In just over a year, American citizens will have a chance to cast their ballot for the next president. Except for the 75 million Americans barred by state and local laws from registering to vote, that is.
Are there really that many American citizens legally barred from voting? The answer is yes: our kids.
Around the world, almost every country bars people under 18 from voting. The reasons vary — they won’t be informed enough, they don’t pay taxes yet, they can’t serve in the militaryyet, they tend too liberal, they tend too rebellious — but the rule persists, even in the face of a generation of passionate, smart, and informed teenage activists, and even as it becomes obvious that our current political system is failing our children.
In the last year, there’ve been encouraging signs that we might rethink this. Democratic candidate Andrew Yang has argued for a voting age of 16, and a bill proposing a voting age of 16 died in the US House in March with a majority of Democratic representatives supporting it.
Well, let’s do them one better: The United States should consider eradicating the voting age entirely and letting every American citizen who can successfully fill out a ballot be counted in our local, state, and national elections (and yes, this goes for felons too).
How about this instead: NO. Not just NO; HELL NO. Also: FUCK YOU, for good measure.
Truth is, our real problem isn’t that we don’t have enough people voting, but that we have way too many unqualified, ignorant, tuned-out mouthbreathers casting ballots already. Judging by the number of votes the Democrat-Socialist Party still somehow manages to garner, fully half the damned electorate is completely clueless about the most fundamental, elementary aspects of our faltering system: the Electoral College and its purpose; the fact that the US is NOT a democracy, and why that’s a very good thing; the crucial Constitutional distinction between the House (representatives of the people) and Senate (representatives of the sovereign states) and the wanton destruction of those mandated roles by the heinous 17th Amendment; and the very concepts of self-government, unalienable rights, and limited government themselves.
Once again, just when you think Leftards couldn’t possibly make themselves any more ridiculous, here they come with ludicrous codswallop like this to prove you wrong. How any reasonably intelligent human could consider granting power to these chowderheads by voting for them is way beyond me. Think I’m kidding, or exaggerating, about how patently absurd Lefty nutjobs are? Think again.
A new ad campaign to fight cervical cancer is dominated by a transgender person who is a biological male and has no cervix. Look at the absurdity of the ad under the caption “Transwomen and Cervical Cancer Screening.”
The site goes onto claim that the risk of cervical cancer for a person with no cervix is very low. “If you’re a trans woman, you may not have given much thought to Pap tests and cervical cancer. And if you haven’t, that makes a fair amount of sense. After all, in order to get cervical cancer, you need to have a cervix.” But don’t be fooled by the seeming clarity of this statement. They go on to talk themselves out of it.
In England, the public health department includes biological men who pretend to be women in their cervical cancer screenings too if they identify as female. And if females identify as male, they will not be invited to be screened for cervical cancer despite having working cervixes. The Sun reported in 2017,
Women’s campaigner Laura Perrins told the Mail On Sunday: “We’ve now got to the point where state collusion with this transgender agenda is endangering the health of women.
“It’s a ludicrous use of NHS resources to invite men for a cervical smear test, while it’s immoral and dangerous not to invite women.”
The world is truly insane.
Well, part of it certainly is, yeah. But how is this story related to Vox’s drivel demanding children of all ages be allowed to vote, you ask? Like this: it’s but another front of the Left’s ever-escalating war on common sense.
Examples of the war on common sense are now everywhere in public life. How about the denial of the plain fact that humans are either male or female?
Not long ago, a boy in a tutu and a tiara who claimed he was a girl would still be regarded as a boy. Today, academic and cultural elites, as well as government officials, insist that “gender identity” is more real than biology. They say there are many genders, and one website tells me there are 63. Elites tell us we had better get with the many-gender program, or else. And while we are at it, we had better get politically correct about marriage. We are told that marriage no longer means one thing, a union between a man and a woman. How long will it be until we have 63 varieties of marriage?
The war on moral common sense has reached new heights of absurdity. If we point out a need for common-sense steps to protect ourselves from Islamic terrorists, we are said to suffer a psychological condition called “Islamophobia.” But unlike other phobias, such as claustrophobia, this condition is said to make us victimizers rather than victims. Similarly, if we say that America needs to secure its borders, we are met by cries that “walls are immoral.” Evidently, the common-sense wisdom that good walls make good neighbors has been taken down by the masters of political correctness.
Political correctness is quite simply a war on common sense. It is a war by the elites on the common people and on the shared understanding of basic realities of life that has made it possible for us to rule ourselves under the Constitution. Once this common-sense understanding of reality has been vanquished, it is “mission accomplished” for the Americans who reject America.
A brief visit with the founding father of the philosophy of common sense will help us get our bearings as we explore the fascinating subject of common sense.
“If there are certain principles, as I think there are, which the constitution of our nature leads us to believe, and which we are under a necessity to take for granted in the common concerns of life, without being able to give a reason for them; these are what we call the principles of common sense; and what is manifestly contrary to them, is what we call absurd.”
So wrote Thomas Reid, a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. He referred to his philosophical method as “common sense realism” and he published his greatest work, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense, in 1764. It is difficult to overstate Reid’s importance to the American Founding. Arthur Herman emphasizes this point, writing that “Common Sense Realism was virtually the official creed of the American Republic.”
As you know, the American Founders claimed they were guided by self-evident truths. They relied on self-evident truths because their deliberations were deeply informed by the thinking of Thomas Reid. And Reid continued to be at the center of American thought for more than a century. Generations of American academics were common-sense realists, and until the Civil War, every major American collegiate intellectual was a common-sense realist.
Reid is all but forgotten in America today.
And voilå! We find ourselves beset on all sides by absurdity, nonsense, and unreality: cervical-cancer screenings for men without cervixes; children incapable of tying their own shoes granted the franchise; white people insisting they’re black; a Baskin-Robbins menu of genders, and etc. All these afflictions and imbecilic inanities bestowed on us by the preposterous, insane Left.
We really do need to find a way to see that they’re properly thanked for it someday.