Video: Get off of Jonah Goldberg’s lawn, you darned kids

posted at 5:46 pm on May 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I love a curmudgeonly rant, and so this interview of National Review’s Jonah Goldberg is right up my alley. This excerpt of a longer interview with the Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas focuses on Jonah’s issues with the “youth culture,” the obsession with the worldview of the least experienced of our citizenry. Goldberg notes that “we’re all born idiots,” and that some people are a lot closer to that point in time than most of the rest of us:

“It is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity more than youth,” the National Review Online editor said in an interview. “We’re all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young.”

So why all the focus on the youth vote and “millennials” in politics? Goldberg says young people having so much influence in a society is unhealthy.

“My view is, they’re going to run the country some day, so we should really explain why they’re so frickin’ stupid about so many things,” he said.

Goldberg says in the interview that he would prefer a much higher voting age than 18, and while I agree that these voters tend to be the least sophisticated and informed voters in any election, I still disagree with Goldberg on this point. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions. The purpose of elections is to form a representative government that binds all citizens and holds them accountable. That includes 18-year-old citizens, which means that they should have the right to participate in the formation of legislatures and executive branches that create and enforce those laws.

That doesn’t mean that politicians should pander to them, or at least at the expense of both older voters and common sense. They may be running the country someday, it is true, but it is equally true that they may be performing brain surgery someday too. That doesn’t mean I want them practicing on my head when they’re 18 and haven’t learned anything about it yet.

In fact, I’d say that a sure sign of political desperation is when a politician has to focus on the least-sophisticated and least-experienced voters to gain any traction. That’s a giveaway that their policies are probably too simplistic and unrealistic to sell elsewhere. One case in point: ObamaCare. Obama got a great deal of support from young voters on this policy — and now they will be forced to needlessly buy comprehensive health insurance at great expense when a simple catastrophic policy would suit their needs much more economically, in order to subsidize the health-care costs of middle-aged and senior voters. Suckers!

Perhaps that experience will have taught the youth culture an important lesson. If so, Jonah will try not to bark at them when their radios are too loud or order them off his darned lawn. Jonah also has a new book out, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas — be sure to check it out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

“Stop calling me ‘Wally’ “

Great movie.

SnarkySam on May 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

While I think 18 is an ok age to vote at, voting should be restricted to those with “skin in the game”, ie net tax payers.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Our elders have given us a massive entitlement state that they will benefit from that we will pay for but will never receive any benefit. Thanks a bunch!

Considering the epic mess that the older, “wiser” generations have created in this country that will be borne by the younger generations, including those not yet born, please forgive me if I don’t bow to their collective “wisdom”.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Says Jonah Goldberg, who never had an original thought in his life.

lowandslow on May 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM

While I think 18 is an ok age to vote at, voting should be restricted to those with “skin in the game”, ie net tax payers.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

How about we go the “full Heinlein” and restrict full citizenship, including the right to vote, to those that have served in the military?

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Jonah’s book tour has been really interesting. His Piers Morgan interviews were amazing.

Although, personally, if you can be drafted at 18, you sure as hell should have a vote.

rubberneck on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

If that were true, why not allow 18 year old’s the right to drink?

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Our elders have given us a massive entitlement state that they will benefit from that we will pay for but will never receive any benefit.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Since the “youth” vote mostly for the democrat party, when you’re pointing at the “elders”, note that there are four fingers pointed back at you.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

They may be running the country someday, it is true, but it is equally true that they may be performing brain surgery someday too.

but you see Mr ED, these are 2 different youths.

The ones running this country will be American youth educated in America, working under the directions of the Chinese.
The ones performing brain surgeries will be youth from Asian countries, educated in India or China or SKorea.

burrata on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

While I think 18 is an ok age to vote at, voting should be restricted to those with “skin in the game”, ie net tax payers.

Yep. Letting 51% of the people vote themselves more benefits from the taxpaying 49% – the end goal of Democrat politics is not only insane, but also deeply immoral.

