-By Warner Todd Huston
Every election year we are presented with stories about the vaunted “youth vote.” We are told how we must get the kids to the polls, we are told that the candidates are working hard to court the youth vote and we are given story after story of the efforts of one organization or another that is trying to excite young people to vote. We are presented with these stories as if it is a good thing that kids under 21 should vote, that it is somehow a desired thing. Well, I am going to say right here and now that I don’t want anyone under the age of 21 to vote. So, please, do keep your uninformed kid home on Election Day.
Many people will recall the reported words of the venerable Ben Franklin who said upon exiting the final session of the Constitutional convention that our representatives had created a republic “if we could keep it.” By this, Franklin meant that it is up to each of us to learn the issues, understand the principles upon which our system was created, as well as the mechanics of the system itself in order to cast an informed vote that will uphold those principles and keep our government orderly. This all means that it is incumbent upon each of us to stay informed and to educate ourselves.
I will not, of course, claim that all people under 21 are inherently incapable of becoming such a well-rounded and informed citizen. In some cases, there are surely 19 year-olds that are smarter, more informed, and trustworthy than certain 30 year-olds out there. This is beyond question. But one cannot make general rules for society by honing in on every individual case. One must strike for the best general rule and the general rule here is that people under 21 do not care a whit about government and will, therefore, make for uninformed — maybe even dangerous — voters.
It should be pointed out that when our nation was first constructed voting rights were in no way distributed universally. It is a fact that women and many minorities were ineligible to vote, not to mention the many white men who did not own property, make a certain yearly wage, or pay a certain level of taxes who were denied the vote. Many of the Founders suggested that universal suffrage was even dangerous to the welfare of the nation. As John Adams wrote:
Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.
It is easy for people today to dismiss the original proscriptions on suffrage as some relic of the bias of a bygone era. But, we should not so easily ignore out of hand the concept. There were solid, sensible reasons that suffrage was limited and the case can be logically made that some more restrictions than we currently have are warranted yet today.
The main concept for only offering the vote to landholders or people who made enough money to pay a certain level of taxes was that of a vested interest. You see, someone who is vested fully in the system such as those who have property to safeguard from government intrusion, or enough riches that government can threaten their holdings, has the most to gain and/or lose with their interactions with government. Such people have a vested interest in the actions of government that will force them to more carefully consider what that government does and, therefore, will be far more circumspect in their voting patterns. What and for whom such people vote for will weigh far heavier upon them than it might for someone without any vested interest in the system.
This is especially true for taxes. A person who is wealthy enough to materially lose their fortune to taxation is far more likely to require their representatives in Congress to be careful with budgetary matters and far less likely to vote for representatives who might raise taxes. However, someone living on the dole or someone who will lose nothing should taxes be raised has absolutely no imputes to put much thought or emotion into the issue. Most especially, those on the dole will find themselves in a position of being able to vote for someone who will give them free stuff. The later is a most dangerous situation and one we are faced with today as a large block of voters constantly electing officials who will give them largess from government larders in an unsustainable way.
So, there are some very legitimate reasons that universal suffrage isn’t necessarily the perfect idea. Limitations can legitimately be discussed and certain people can logically be excluded from voting. Certainly, I am not advocating the rolling back of voting rights that women and minorities have fought hard for, but I am advocating that the vote be taken away from anyone under 21. Those under 21 can logically and legitimately be excluded from the polls.
For one thing, they don’t vote anyway. Even after the voting age was lowered by the 26th Amendment in 1971 to 18 from 21, we have never seen large numbers of voters come from that age bracket. Additionally numbers have steadily fallen since the initial introduction of the lowered voting age. During the 2004 election, for instance, candidate Howard Dean madly courted the youth vote but, in the end, only 4 percent of Democrat Party caucusgoers were from the under 21 age group. Participation by this group has dropped by a third since 1971. It appears that the 18 to 24 year-old set is less than half as likely as older age brackets to vote. They just don’t care about voting or issues of government.
There is a reason they don’t care, too. They have nothing vested in government. They are usually uninformed about our national philosophy, they do not generally pay large amounts of taxes, they don’t own property… heck, most of them don’t even have careers and families to support until sometime in the mid to late 20’s. Generally, those under 21 have no emotional connection nor even an intellectual connection to government and this generates little interest in voting.
But it’s far worse than disinterest. Many of the ones that do bother to vote do so out of a wild, childish and uninformed emotionalism that borders on the irrational. Not having the years of life experience that can lead them to more ably understand the issues, they are apt to fall for the kinds of intellectually vapid populism offered by people without scruples. The counterculture of the 1960s is the perfect example of such idiotic support of ideas antithetical to America. The riots, disruptions, and havoc wrecked by these foolish children then is the perfect argument against the youth vote. People of such ungoverned passions, such a complete lack of knowledge or even an interest in the system should certainly be excluded from the privilege of voting.
So, please do keep your children home on Election Day. Let’s restrict the vote to folks with the knowledge and an actual vested interest in the outcome.
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, townhall.com, New Media Journal, Men’s News Daily and the New Media Alliance among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Response to Warner Todd Huston, “I Don’t Want Your Kid To Vote”
First, I am going to say that it is a very good thing that voters under the age of 21 should vote and also, I am going to say right here and now that I want everyone under the age of 21 to vote. So, please, do come out and vote on Election Day.
Secondly, you quote the words of Benjamin Franklin in which I agree with you that we should all stay informed on the current issues and educate ourselves, and by “ourselves” I mean every American that has the right to vote, not just people over 21.
Thirdly, even though you do not claim that every 21 year old is not smart enough to make an educated, informed decision to vote. You do claim; “the general rule is people under 21 do not care a whit about government and will, therefore, make uninformed –maybe even dangerous—voters.” I was amused when I read this through the first time because as a minority and “youth voter” I am very well educated on the generalizations that people make, and was unaware that this was also a generalization people made so next time I vote, I’ll look around to see all the people thinking he’s uneducated, he’s uninformed, he does not care a whit about the government, look at that danger.
You say “it should be pointed out that when our nation was first constructed voting rights were”(and this part was underlined) “ in no way distributed universally”. You are very right in saying that they were not and thus because they were not, there were amendments to the constitution to make it universal, the XV amendment in 1870, the XIX in 1920, and the XXVI in 1971. In the beginning of the John Adams quote that you cite it states that there will be no end to the people who want to vote. Well I believe that we have reached an end. Women, minorities, “youth”, we are all happy I believe that we have reached an end. I am not even going to comment on the end of the quote that reads “…it tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostate all ranks to one common level.” It speaks for itself.
Like you say “it is easy for people today to dismiss the original proscriptions on suffrage as some relic of the bias of a bygone era.” We will dismiss those now and talk about your first so called logical reason to impose restrictions. Landholders, as you say have a vested interest which is true but even though someone with “riches” and “land” may have the most to lose you write as though people who do not have those things do not want to attain them. That’s almost everyone’s goal to buy a home and live financially secure. Thus when a candidate speaks of freezing interest rates and changing laws on credit limits you can bet that we listen.
Your argument for taxation is overwhelmingly flawed; first, no one will lose their fortune to taxation. Second, your comment on” the people on the dole”, (the people receiving unemployment from the government), is just appalling you say that it is a dangerous situation that these voters find themselves in a position to vote for candidates that will give them “free stuff.” By “free stuff” you surely do not mean to imply, medical care for the poor, food stamps for the poor, and financial aid for college. I have no problem with them voting for “free stuff” I just hope it’s enough. So next time you hear Barack Obama speak about financial aid for college make sure you know that there will be millions of uninformed, uneducated listeners.
You bring up the XXVI in which I want to make a point, before I talk about why you cite it, if you recall the XXVI amendment was put in because soldiers under 21 were dying, they were drafted without any alternative but go to war “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” I believe was the slogan. Many soldiers today who were on “the dole” have joined the army as a way to get off “the free stuff” and I am sure countless have shed blood so that you and I can benefit from the very freedom they provide.
Now you brought up the XXVI amendment to assert that people aged 18-21 should not be given the right to vote because they do not take full advantage of that right. You included a statistic that said voters under 21 only made up 4% of the democratic caucus in 2004. Even if this number was accurate then why would you argue the voting age in the first place? If they make up such a significantly small percentage of the vote. Your last statement reads “they just don’t care about voting or issues of government” that is a very strong argument, especially considering that in that same 2004 election only 45% of the people between the ages of 18-21 were even registered to vote. You write about logical reasoning, well would it be logical to say that someone who takes the time to register and takes the time to go to the polls would have some intellectual connection to the issues and the government as a whole. Furthermore, eliminating them from the generalization that they are uneducated and uninformed.
Your reasons for saying that we do not care are that we don’t have anything vested in the government, are uninformed on national philosophy, don’t pay large amounts of taxes, don’t own property, don’t have careers or families to support. You also state we don’t have any connection to the government whether it be emotional or intellectual, therefore we have no interest in voting. While you are right that most of us don’t own property or pay large amounts of taxes, I can assure you that many parents do, and because we don’t have a career, we do rely on parents for monetary needs. And just because we don’t pay large amounts of taxes, what our parents pay affects us directly. As far as an emotional connection is concerned you can bet we feel a connection when we hear the stories of countless families who have lost their loved ones in war. Most people would classify that as an emotional connection directly related to the government.
You say that of the people who do come out and vote “do so out of a wild, childish and uninformed emotionalism that borders on the irrational.” The support you give for this statement some would find offensive, and your exact words read, “the counterculture of the 1960’s is the perfect example of such idiotic support of ideas antithetical to America, (antithetical means opposite), the riots, disruptions, and havoc wrecked by these foolish children then is the perfect argument against the youth vote. People of such ungoverned passions, such a complete lack of knowledge or even an interest in the system should certainly be excluded from the privilege of voting.” The perfect argument Mr. Huston? Not even close, I hope that no civil rights leader reads your letter, I hope no student who advocated for free speech on campus reads you letter, I hope no war protesters read your letter. By writing what you have, you insult the very things the 60’s are remembered by, social equality, freedom of speech, and the right to protest. Mr. Huston, the passion that drove them during this time should be admired and welcomed. Those foolish children changed America for the better and they were driven by their complete understanding of the system; they knew something had to be done.
And if you are correct in your response to Colleen in which you state the country is “going to hell” then maybe it’s time for the foolish children of today to step up.