From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
Is the right to vote a fundamental inalienable right or a derivative civil right? The answer to that question will largely determine the future of Americanism.
The right to vote is important. But there is a stark difference between the Progressives’ concept of the vote and the vote in a free society. In a free society—that is, in the original American concept of republican government—the voting majority’s will as expressed by the government officials it elects (and their appointees) is limited by iron-clad constitutional protection of individual rights.
For Progressives (or “liberals” or Leftists), the voting majority’s will is not limited in such a way. In a free society, individual rights trump the vote: that is, the losing minority in an election have nothing to fear from the politicians elected by the other side, because the politicians have no power to legislate or regulate away the losing side’s (or anyone’s) individual rights, thanks to “iron-clad constitutional protection of individual rights.”
Once again we note how readily a Rightist Randroid seizes unilateral authority to define those outside his cult. The Right actively suppresses voter rights and representative democracy. They attack the press, the media, educators, and scientists because they do not conform to the Right’s ideology.
They make up their own definitions and absurd generalizations about those who dissent:
To a Progressive, the vote supersedes individual rights. The only right that is unalienable is the right to vote.
Oh, yeah? Sez who? The right to vote is THE fundamental right of free speech for those not using cash as free speech to buy governments. You’d think a rational person could provide evidence of real people taking that imaginary position, but that requisite doesn’t apply to ideologues of the far Right. They THINK they know a liberal’s mind, but have no clue. Instead they choose to redefine and reframe liberals stances to conform to their bias and ignorance.
Redefining and smearing the words liberal and leftist has been their tactic for decades. This absurd hateful tactic all but rules out common ground. Those they decide are “leftists” next become “enemies of the people”, just like they are redefining dissent, journalism and our free press. Our friend Mr. Paine insists “leftists oppose the Constitution”. And of course, by that stupid notion, I am one of those evil ant-American leftists. Then he sanctimoniously wonders why we can’t “find common ground”.
The goal is not to allow the ballot box to become the club by which the most powerful political factions beat the less powerful into submission to its self-serving agenda. Democracy fundamentalists’ goal is precisely to turn the ballot box into that club.
Hasn’t this doofus ever heard, “Lock her up!” chanted at the New Nuremburg rallies?
Only an ideologue of the far Right cannot see this is exactly what the Party of Trump is doing. And they are not in power because of democracy, a majority will, or proportional equality of representation.
Where is this coming from? Liberal distaste for the electoral college? OK, but what liberals believe that the right to vote is the only thing that matters? One would have to either ignore or be totally ignorant of history to say this. It has consistently been liberals who have tried to defend minorities against majority rule, particularly the majority rule of traditionalists who have a problem with anyone besides their own kind having the same rights or power.
This is absolutely idiotic. Just another right winger, albeit a libertarian, making up nonsense about the Left, this time neither considering any of the many examples that challenge his thesis nor citing any to support it.
He would be better off arguing the cynical view over this: that people in general, including liberals, are usually only interested in defending the minorities with which they identify or sympathize, which further their own interests, or which they have been taught are worthy of defense. Then again, pretty much anything would be better than this garbage.
Oh, for %&^$#@ sake. These wingnuts seem to think entirely in clichés. They certainly never take the trouble to learn anything about how their opponents actually think.
Liberals would not accept imposing Christianity as the official state religion, or depriving minorities of the vote, or re-criminalizing homosexuality, or any number of similar impositions, even if the majority voted for those things (as might well happen in some red states if there were no Constitution to prevent it).
There’s really no excuse for this. It wouldn’t be difficult for conservatives to educate themselves about how liberals actually think. All they need to do is start reading actual liberal sites, as opposed to conservative paraphrases of what’s said on those sites. I read RedState, NRO, Breitbart, and other such sources regularly, precisely because I want to have an accurate and unfiltered picture of how the opposition thinks. There’s no excuse for conservatives to keep on caricaturing liberals like this.
“There’s no excuse for conservatives to keep on caricaturing liberals like this.” Infidel753
Sure there is. They’re not in it for the discussion. They don’t want their bias challenged. That’s the excuse. Why didn’t Mr. LaFerrara cite anything? ’cause there’s nothing to cite. That’s the beauty of a strawman argument. The fevered imaginings and fears of a retiree with too much time on his hands. Might as well write Randian Libertarian scary stories to tell his grandkids.
“The goal is not to allow the ballot box to become the club by which the most powerful political factions beat the less powerful into submission to its self-serving agenda. Democracy fundamentalists’ goal is precisely to turn the ballot box into that club.”
I guarantee he started his article with this concept and worked backwards to get there. Scary stuff, right? Thank God it’s complete gibberish.
“Randian Libertarian scary stories”
And then she said — *raises flashlight to face* — “It takes a village!”
(All scream.)