18-1 on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Goldberg says in the interview that he would prefer a much higher voting age than 18, and while I agree that these voters tend to be the least sophisticated and informed voters in any election, I still disagree with Goldberg on this point. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

Surprisingly, the 18 year olds didn’t even get the right to vote until relatively recently-about 40 years ago. (26th Amendment)

Funny how that is approximately when our country started going down the dumper!

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Surprisingly enough, one time Marxist the late Christopher Lasch would have agrred with much of Jonah’s rant.

xkaydet65 on May 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Ed, you’re wrong about the voting age.
Repeal the 26th Amendment!

thuja on May 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

If that were true, why not allow 18 year old’s the right to drink?

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

See this.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Since the “youth” vote mostly for the democrat party, when you’re pointing at the “elders”, note that there are four fingers pointed back at you.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

The “youth” voted in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA and the “Great Society” programs? The youth voted for the Medicare Part D entitlement? Oh wait, that was the GOP.\

And do you remember how the GOP promise every election to get rid of SS, Medicare and Medicaid? Yeah, me neither.

You are delusional if you want to pin our present entitlement state entirely on the democrats.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

All the rights of an adult, indeed, the concept of adulthood itself should be standardized. You should be able to fight in the military, smoke, drink, have sex mutually with another adult, go to strip clubs, drive and vote all at the same time, none of this 16-18-21 bull.

thebrokenrattle on May 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

The “youth” voted in SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA and the “Great Society” programs? The youth voted for the Medicare Part D entitlement?

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Yes, they voted for it, along with the elders of that time – whom are mostly dead today.

You seem very enthusiastic on collective guilt for the “elders”, not so much for the “youth”.

Funny how that works.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

All the rights of an adult, indeed, the concept of adulthood itself should be standardized. You should be able to fight in the military, smoke, drink, have sex mutually with another adult, go to strip clubs, drive and vote all at the same time, none of this 16-18-21 bull.

thebrokenrattle on May 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Yep.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Jonah’s book tour has been really interesting. His Piers Morgan interviews were amazing.

Although, personally, if you can be drafted at 18, you sure as hell should have a vote.

rubberneck on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

We don’t have a draft in the US anymore. They just didn’t rid of the requirement to register for same.

My first vote was at age 21 in 1964… I voted for Barry Goldwater, and did not miss or care about voting before that. I am still in favor of age 21.

As far as paying taxes go. I always try to pay the least amount every year. I managed to pay zero or close to it for 5 years running (2006-2010). Many due to college tuition credits.

Dasher on May 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Voting age was lowered to 18 because of the draft. Doesn’t make sense to have it so low now, but it will never be raised.

hepcat on May 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

A comment at the daily caller:

Capitalism, property rights, even civil society are threatened as raging but dimwitted Occupier style youth, and low income illegal aliens, flood the voting booths.

Yes, raise the voting age back to 21 at least. More important, revisit our concept of democracy. Return democracy to what the founding fathers envisioned, a republic with property qualifications for voting to prevent redistribution schemes, just are we are facing today.

anotherJoe on May 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The willowy young blonde with the cornflower eyes and the ripe melons at my local supermarket is not an idiot.

Seth Halpern on May 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

So why all the focus on the youth vote and “millennials” in politics?

Because we older Americans are stealing their futures and spending it on ourselves instead, sticking them with the bill for our own intransigence. We are selling America’s youth down the river, burying them in a hole under a mountain of debt and back-filling with inflation. Unfortunately the generational thieves that dominate both parties don’t like to think of themselves as immoral, they prefer to think of themselves as the elite who are above reproach. After all, the kids today aren’t like they were in the old days, they deserve to get screwed by older people who don’t mind doing the screwing because America is no longer the shining city on the hill, we are a stinking cesspool of generational thieves who can and do bail themselves out because they have the most wealth and the most votes.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

The voting age needs to be raised to 40. That would eliminate the Democratic party.

keep the change on May 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Yes, they voted for it, along with the elders of that time – whom are mostly dead today.

You seem very enthusiastic on collective guilt for the “elders”, not so much for the “youth”.

Funny how that works.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

I’m talking about the youth of today and you know that.

