The U.S. Supreme Court has recently heard arguments over the legality of a state’s voter ID requirement. Opponents of these IDs contend, or should we say, pretend, that such laws dismember the voting rights of the poor, the elderly and minorities. As usual, they take a few cases where some voters have been prevented from voting by such requirements and tell us horror tales of pandemic voter suppression. As usual, they turn minor inconveniences into tales of woe and transcendent injustice. As would be expected, they whip out their victim kit and show us sobbing poor folks and minorities kneeling in abject depression and asking, “Can’t we all just get our vote?” without telling us that said sobbing subject is a drop in the bucket of voters with few drops to come.
All of this points to the fact that affirmative action has been twisted and corrupted from its original meaning into some pathetic patronization parade that some wish to extend into every nook and cranny of American life.
What Affirmative Action Should Really Mean
Many people, including myself, have long noted that the original intent of affirmative action (to open horizons to those not exposed to opportunity in a given field) is a noble and important mission. There is nothing wrong with helping minorities have the tools to compete with others more fortunate in the areas of education and advancement, for example. Affirmative action should never be confined to racial discussions, either. Who can object to exposing high school males, let’s say, to potential careers in nursing and their female counterparts to a future in engineering?
True affirmative action is a physically challenged, minority girl telling her mother that she wants to be president and the mother saying, “Go for it, honey; I will be supporting you all the way!”
The problem here is what liberals have done to affirmative action and just how far they want to drag that concoction.
Glass Half Full vs. Glass Half Empty Views
Many see affirmative action as taking steps to expose people to new opportunities, new horizons and new lives. We should identify areas displaying unjust inequality and disparate opportunity and enable those affected with the education, preparation, tools and training to fight their way to the success they so richly deserve. There is no room for excuses, rationalizations and dramatic helplessness exercises in this model. There is only room for a chance to make a change.
On the other hand, there are those who have distorted affirmative action into an elitist, pompous and patronizing pretense of compassion, care and generosity. This entire charade is presented as some noble, enlightened and compassionate assistance to the downtrodden and marginalized.
It fits nicely in with their pretense as being kindly, loving saints out to cure humankind of its ills and vices.
It can be boiled down to “lending a hand” versus “giving a handout.”
The Florida Model and Victimization Personified
The entire nation, and indeed much of the world, saw what liberals can do or not do in the 2000 election, where an entire state became a symbol of “do-over” victimization played to its highest level. We were repeatedly told how so many poor, innocent Florida voters had been traumatically confused and permanently scarred by the terrible, confusing voting procedures and materials. We were left to count hanging chads as liberals had temper tantrums and hissy fits.
We were exposed to the demand of recounts and do-overs because things had not gone the “right” way. We heard tales of voting fraud and sarcastic accusations that the presidential race had been stolen, fixed or who knows what even as the facts have increasingly shown otherwise.
It is in this context that we now see liberals argue that government ID requirements are the worst scourge to voting and democracy in American history, and will soon either be discarded or spread like cancer across the land, bringing doom and gloom to all so affected. Many courts, including the present Supreme Court hearing an Indiana case, have begun seeing the minor inconvenience of getting a free ID card as worth the extra security against voter fraud
At best, such ID requirements provide a deterrent against such manipulation of the voting system.
At worst, they enact an inconvenience most rational, sane and responsible adults can handle without sobbing, pointing fingers or throwing themselves on the ground demanding more cookies.
Liberals are not satisfied with their relentless pursuit of “considerate compassion” at all levels of daily life. Now they seek to extend such pitiful, rationalized patronization to the voting booth.
Heaven forbid that voters should be required to go a few miles, read a few lines of English or use their minds for something other than ordering a satellite dish, wondering what Oprah is doing or playing Play Station II for hours.
Now we are told that many voters do not or cannot ever vote properly unless we remove all requirements and restrictions. Just as they patronize minorities, the poor and females while pretending to be concerned for them, so too liberals now seek to patronize the American voter as some idiot who needs a diaper change while he or she votes.
Without investigating why many people do not have government-issued IDs, liberals prefer to trample voter responsibility, compromise voting integrity and bend over backwards to accept, condone and celebrate laziness, stupidity or lack of civic responsibility. This is all done, of course, in the name of some propped up, typical drama victimization play.
The recent foray of the U.S. Supreme Court into state voter ID requirements reminds us that the original intent of affirmative action has been transformed, or perhaps mutated, from an invitation to learn fishing into the right to have smoked salmon served every morning in bed upon request lest poor, innocent citizens actually have to get off of their posteriors and make any effort to change their lives.
Voters cannot be expected to speak English. They cannot be expected to understand voting procedures. It is unfair to make voters walk, drive or even think in order to vote. Very soon we’ll be told that dead people should be allowed to vote because it is unfair to shut them out of democracy simply because they are deceased. After all, have not there been cases of dead people voting for certain liberal candidates already? We already know that liberals’ efforts to give clueless people the vote has succeeded. Who do you think votes for them every two or four years?
The original article can be found at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/