![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribSo, I read this post about how Confederates and Tea Partiers don't like democracy. I am terribly unsympathetic of the Confederacy and no fan of the Tea Party, but I think this paints with too broad of a brush. The Confederacy, the Tea Party and Communists dislike of democracy is a symptom of a broader cause.
All three entities listed have a tendency to ignore facts that they don't like, but some facts are, like gravity, impossible to ignore. In this case, the weighty fact (pun-like substance intended) is that the preferred political / economic system hasn't sprung up spontaneously, and can appear downright unpopular when put to the general public. So, all three groups have to come up with an answer why we haven't voted in their preferred system.
The communist answer is "education" or lack thereof. Once the beneficent Party members educate the proletariat, the grateful prols will vote the right way. The fact that this feeds the desires of the handful of (self-professed) educated advocates of communism would certainly provide fertile ground for Dr. Sigmund Freud.
The Tea Party, in that it has any coherent ideology at all, is libertarian, and they take the idea that "only those who contribute should be allowed to vote." Much of the libertarian / Tea Party ideology is "don't give 'my' money to those poor people," sometimes more politely put as "the people will vote themselves money out of the treasury until it's empty." Expressed either way, the concept of linking voting to 'contributions'* conveniently allows its supporters to cut out the people least likely to support their ideology. (Again, paging Dr. Freud.)
So, when and if these groups get into power, the promptly attempt to disenfranchise the general population. Whether this is by claiming "voter fraud" or only having one name on the ballot, the result is the same - a dictatorship of the select.
* Although since many American Tea Partiers didn't serve in the military, the concept of "service" is not one that Robert Heinlein for one would recognize.
All three entities listed have a tendency to ignore facts that they don't like, but some facts are, like gravity, impossible to ignore. In this case, the weighty fact (pun-like substance intended) is that the preferred political / economic system hasn't sprung up spontaneously, and can appear downright unpopular when put to the general public. So, all three groups have to come up with an answer why we haven't voted in their preferred system.
The communist answer is "education" or lack thereof. Once the beneficent Party members educate the proletariat, the grateful prols will vote the right way. The fact that this feeds the desires of the handful of (self-professed) educated advocates of communism would certainly provide fertile ground for Dr. Sigmund Freud.
The Tea Party, in that it has any coherent ideology at all, is libertarian, and they take the idea that "only those who contribute should be allowed to vote." Much of the libertarian / Tea Party ideology is "don't give 'my' money to those poor people," sometimes more politely put as "the people will vote themselves money out of the treasury until it's empty." Expressed either way, the concept of linking voting to 'contributions'* conveniently allows its supporters to cut out the people least likely to support their ideology. (Again, paging Dr. Freud.)
So, when and if these groups get into power, the promptly attempt to disenfranchise the general population. Whether this is by claiming "voter fraud" or only having one name on the ballot, the result is the same - a dictatorship of the select.
* Although since many American Tea Partiers didn't serve in the military, the concept of "service" is not one that Robert Heinlein for one would recognize.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-08-03 02:57 pm (UTC)While I don't think restricting franchise to those who "contribute" is particularly libertarian, as it would contradict the equality of opportunity that is a major tenet of the ideology, it does line up with many libertarians' obsession with "parasitism". The amusing thing of course, is that restricting the franchise will do nothing to stop people from voting themselves the contents of the treasury. If anything, concentrating power will make it worse. The wealthy in America already have enough political power to enrich themselves at public expense.