And yes, our present day “elders”, including those in the GOP, need to take a long look in the mirror for their culpability in the creation of the entitlement state that they now readily enjoy while they know or should know that the benefits that they receive will not be available to the present day youth, although we will be responsible for paying for those benefits.

The standard that he sets is just ridiculous because our elders continue to make extremely poor decisions (IMO, obviously) at the ballot box just as much as the youth.

If a GOP candidate were to run on abolishing Medicare, Medicaid and SS, what % of GOP voters age 55-80 would vote for that candidate? More than 50%? Hell no.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

If that were true, why not allow 18 year old’s the right to drink?

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

When I was a kid in the 60s, 18 was the drinking age and 21 was the voting age.

TugboatPhil on May 12, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Goldberg says in the interview that he would prefer a much higher voting age than 18, and while I agree that these voters tend to be the least sophisticated and informed voters in any election, I still disagree with Goldberg on this point. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

I personally believe 21 should be the age one becomes an adult.

200 years ago an 18 year old had much more responsibilities than an 18 year old today. We coddle out children well beyond the age we used to.

If I had my way about it you couldn’t vote until you prove you can support yourself. If you’ve never handled that most basic of responsibilities, then you’re not ready to vote.

ButterflyDragon on May 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

So why all the focus on the youth vote and “millennials” in politics?

The short answer: because older Americans are stealing them blind and robbing them of their futures.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

what % of GOP voters age 55-80 would vote for that candidate? More than 50%? Hell no.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

A lot of those folks didn’t vote for any of that, but were forced to pay into it their entire lives. Now they’re supposed to not collect?

You and your “youths” might be fine with collectively punishing an entire generation into lives of grinding poverty, but you’re delusional if you think you can guilt them into voting for it.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

How many times I gotta say this? There is NO Constitutional ‘right’ to vote in a federal election. Period. And that goes for older adults as well as ‘kids’.
Start curtailing voter ‘rights’ and ‘rats will no longer be elected en masse such as in 2006 & 2008. Would also be great for the RINO population.

Lanceman on May 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I’m okay with eighteen year olds voting, with one exception. I’d amend the Constitution to say that no one may vote for President who has not yet attained the age that he or she could be President, i.e., nobody votes for the Chief Executive who isn’t at least 35. It would mean anybody running for President would have to appeal to voters who have a mature world view. We shouldn’t have Presidential elections where the candidates can appeal to 20 year olds by telling them he’ll cut the interest on their student loans and make those nasty old insurance companies carry them on their parents’ policies until they are 26.

radjah shelduck on May 12, 2012 at 6:25 PM

The short answer: because older Americans are stealing them blind and robbing them of their futures.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I think they’ve stolen themselves blind by voting for the black man with no accomplishments and an admitted marxist because it was cool. Many are still too stupid to see it.
Like the parasites, they have nothing and will never have anything, so no skin off their ass.

Lanceman on May 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

The main wisdom lacking in the youth is that all human systems are flawed. Utopian systems are called Utopian because they exist Nowhere.

The flawed capitalist system has created more wealth for more people than any other in history. Marxism has created more poverty for more people than anyone system in history.

Laurence on May 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I personally believe 21 should be the age one becomes an adult.

200 years ago an 18 year old had much more responsibilities than an 18 year old today. We coddle out children well beyond the age we used to.

ButterflyDragon on May 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

By increasing the age when people take on adult responsibilities, isn’t that coddling? If coddling is the problem, we should reduce the age and introduce young people to reality sooner, not shield them even longer.

The reason old white Republicans are complaining about young people, I think, is because Ron Paul supporters, who are trying to stop the tyranny of the majority and the generational theft, and the old white people don’t like it. They want to preserve the status quo and the only way they’ll be able to get away with stealing from young Americans is if they strip away the rights of young Americans to fight back and try to save their futures.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Shocka! Flabby aging dude not digging the “yoots!”

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM

If 40 is the new 30, it just means that 20 is the new 10. For proof of that, see the dumbed-down colleges and the inability of our young “adults” to write a coherent sentence.

