May 1, 2005

Are We Capable of Self-Government?

David Gelernter writes:

Who could possibly be against cutting voter fraud on election day? You'd have to be some sort of fruitcake. But when Georgia's Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue recently signed a bill to reduce voter fraud, under which voters must show a photo ID before casting their ballots, many of Georgia's black legislators stormed out in protest. They even threatened to sue. The new process is simple, easy and fairly effective, but Democrats alleged that it would reduce voting by minorities, the elderly and the poor. So black legislators had to oppose it.

For legislators to announce that getting a photo ID is too tricky for their constituents is downright amazing. Wouldn't you expect those constituents to say, "Drop dead! Stop treating us like morons!"?...

As Michelle Malkin points out on her blog, those outraged Democrats are treating their constituents like children. But actually the episode points to a bigger, deeper, uglier truth: Democrats habitually treat Americans like children…

How could anyone be opposed in principle to private investment accounts within Social Security? I could understand Democrats arguing that "private accounts are a wonderful idea but the country can't afford the transition costs right now." But mostly I hear Democrats saying they're a lousy idea, and that President Bush wants to wreck Social Security — because, after all, he wants to let you keep a great big whopping 4% of your payroll taxes in a private account instead of handing over every cent to the government. How on Earth could anyone be opposed in principle to letting taxpayers manage a minuscule fraction of their own money (their own money, dammit!) if they want to? Because private accounts violate the Infantile American Principle, so dear to Democratic hearts. Little kids should turn over their cash to the Big Smart Government for safekeeping.

But of course they can't say that, so instead they say, "Bush wants to privatize Social Security" — as if government were going to wash its hands of the whole mess. The technical term that logicians use for this rhetorical gambit — applying a correct word for one part of a proposal to the proposal as a whole — is "lying."

Here's another one: How could anyone be opposed to school vouchers? Vouchers let you decide where to spend tax money to educate your children. You give the voucher to any public or private school; it's your call. But Democrats worry that (among other things) too many parents will spend their vouchers at a local Obedience School for Little Nazis or the neighborhood Witchcraft Academy. That's what they think of their fellow citizens. That's what they think of you!

Now some readers will say, hold on, be fair! Democrats only oppose vouchers because the teachers unions ordered them to. Agreed, teachers unions are a big factor in every major decision a good Democrat makes, starting with what cereal to have for breakfast. But Democrats also oppose vouchers out of honest conviction. They are honestly convinced that ordinary Americans don't have the brains to choose a school for their own kids.

...Why is it their business? Because Democrats are professors in disguise. Scratch a Democrat, find a professor.

It all goes back to central planning, socialism, Marxism — let the experts run the economy; free markets are too democratic and messy...

Professors see the world in terms of experts and students: "We are smart; you are dumb." That's the Infantile American Principle in a nutshell. Now go play with your toys and don't bother me.

The Founding Fathers of America believed we were capable of self-government. Do we still believe that they were correct...or not?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Just before seeing your post I was reading a book to my 1 & 3-year old girls;

Three little monkeys jumping in the bed,
One fell out and bumped his head,
Momma called the doctor and the doctor said,
Don’t YOU let those monkeys go jumping on that bed!

The RI teachers union has changed this text to read;

Momma called the politician and the politician said,
I will introduce S-843, S-914, S-945 & S-946 so that no monkeys be allowed to jump, fall or occupy a bed. Blue Cross will cover monkey's health insurance, owners of monkeys must take behavior modification classes (or you can use the entitlement monkey-care service) and finally the use of the term monkey in school texts shall be deemed racist.

Posted by: Bill Felkner at May 1, 2005 1:53 PM

Does anyone remember the mental midget from the 1992 debates who started his question with something to the affect that the president is the country's father and we are his children. The fact that any adult would actually say that on national television and actually believe it is scary. Is it any wonder politicians think we can not take care of ourselves. The whole social security debate comes down to the fact that one side thinks we can actually make adult decisions and one side that thinks we are children who must be told when and how much to save.

These are the kind of decisions I made for my children when they were 9 or 10 but now that they are 20 and 18 they decide how to spend their money not me. I will give them advice if asked. I at 46 do not run to my dad to ask him if I should spend my money one way or the other or how much to save, etc.

The government needs to stop treating me as if I were 10 years old I really resent someone who does not know me telling me how I should live my life and spend my money. I have absolutely no problem with paying a fair tax to run the needed things government has to do, military, police, fire, etc. but do not tell me that I am incapable of preparing for my own retirement or the other things they say are good for me.

If I were from Geogia I would resent the implications in black legislators statements.

Posted by: JAH at May 1, 2005 11:10 PM