment. It’s a costly experiment in “gender fairness” which is extremely harmful to our military and our ultimate survival as a nation. In other words, we could exclude women entirely from the military and still have the best army on earth. We’d be an utter failure if we had an all female military.

The same is true of the electorate An all female electorate would be a disaster, an all male electorate would not. I think it is incumbent on proponents of women’s suffrage to explain what beneficial policies have resulted from women having the vote. Did we win a war we otherwise would have lost? Has the quality of our governing officials steadily improved as women have achieved more clout at the ballot box? Has the West grown stronger in the wake of female suffrage?

Terry Morris writes:

Tim W. writes:

“I think it is incumbent on proponents of women’s suffrage to explain what beneficial policies have resulted from women having the vote.”

Tim makes some great points. Hear hear!

Something else that needs consideration in any discussion of this sort is whether the female vote and the holding of high level political office by females is a net gain to us in our relations with other nations. I’ve written before about how it’s in our national interest to exude to the rest of the world with whom we have political relations an aura of strength and stability; of firmness and steadiness in decision making.

Whether it is right or not for the rest of mankind to view women as inferior to men in their leadership abilities, I think that nonetheless this is the general view. And if it is the general view, then how is the United States better served in its international relationships with women occupying more and more positions of leadership?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 21, 2007 03:22 PM | Send