PackerBronco on May 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I think they’ve stolen themselves blind by voting for the black man with no accomplishments and an admitted marxist because it was cool. Many are still too stupid to see it.
Like the parasites, they have nothing and will never have anything, so no skin off their ass.

Lanceman on May 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Obama and Romney are nearly identical politically. If young Obama voters, (and most of them were older), are morons for voting for Obama, then older GOP voters are morons for voting for Romney, who is basically a white version of Obama.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Maybe we shouldn’t let anybody vote who benefits from government enforced generational theft regardless of age. That way young people with too much debt won’t be able to use the government to steal from old people, and old Republican voters won’t be able to steal the future of young people and spend it on themselves and their cronies.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

A lot of those folks didn’t vote for any of that, but were forced to pay into it their entire lives. Now they’re supposed to not collect?

You and your “youths” might be fine with collectively punishing an entire generation into lives of grinding poverty, but you’re delusional if you think you can guilt them into voting for it.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 6:23 PM

I don’t recall any major pushes in the past 30 years by anyone to abolish Medicare, Medicaid and SS. The only people that voted for these programs were those in Congress and the president that signed off on them. So although they may not have been for the creation of those programs, they certainly haven’t done a thing to get rid of them either.

Who is getting punished here? The elders are receiving the benefits and the youth will not receive those same benefits, but the youth will pay for them nonetheless. And not everyone that received these benefits has paid into the system, and certainly not to the extent that they have paid out an amount equal to what they are receiving.

Are the elders unaware that they are receiving benefits that their children and grandchildren are paying for, but will never receive? Is it moral for them to demand that they receive these benefits that they have “earned” knowing that the cost will be borne by younger generations who will not receive those benefits? It is generational theft, pure and simple.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

When I was a kid in the 60s, 18 was the drinking age and 21 was the voting age.

TugboatPhil on May 12, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Here in New Hampshire the age of majority was lowered to 18 in the early 1970s. But lowering the drinking age had horrifying traffic accident results, and the drinking age was returned to 21 after a few years.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Like the parasites, they have nothing and will never have anything, so no skin off their ass.

Lanceman on May 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Now day’s it’s the older people who are the most profligate parasites. They’re the ones getting bailed out with all of the deficits and the inflation. It’s the younger generations that are being stuck for the bill for all the spending.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Maybe we shouldn’t let anybody vote who benefits from government enforced generational theft regardless of age. That way young people with too much debt won’t be able to use the government to steal from old people, and old Republican voters won’t be able to steal the future of young people and spend it on themselves and their cronies.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

What is immoral and despicable to me is that it’s the older people who benefit from all the generational theft, that’s why they keep voting for the status quo even though it is destroying America, yet these same generational thieves trash and smear their young victims and make it sound like somehow they are responsible.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

i like the 21 year old threshold, and yes 18 year olds are stupid and malleable by the leftist media/education complex

But, stupidity has no age limit

Last winter, on several occasions, Germany escaped only just large-scale power outages. Next winter the risk of large blackouts is even greater. The culprit for the looming crisis is the single most important instrument of German energy policy: the “Renewable Energy Law.”

The dramatic tone of the report by the Federal Network Agency (FNA) on the near-blackouts last winter is hard to overestimate: although the cold spell was short and mild, the situation in the German electricity network was “very serious” according to the Agency.

and of course Japan is turning out the lights on their nukes.

Western civ seems to generally be turning out the lights. People are terrified of nukes…and our permanent political class is right there with them…dumb as posts.

r keller on May 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

If we do not pay federal taxes in any particular year, we should be prohibited from voting in federal elections for that two year cycle.

Same goes for state and local taxes. If we pay no local taxes that year, we cannot vote that year; no state taxes, no state vote.

No representation without taxation.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The argument for the 18 year old vote used to be the draft. If a young man was old enough to go die for his country, the argument went, he was old enough to vote and to drink in bar.

We no longer have a draft.

WE do, however, have a Progressive element in our government that has insisted that young adults, up to 26 years of age, be allowed to remain on their parents HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES as dependents.

