Democracy Is A Pain
Kevin Williamson took to the National Review website earlier this week to argue against democracy.
The proximate cause of Williamson's question--Why not fewer voters?-- is much of the debate about voter suppression in Georgia which, he says, "begs the question and simply asserts that having more people vote is, ceteris paribus, a good thing." (Yeah, I had to look up ceteris paribus, which means "with other conditions remaining the same")
Why shouldn’t we believe the opposite? That the republic would be better served by having fewer — but better — voters?Williamson goes on to make an attempt to argue his proposal, bringing up the idea of "qualifications." But he can't help bringing in the real heart of his argument:
One argument for encouraging bigger turnout is that if more eligible voters go to the polls then the outcome will more closely reflect what the average American voter wants. That sounds like a wonderful thing . . . if you haven’t met the average American voter.
And there it is. There are Certain People who just shouldn't get a say.
As Heather Cox Richardson pointed out the next day, Williamson's argument is not a new one, having CONTINUE READING: CURMUDGUCATION: Democracy Is A Pain
