Why it is impotant that we take notice of the bigotry within our countries. by Samuel Lacks
(liberal)
Monday, March 24, 2008
The bedrock of democracy is the allowance of all people over a certain age to vote. This way a diverse range of voters will cast there precious votes to ensure that their political wants are taken into account. This seems perfect on the very surface. You can imagine people queuing up with gumdrop smiles and jigging their way into the local voting stations.
But, for a country that now recognizes that your religion, gender, race or sexual preference should have no effect on your success as a politician or anything for that matter, how can it reconcile the fact that voters may be choosing who to vote for on purely bigoted grounds? for instance; deciding not to vote democratic this year because you would rather have another republican in power than a woman or a black guy. This seems to me to take away the whole point of politics if people (probably not the majority) are voting and not taking into account a senators political stances or policies but taking into account only race or gender.
A recent pole suggested that a large amount of Americans believed Barack Obama to be a Muslim. Now why would they immediately pigeon-hole him into the Muslim category? it doesn't take a huge IQ to conclude that it is simply his skin-colour that brought on such ignorance. As a side thought; I wonder how many average American Joes would vote for a Muslim...
This whole idea that people ignore politics and cast votes based on gender, race or sexuality makes me fear for the whole of the democratic system. It is throwing away a beautiful and pure system for choosing who you think deserves to be in power based on politics and replaces it with a perhaps racist or ignorant persons chance to throw away a great opportunity to make a better decision.
In England there is a party called the British National Party, who have been rightly dubbed the "British Nazi Party" because of their out rightly racist and intolerant views on immigrants (legal and illegal). I believe that this party has its origins in pure and simple bigotry; At one of their meetings on a BBC documentary one of the members stated that he "would rather have no Prime Minister than have a black Prime Minister" to which the crowd wooted and clapped. Is this politics? or is it racism and intolerance covered under a political veneer? the answer is obvious, and this type of person is watering down the voting system by voting on anything but political pretences.
Since the terrorist attacks on our countries our society has fragmented and racial tensions have risen, and nothing much has been done to mend them. Until we do, people like those in the BNP will continue to draw new members and spread their message of undemocratic intolerance.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Samuel Lacks only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Samuel Lacks is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-03-24 22:42:02
Liberty demands tolerance. Tyranny requires intolerance. This is why collectivists can talk of little else. Their very world-view demands they dwell on distinctions, comparisons, categories, labels and pass judgement on these attributes regardless of their relevance to the vaunted "democracy" of collectivist folklore.
This slicing and dicing of voters into subgroups makes it easier to ensure the collectivist elite are in control of the largest mob. Otherwise, their worship of pure democracy doesn't make political sense. Who would advocate mob rule if their mob is a minority? What mob is that? Who comprises this large collectivist mob? Its the mob of victims of such blatant intolerance! This is a self-fulfilling manipulation of people's desire to stand up for some group they identify with rather than to stand up for their own individual liberty.
Our whole society is set up to create a voter population with a herd mentality and to shun those who refuse to be part of the game. The mob of created victims is eager to have the government stand up for them. Eventually the situation ends up like Boulder Colorado or Berkeley California where the collectivists and nanny state advocates start devouring each other with their intolerance of anyone who is even slightly different from them, politically. The funny part is that from my perspective I can't even tell the difference between their warring factions.
Perhaps it is the lack of understanding and continual fickleness of mob rule that is at the heart of your problem with the choices people are making. After all a pure democracy is in many respects nothing more than a popularity contest. Perhaps that is why the American Constitution was designed as a republic and not a democracy. Yes, the principles of democracy are important...but the checks and balances are intended to blunt the traumas that mob rule can place on our country and its people.
Why I must agree that the masses are not informed and would vote for a president because of race, color, or religion instead of issues. I believe that is the problem with Democracy. Pure democracy is mob rule. The rights of the masses 51% can make laws that trample the rights of the minority.
That is why the Founders set up a democratic republic. This was to stop the masses from trampling on the inalienable rights of the minority.
I don't care about skin color or sex or creed as long as the candidate is qualified and is willing to do their job. I don't like the Democratic candidates because neither of them has experience, nor hold positions that are in line with the Constitution. Both have socialist agendas and want to make government bigger. Clinton is dirty, she's taken money from everyone and lies about everything. Obama has no experience and has not taken Iran off the table, in his own words. As a former civil liberties attorney I thought he would have said something about repealing the Patriot Act or the Military Commisions Act, he hasn't. He has the same agenda as Hillary, just wrapped in a different package. I will not vote for McCain because he's just an older more decrepit version of GW and I won't be responsible for doing that to my country. I will not vote for someone simply because they are a woman or black and I've been told that that makes me racist or sexist. As a woman I will love to see the day when a woman with principles is elected.A black muslim transexual would not be a problem for me as long as the kept their oath of office and did their job as outlined in the Constitution.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-31 12:31:37
First of all the system is the one that is intolerant and bigotted. Think about the last time you filled out an application or survey. One of the first questions asked is based upon race or color and/or sex. But really who cares?
This is the sytem categorizing you or more to the point you categorizing yourself. This is simply divide and conquer. In doing this "they" cause a collective thinning of the herd into smaller more managable units, much like France and Britain did to the Middle East, dividing Sham into sub countries (Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lybia) each with a mix of tribes (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd). This subdivision is a very effective means of subjigation and control.
Everytime you align yourself with a group, you assume the negative stereotypes that go along with that group, even if they dont apply. I.e. a white male is a racist, a black male is a gang-banging thug, etc, etc. Label yourself an African-American, really? I am so stupid I could not guess your ancestory is from Africa. I am a white Anglo-Saxon male, yet I do not label myself a European American. I am an American period. Together as Americans, we are unseperable, but divided we are easily conquered.
In a country executed on the principles of liberty, no one cares your race, age, sex or religion, only those bent on dividing us care to place labels upon you and seperate us into different pens.
Oh by the way good thing intolerance is bad for a democracy, as this is a Republic.
We must all come to understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority.
The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status.
The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy, contrary to that of a Republic, the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority’s large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never “grant” them the same degree of rights as the majority.
The established elite ruling class, the governing “gentry” fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the “State” desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the “majority” holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.
The “State” readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of “civil rights”. In such a “democratic” system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The “State” will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.
It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the “State”.
If only our problem with Obama was simply his skin color, Nancy Pelosi her gender, Barney Frank his misgender. The problem we have with not just them, but with most of the Democrats, and even some of the Republicans is their politics. Most Americans desire change, and are loudly making it clear that the change they want is in an opposite direction from what has been traveled for about 100 years now, sometimes slowly, but now more quickly than ever.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