If the progressives insist on infantilizing young adults,keeping them dependent on their parents, and since this nation no longer drafts young adults at 18 years of age for military service, perhaps we should equalize the treatment of young adults across the board.

An all volunteer military effectively negates the old argument which sought to establish when a person reached adulthood and the military has been saying that they require less inductees and more educated and responsible inductees for the new military. Raising the minimum age for induction would certainly be conducive and effective in achieving those goals.

The progressive element in the federal government has worked diligently to allow young adults to escape the responsibilities of adulthood by remaining a dependent on their parents health care insurance until the age of 26. This effectively sets the new age of majority to 26 years of age. Perhaps, in keeping with this new view, we should fix the voting age at 26 years of age likewise, thus allowing these young adults the necessary time to mature into their adult responsibilities, as suggested by our more progressive friends.

thatsafactjack on May 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

. That doesn’t mean I want them practicing on my head when they’re 18 and haven’t learned anything about it yet.

Oh, I don’t know, Captain Ed. It looks as if some over-enthusiastic 18-year old gave you a haircut that you will never get over. LOL /kidding

onlineanalyst on May 12, 2012 at 6:47 PM

When I was a kid in the 60s, 18 was the drinking age and 21 was the voting age.

TugboatPhil on May 12, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Here in New Hampshire the age of majority was lowered to 18 in the early 1970s. But lowering the drinking age had horrifying traffic accident results, and the drinking age was returned to 21 after a few years.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Where I come from the age for drinking and getting a drivers license is 18.

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 6:49 PM

. The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

Then why does Obamacare provide for insurance coverage under parents until the “youth” is 26?

onlineanalyst on May 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Good point!

Just for the record, though, generally speaking when I use the term “generational theft” I refer not so much to specific redistributive policies, but to unsustainable debt and inflationary monetary policy that oppress Americas future. I only point it out because I use the term a lot and my goal isn’t to destroy the social safety net, but to destroy the cronies in labor and business that are destroying our freedom and liberty and the future.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:52 PM

VorDaj on May 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Good song, I looked for the story, it appears it happened in 2010.

Cindy Munford on May 12, 2012 at 6:53 PM

There was wisdom in the old saying…”children should be seen and not heard”.

katy on May 12, 2012 at 6:53 PM

thatsafactjack on May 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

I like it. I would make one change…

…if a young adult between the age of 18-26 volunteered for the armed services, they should be allowed to participate.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Well “the youth” did not need to be air quoted, and if you raise the voting age then raise the age of military participation to match voting age.

I dont see it as youth worship so much as they’re always so many of them, also what ever you force on young people they will rebel against. so just do the best you can to talk sense into them without being extremely overbearing.

Great argument that capitalism is the best form of getting rich IMO.

boogaleesnots on May 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I agree with your point, but I think there is a legitimate argument that lowering the voting age dumbs down the electorate by lowering the overall mean voting age, thus resulting in worse monetary policy.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

Not under Obamacare.

malclave on May 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Is that you Comrade Stalin? How about we just take them all out and shoot them? Of course we would have to have show trials first.

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Letting them vote at 18 has proven to be a very, very bad ides.

jukin3 on May 12, 2012 at 7:02 PM

…and they may be older someday — in fact, I’d bet my life on it!

What goes around comes around.

unclesmrgol on May 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

That sounds good at first glance, but when you think about it it falls apart. For example, what if most of us don’t pay taxes because we’re out of work because we’ve been sold down the river by the ruling class? Then we not only lose our jobs but we lose our voice.

What if the ruling class changes the tax code so that people who believe in freedom are less likely to have to pay tax and therefor lose representation in the government?

Already the people have lost representation in our government, that’s why the cronies that our government does represent almost always get their way, unless there is a massive effort to stop them, like in the case of Shamnesty, but even then all they do is delay it until the furor dies down and then do the same thing piecemeal.

I think the best thing is that we have a democratic republic governed by a Constitution. Pure democracy is for lynch mobs, that is why the caucus system is superior. Anybody can get involved, but only the people who care the most and are the most informed take the time to do so.

