Helping Fellow Citizens Vote: Quintessentially Un-American

After three solid years of increasing right-wing radicalization, this is where we are. In an article titled, “Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American,” the kicker:

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals.  It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country.

Salon‘s response says what needs to be said. Commentary from such an intellectual backwater as The American Thinker wouldn’t deserve a spotlight, but for the boldness of this particular attack on the basic democratic premise of universal suffrage. Note too the comment thread, which devolves into idyllic reminiscences about the days when only landed property-owners could vote. Those were the good-old-days, of course — when men were men (unless they were chattel property).

What can one do against such reckless hate?



  1. Although the overall theme is pretty awful, the opening salvo is spot-on:

    “Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

    Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. “

    1. Yeah, well, people usually vote according to their best interests. No surprise there.

      1. Right – and they vote for the candidates they think will deliver, even if it never happens.

  2. I’d be surprised if there are more than maybe a couple percent of people who actually agree with that line of thinking – and let’s face it, you could get that level of support for just about anything you can think of. I even suspect most of those commenters are trolls, but, well, Poe’s Law.

    Bottom line, not a problem, laugh at them and move on.

    1. C’mon AK. You know that Ames only posts examples of majority-held opinions on the Right. He would never go fishing for views held by tiny minorities and try to over-exaggerate their importance!

  3. Yeah you’re probably right. But this actually shocked me.

  4. Strip away the crap writing and alarmist rhetoric. What’s left are a couple of sentiments you can find everywhere from Juvenal to the Bible to the writings of Marx and Lenin.

    So, “shocked” seems odd to me. Has the idea that those who contribute little or nothing to society deserve little or nothing from it really become so outlandish as to be shocking?

    1. He’s not just saying that the poor don’t deserve anything from society; he’s saying they don’t even deserve THE most basic right of modern democracy. That would be more shocking, too, if Republicans weren’t generally on a crusade to disenfranchise their opponents, it’s just that this author is particularly blunt.

      1. I missed that distinction. Oops.

%d bloggers like this: