I spent 20 years having to vote via absentee ballot while I served my country in uniform. I voted absentee while over in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and I did so because it was my civic duty.
Now that I am retired, I relish that I can finally vote in person and take my cheesy social media picture with my ‘I Voted’ sticker. But talking heads on the left want to change how we vote, arguing that it’s too cumbersome and no longer makes sense.
My favorite piece came from The New York Times, which boldly stated, “Elections Are Bad for Democracy.” Let’s dive into what this seemingly provocative piece had to say about the most cherished American activity we are lucky enough to exercise.
Media: “Voting is bad for democracy”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. pic.twitter.com/WCYlRGwBHB
— Taylor Morgan (@tlrdrkmrgn) August 22, 2023
Still a terrible argument
The New York Times published an opinion piece by Adam Grant titled ‘Elections Are Bad for Democracy.’ For some reason, The Gray Lady changed the headline to ‘The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way.’
When the *rest of us vote all of a sudden voting is bad for.. democracy…
Cancel the New York Times is what I would do if I were a subscriber. https://t.co/7cTMSzhwit
— President Kamala’s Hand (Again) (@myronjclifton) August 22, 2023
The change is probably meant to soften the stupidity of the piece to the general public. However, the content still reeks of arrogant ignorance.
Mr. Grant’s essay argues that it’s time to step away from the very thing that makes us America and harken back to the days of Ancient Greece by utilizing a lottery system to pick our leaders.
Mr. Grant argues:
“As we prepare for America to turn 250 years old, it may be time to rethink and renew our approach to choosing officials.”
Support Conservative Voices!
Sign up to receive the latest political news, insight, and commentary delivered directly to your inbox.
Why continue a process that has held for over 200 years when you can change it for no reason other than not liking the results of previous elections?
Mr. Grant goes on to rightly state that:
“The lifeblood of a democracy is the active participation of the people.”
Mr. Grant argues that the active participation should be in a “random” lottery that he claims would be more fair, free from any sort of controversy, much like the example he chose – the NBA draft. Clearly, Mr. Grant isn’t an avid sports fan, given the 1985 Patrick Ewing draft scandal that still has fans claiming envelopes were frozen or folded to tip the scales.
Leave it to Lady Luck
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the left is willing to give up their rights for a false sense of safety or security.
Mr. Grant illustrates this inclination:
“As lucky as America was to have Lincoln at the helm, it’s more important to limit our exposure to bad character than to roll the dice on the hopes of finding the best.”
Indeed, generally speaking, those who seek power have traces of less-than-desirable character traits. But to argue that “rolling the dice” would result in better leaders than those who actively seek power is not only flawed, it’s idiotic.
Maybe we don’t get a power-hungry narcissist in the White House, but instead, we get someone who didn’t realize people died in wars since “the World Wars or whatever,” as the young lady who works at my dad’s nursing facility said to me last week.
Or perhaps the next Commander-in-Chief is one of the alarming many in this country who don’t believe we landed on the moon in 1969.
If only we were so lucky. Mr. Grant argues that the lottery will give:
“…a fair shot to people who aren’t tall enough or male enough to win.”
As if you have to be a certain height to ride the White House ride at the circus. And what exactly does it mean to be “male enough”?
Can one male be more male than another? Can a female be more male than another male?
Let’s be sure to keep Mr. Grant out of the lottery in the future.
One day. It took them one day. pic.twitter.com/bdLA19tq1x
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) August 22, 2023
It’s just so hard
The New York Times isn’t the only rag arguing against voting. The Atlantic’s Jerusalem Demsas wrote a piece titled ‘Americans Vote Too Much’ where she claims there are just too many elections for us poor citizens to participate in.
Just as an aside here, remember that the left has been screaming about Trump “threatening our democracy” for several years now.
Ms. Demsas claims that those of us who lament that Americans aren’t participating enough in their sacred civic duty are wrong – that Americans are asked to do too much for their country.
“In America, voters don’t do too little; the system demands too much.”
So much for asking not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
She goes on to write:
“We have turned the role of a citizen into a full-time, unpaid job.”
I hate to break it to my young fellow writer, but being a citizen has always been and is supposed to be a full-time job. In fact, being a citizen means more than just voting.
NYT: Elections are Bad for Democracy
Atlantic: Americans Vote Too Much
NYT: Is Trump Even Eligible for a Second Term?
Atlantic: The Constitution Prohibits Trump from Ever Being President
Are Dems trying to cancel the 2024 election? pic.twitter.com/s7FIy9wcmF
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 22, 2023
Being a citizen means following the law, helping your neighbor, contributing to society meaningfully, raising the next generation of good citizens, understanding how your government works, and much more. The compensation for being a good citizen is having our rights secured that are given to us by our Creator.
I can’t blame Ms. Demsas entirely for not knowing this simple concept. As we all know now, thanks to this year’s National Report Card, history and civics aren’t exactly stressed in schools these days.
Missing the point
Mr. Grant and Ms. Demsas, like most left-wing bloviators, don’t lack an understanding of what makes America great; they hope you are too dumb to know better. Ms. Demsas wrote that when Americans don’t vote in local up to national elections, their:
“…disinterest is the predictable, even rational response.”
There is nothing rational about not participating in your government, and arguing such is a novice attempt to appease the laziness that has permeated our society. A recent Gallup Poll reported that of Americans aged 35 to 54, only 40% are extremely proud to be American, while only 18% of those aged 18 to 34 say the same.
A 2021 Axios poll found that amongst 18 to 34-year-olds, capitalism is only viewed positively by 49% and only 42% of Gen Z. The problem isn’t that Americans have too many elections to vote in or candidates that are too awful to choose from.
When a citizenry no longer has respect or admiration (Patriotism) for the society in which they live, therein lies the seeds for destructive revolution.
Instead of fixing the fixable problems within the existing system, the revolutionary wants to destroy the whole system to…
— Rob Schneider (@RobSchneider) August 13, 2023
The problem is we no longer collectively elevate the role of the citizenry and relish how wonderfully perfect our imperfect chunk of land is on this blue marble.
Mr. Grant claims:
“There is nothing more democratic than offering each and every citizen an equal opportunity to lead.”
Each of us has an equal opportunity to lead, thanks to our rights in our fantastic country. What is more democratic is showing up as a citizen and stating that you choose whichever candidate to represent you and that if they don’t do the job satisfactorily, you will show up and choose someone else on the next round? Or run for office yourself?
Don’t be lazy. Don’t be dumb. Show up and vote, and never let anyone fool you into believing that voting is bad or too hard.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”