The caucus system should be expanded. Perhaps it should be simplified, but the caucus system in the GOP primary system turns out to be the only way to have any hope of defeating the Washington crony establishment from having their way. They may be able to win the primary votes when the process is behind closed doors, but in the caucuses everybody is a witness and therefor only real people with real faces get counted.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Doesn’t make sense.

Many folks in this situation paid served in the military, fought in wars, owned businesses, employed people, worked their entire lives, paid taxes their entire lives etc…

I really think to be allowed to vote in any jurisdiction you should be able to prove a tax burden of some type.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Many folks in this situation paid served in the military, fought in wars, owned businesses, employed people, worked their entire lives, paid taxes their entire lives etc…

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

They also voted for the lesser of two evils, if not the greater of two evils, for pandering politicians that promised to spend that money they paid into the system on other things instead in exchange for those very same peoples votes.

Live isn’t fair.

Certainly young people, many of whom haven’t even been born yet, but are being buried under tens of trillions of unpayable debt and inflation, didn’t do anything to deserve being victimized by a bunch of immoral parasites.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

Not under Obamacare.

malclave on May 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Ha, ha! Raise the age to 26 so we read all those under their parent’s insurance out too. :-)

All lowering the voting age & giving 3 electoral college delegates to DC create a permanent Dem. voting block.

I don’t know how I feel about raising it though — it is kind of how I fee about drinking — if you are old enough to serve your country in the Armed Services, I think you should be old enough to drink, and vote. Of course, those 18 year-olds who choose to serve in the Armed Services are usually (not always, but usually) more responsible & disciplined than their peers.

Nonetheless, I do agree with Goldberg that we do give the youth vote an inordinate amount of power in directing politics. We’ve got a 50 year-old man slo-jamming the news & strutting around like a peacock to show the kids how “cool” and “young” he is. That not only diminishes the office of the prezzy of the united stezzy, but it just makes us all look bad.

Dark Star on May 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

*rid not read.
Jeez.

Dark Star on May 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

How about we go the “full Heinlein” and restrict full citizenship, including the right to vote, to those that have served in the military?

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

OK

Your Mamma loves me on May 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Debt and deficits are immoral. They are the original moral hazard that has lead to the rest, that when combined with fear, has allowing immoral people, the totalitarians that have usually been a minority in America, to subvert the American Way and turn us into an immoral police-state.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Debt and deficits are immoral.

I mean at a national level, when the debt rises to unsustainable levels as they have long since done.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Is that you Comrade Stalin? How about we just take them all out and shoot them? Of course we would have to have show trials first.

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I am not advocating that. The point was that it makes more sense to me than taking away the voting rights of 18 year olds that can fight and die for this country.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

They also voted for the lesser of two evils, if not the greater of two evils, for pandering politicians that promised to spend that money they paid into the system on other things instead in exchange for those very same peoples votes.

My sentence isn’t very readable. I mean, the same people who paid into the system also voted for the politicians that promised to spend that money on other things instead, so they only have themselves to blame. Certainly they can’t blame young people who haven’t even been born yet and can’t even vote and stick them with the bill.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

One of the most frustrating aspects of modern political discourse is the inability to engage with Progressives / Liberals in discussions or debates using well-formed arguments and reasoning. Why is this so? Because you will quickly get a shorthand reply using hackneyed declarations and clichés that are supposed to stand in for an argument. They are supposed to be some kind of self-evident truth, and debase the standing of their opponent to even be discussing the issue.

This quote, from a review of Jonah’s book, makes me think of certain comments in the “gay” threads.

Count to 10 on May 12, 2012 at 7:22 PM

If we do not pay federal taxes in any particular year, we should be prohibited from voting in federal elections for that two year cycle.

Same goes for state and local taxes. If we pay no local taxes that year, we cannot vote that year; no state taxes, no state vote.

No representation without taxation.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

We can’t even get voterID, getting voterID plus tax data would be virtually impossible. And then the mess on ballots, well sir you paid state taxes but no federal taxes… you have to use this special ballot with no federal elections on it. Yeah that will work.

