Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

countrygrmmrhotshit t1_ixfbexl wrote

What does it say about the political party who wants less voting?

593

Flatline2962 t1_ixfc02f wrote

Let's go to one of the fathers of modern conservatism, Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

"As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down"

Seems pretty straight forward. That was 42 years ago and nothing has changed since.

298

countrygrmmrhotshit t1_ixfd54j wrote

Pretty soon they’ll say “the constitution originally allowed only white, landowning males to vote and we believe in the founding fathers vision”

135

Toaster_bath13 t1_ixfebwa wrote

Only landowners can vote.

Only white men can own land.

Voting not racist now right? /s

83

CasperWithAJ t1_ixicoow wrote

I’d bet anything that KKKlarance Thomas would vote for this

4

pegothejerk t1_ixfidh6 wrote

Fun fact - there were women who could vote before women's suffrage and the 19th was passed, but they were granted that ability from inheriting large estates and sociatal standings, and those women almost never wanted women in general to get the right to vote because they feared changing society would cause them to lose their standing in society and their comforts at home. Women like that were also largely responsible for fighting against women's suffrage, just as there are minorities and women today voting with conservatives against their own interests.

62

Deyln t1_ixfn0ep wrote

And estate and inheritance is also one of the larger factors for the definition and adoption of the concept of gender.

14

GozerDGozerian t1_ixgsp2k wrote

Can you explain this a bit more?

5

Deyln t1_ixgyubk wrote

https://debuk.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/a-brief-history-of-gender/

−1

D00M_H4MM3R t1_ixhsp7d wrote

The words “inheritance” and “estate” are not used in that article. It is indeed quite lengthy, but has nothing to do with the point you made above.

2

InsuranceToTheRescue t1_ixhloi9 wrote

I believe it also depended on the time and place. Like, Wyoming almost passed on becoming a state because Congress was against them having universal suffrage in their state constitution; they put it in anyways. New Jersey had women's suffrage based on the same criteria as men, needing to own X amount in cash or property, but that was taken away in 1807.

2

Chasman1965 t1_ixfzc1o wrote

The US Constitution never said such a thing. States determined the qualifications for voting. Amendments to the Constitution changed it so the states couldn't block people from voting because they were black, female or under 21.

6

sonoma4life t1_ixg7uq0 wrote

i've never met a conservative that doesn't have ideas on limiting voting.

43

DonnieJuniorsEmails t1_ixggwg2 wrote

and it all boils down to the same bullshit:

"They won't vote for my platform to hate and attack them, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all".

32

shank1093 t1_ixhz5ls wrote

Like trying to raise the voting age 🙄😡 And if they did, then its: You can enlist and fight/defend/support/die for your country (government), but you can't vote (or have a say) in how it's run. GTFO!

8

dybyj t1_ixi13w9 wrote

My friends describe me as a conservative democrat(?) even though I’m not a democrat… so hi?

0

Kramereng t1_ixjod6d wrote

Neoconservative, Bill Kristol, had somewhat similar thoughts, saying:

> "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.

1

quangtran t1_ixgbciv wrote

After the midterms, conservatives are now saying out loud how much they hate the idea of more people voting, and that just because you have a right to vote doesn’t mean you deserve it.

28

Cfp0001-Iceman t1_ixh784o wrote

The Republican Party has gone full treason. They proved they don't give a shit about voting by staging a coup and not being remotely upset about it.

16

SsurebreC t1_ixflorn wrote

Here's the issue. Before when a party lost, they took a hard look at themselves and wondered where they went wrong to persuade the population and then adapted their views to be better in line with the population. This is while also trying to obviously sway their views to the original idea, otherwise the party will lose coherence over time and perhaps merge with the other party.

But what's been happening is... lack of acknowledgement of mistakes. Not that mistakes weren't made - they were - but the idea of making a mistake, i.e. making an error... is somehow a grave sin. That they're somehow mere mortals now instead of divinely anointed representatives who are incapable of making mistakes.

This makes sense too, since they tend to court the religious group and if you say the infallible God speaks through you then how are you able to make mistakes without undermining your entire message? Not only are mistakes not allowed but no change in policy is also allowed otherwise it, again, undermines the entire message. This is particularly true when that's a central message that you've been running for decades. A core component of your party are people who believe this for literally generations now. They support you not only in votes but fundraising as well. You cannot lose those people even though their numbers are dwindling due to age and growing irreligiosity of the subsequent generations.

So whether or not you believe it, you are required to never change. Since the population is leaving you behind and your views become outdated where a shrinking fridge of the population has your support, what can you do? Seems like you have only two options:

  • bite the bullet and change, or
  • destroy entire voting blocks to make sure that your hardcore supporters vote and everyone else has a hard time

The problem is that the definition of conservatism is preservation of the status quo. There's no problem with this - a car requires both a gas and a brake pedal to function best. The problem is that Republicans have stopped being a brake. They slammed on the emergency brake and want to reverse. They froze the progress of the United States at a particular time - somewhere around 1950s (but with 2020s economics and affordability measures) - and want to go back to that time. That's not conservatism. After all, conservatives should slow down progress until enough of the population has adopted the new norms. Case in point: romantic love was a liberal idea that's widely adopted and even championed by conservatives. Same with interfaith and interracial marriage, not to mention divorce (ignore the very fridge but very loud mouth breathers). This is fine - this is conservatism. You rail against progress but when the tide turns, you adopt it. As a result, conservatives should - and I'd say must - adopt the new norms which includes not only abortion (which they mostly do with primarily the Evangelicals causing problems since even majority of Catholics approve of abortion) and they also should be adopting new norms like gay marriage as well. This is what conservatism is. You fight against liberals changing the status quo (since not all of it is good) but once it's become widely adopted (and abortion and gay marriage are now widely accepted) then they should change their stance.

What's holding them back? The Evangelicals that they've been courting for decades. Kissing up to the religious right is what's holding the party together.

This also explains why they're so ready to pounce to any other source of revenue, such as big business and even foreign interests. It's because members of the Happy Clappy can only make you so much money, particularly when the generations are literally dying off and the young mostly scoff at your ideas.

There is a way out but it'll be messy. There is a growing divide among the religious conservatives and that wedge is environmentalism. I.e. a growing number believe that God has given them stewardship over the Earth so they must protect it. This means splintering off, fighting big business, and adopting more liberal ideas on the fiscal front with large investments into new technologies. This should cause a rift wide enough to break the religious right in half which would allow the Republicans to change the platform to something people would actually vote for. At least that's my hope. I'm not holding my breath. I think there's a higher probability that we'll have an actual left-wing party in the US. Not Democrats since they're center-right but actual left-wing politicians. Whatever change we'll have, it'll be messy but it'll be quick. The failure of the Tea Party (and the current crumbling of the Trumpists back into the GOP) has clearly shown that the US favors only two main parties.

We'll see what happens but those who want fewer people to vote certainly stand against American core principles.

13

Durdens_Wrath t1_ixgxs19 wrote

2 things here.

  1. Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater famously warned the GOP about getting into bed with the religious. And he was 100% right.

  2. Evangelicals are basically Truth, Regret, and Mercy. If they admitted a mistake, their whole Great Journey comes falling apart.

11