Apparently a flaccid stab at Swiftian satire, the article was in response to recent laws requiring basic ID for voters to cast ballots in November’s election. The article’s author, Daniel Treadway, who looks as geekily beta as you’d expect from a progressive male scribe, implied that voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise blacks and “lower-income voters.” (Although it’s helmed by a woman whose net worth is estimated at anywhere from $35 million to over $100 million, HuffPo postures itself as a staunch defender of society’s poor and marginalized members. I can only speculate about the reasons for this, but my best guess would be “wealth guilt.”)
Unctuously snarky anteater-faced Democratic water boy Bill Maher, who apparently never met a white rural Goy that he liked or didn’t accuse of being retarded, recently suggested much the same thing:
If Republicans can make it harder for minorities to vote with their tricky ID laws, then we get to make it harder for teabaggers to vote by bringing back the literacy test.
Prog Munchkins across the land rejoiced at the suggestion, saying such a law “will only affect conservatives” and eliminate “low info red staters,” with the end result being that the “GOP would cease to exist.” Special venom was aimed toward Tea Party members, AKA “teatards,” whom progs are fond of depicting as mentally challenged even though a New York Times poll found them to be more wealthy and educated than average Americans.
Are these leftists right? Are these devotees of political correctness correct? Are most of them even aware that their cherished Voting Rights Act of 1965 is what initially did away with literacy requirements for voters?
Presumption of intellectual superiority is tattooed on the modern progressive brain. With smug triumphalism, they trot out studies that attempt to prove that conservatism is caused by “Low-Effort Thought” and “Low IQ.” They will even get all eugenic on your ass by suggesting that leftists are smarter due to evolutionary advantages. Because it doesn’t follow the script, they tend to ignore studies that show that Republicans tend to be far more informed than Democrats on political issues and that Republican males have perennially been shown as more likely to have college degrees than Democratic males.
This may be due to what I’ll call the “Barbell Effect”—there are indeed many leftists of high intelligence and erudition, but they’re counterbalanced by a surfeit of borderline-retarded constituents mainly aggregated in inner cities whose intellectual aptitude would make your average “teatard” look like a Rhodes Scholar. For every reputed teabagger you see hoisting a misspelled picket sign, I can point to some no-information imbecile who thinks Obama dispenses welfare out of his “stash” or who voted for him even though they were clueless about his policies.
And although it’s true that wealthier people tend to vote Republican, in the 2008 presidential election voters making over $200,000 a year—in other words, the meat ‘n’ potatoes of the oft-scorned “1%”—favored Obama over McCain. Modern pro Glos uruses probably also avoid pondering the fact that IQ and income tend to be correlated, meaning that a Voter IQ Law would squeeze out many of the selfsame “low-income voters” whose interests they’re always white-knighting.
Leftists are eternally eager to mention IQ except when it applies to their vaunted “oppressed minorities,” and then suddenly things such as race and IQ cease to exist, and you’re a bad, bad, evil witch for even suggesting that they do. But they force the issue by their incessant bashing of “dumb rednecks” and their childish refusal to acknowledge the existence of “dumb coons” and “dumb wetbacks.”
I’ll set the cutoff point for a hypothetical Voter IQ Law at 101. Since 100 is the mean score and we’re looking for a well-informed electorate, let’s only accept voters who score above the average. And since I’ve been warned that race will decide the 2012 elections, I’ll break down our contestants along racial lines. It’s way too early to know whether our beloved ethnic rainbow will deviate from the way they voted in 2008, so let’s assume they’ll vote exactly the same. In other words, around 55% of whites will vote Republican, as will about a third of Asians, Hispanics, and “Others,” while virtually every black person in the continental US, whether living or dead, will vote for Obama.
Conceding that statistics are inexact but still better than emotions and opinions when it comes to fact-finding, I’ve constructed a handy chart that concludes if such a Voter IQ Law had been in effect during the 2008 elections, John McCain would now be president
This is based on the assumption that voters who remained after the Great IQ Purge would vote in precisely the same proportions for Obama and McCain as their demographics did when all the dummies were still around—a flimsy assumption at best. If smarter whites tended to skew toward Obama in 2008, he still may have won.
But it’s clear that a bumper crop of blacks, steamin’ spicy hordes of Hispanics, and likely a high quotient of the “lower-income voters” over which the limo libs are constantly fretting—always from a safe distance—would have been disenfranchised by such a law, probably at a much higher clip than the “teatards” which even The New York Times admits tend to be relatively well-educated and well-heeled. It’s not about wishing McCain was president, it’s about stabbing leftist smarm dead in its tracks.
As I understand it, a core principle of Dostoyevsky’s philosophy was that it’s more important for individuals to make their own stupid decisions than to have some smarty-pants do it for them. Americans cherish the idea of “one man, one vote,” even if one man’s brain may be far more discerning than the other’s. But I still wonder whether a sharp-minded half-electorate would mold a better society than a fully “empowered” electorate composed of half-cretins.
And it’s not as if smart people can’t let their emotions rule them, or there would be no such thing as intelligent liberals. Even geniuses can be fooled by appeals to emotion, but such appeals seem to be the only thing that works with dumb people, which is why politics become little more than empty slogans and heartstring-tugging. At least smart people have other options besides voting for stupidly emotional reasons. But the truly stupid have no such luxury.
In many cases, our alleged “democracy” only seems to exist to make society’s dimmer bulbs feel as if they’re being heard, thus preventing them from charging into the streets and cannibalizing random passersby. I lean toward favoring a basic Voter IQ Law, or at least a basic civics test, for it may help stave off an imminent idiocracy. It’s not as if most of the idiots pay any taxes anyway. If this country was founded on the principle of “No taxation without representation,” maybe we should also practice “No representation without taxation.”