Dasher on May 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM

The problem is that the boomers were a demographic bubble, followed by a crash because of birth control and abortion. But instead of cutting back spending so that the younger voters today can actually afford to pay for our government without oppressing them, they’re making up the shortfalls by making people in the future pay for it instead. It is purely and atrociously immoral in the worst way.

We can still afford a safety net for the boomers, but they’d have to cut down on all of their Marxist and Fascist statist policies that are so expensive, like the nation-building and the war on drugs and some of the bureaucratic arms of the government. But they won’t have it. They want their cake to to eat it to. They want the safety net and the police-state and the nation-building that is bankrupting America and instead of being responsible, moral people, they are being irresponsible, immoral people.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Doesn’t make sense.

Many folks in this situation paid served in the military, fought in wars, owned businesses, employed people, worked their entire lives, paid taxes their entire lives etc…

I really think to be allowed to vote in any jurisdiction you should be able to prove a tax burden of some type.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I would rather abolish the IRS and replace it with the fair tax so that everyone would be taxpayers, so I wouldn’t go along with that.

As I said above, I’m not for taking away anyone’s right to vote, unlike Mr. Goldberg and some of the above posters. The 18-21 year olds in this country did not create the current mess we are in. But they will be responsible for paying for it. In that sense, I think that they have even more of a right to vote than those that are currently the beneficiaries of government benefits.

Full disclosure: I voted for Bush and the GOP do-nothings since I have been able to vote, so I am part of the problem. Yes, the democrats are worse, but when it comes to our biggest deficit drivers like Medicare, Medicaid and SS, there isn’t much difference between the GOP and the democrats. I would take it a step further in that there has been no attempt by the GOP to rein in the Fed and stop the immoral printing of fiat currency to pay for these programs and results in inflation which is disproportionately borne by the poor and those that are on fixed incomes.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM

How about we go the “full Heinlein” and restrict full citizenship, including the right to vote, to those that have served in the military?

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Maybe because so little of the population serves in modern militaries.

Count to 10 on May 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM

and instead of being responsible, moral people, they are being irresponsible, immoral people.

They’re not stealing candy from babies, they’re stealing it from babies that haven’t even been conceived yet!

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:26 PM

“Uhhh, ummm…” he makes great points but he should stick to the written word.

leftnomore on May 12, 2012 at 7:27 PM

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

what if most of us don’t pay taxes because we’re out of work because we’ve been sold down the river by the ruling class

If that many people did not pay taxes, the economy would be rolling right along without central management. But, for argument’s sake, let’s assume your scenario is possible…

…at that point, the ruling class would be hanging from a lamppost.

Already the people have lost representation in our government, that’s why the cronies that our government does represent almost always get their way

I think the fundemental reason for this falls squarely on the fact that the least productive of society has been bought off. They pay no taxes, in fact, they receive the earned income credit, which is income redistribution plain and simple. They vote. This fact cannot be ignored as a cornerstone for the crumbling of our Consitutional republic.

The caucus system should be expanded. Perhaps it should be simplified, but the caucus system in the GOP primary system turns out to be the only way to have any hope of defeating the Washington crony establishment from having their way. They may be able to win the primary votes when the process is behind closed doors, but in the caucuses everybody is a witness and therefor only real people with real faces get counted.

Well, I really don’t know how to respond to that. Personally, I don’t think the caucus system can’t be rigged. Actually, I don;t think this is the problem at the party politics level. I think the was the purse-strings are controlled at individual state parties have more to do with it than anything else.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I am not advocating that. The point was that it makes more sense to me than taking away the voting rights of 18 year olds that can fight and die for this country.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 7:16 PM

That is exactly what you are saying. Let’s look at that statement again, shall we?

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

So your idea is to make anyone who is collecting Social Security or utilizing Medicare, something that they have contributed to (although not enough to cover what they use) into second class citizens by taking away their right to vote.

Senior citizens are one of the largest voting blocks in the United States, Hitler and Stalin would be proud of your ideas.

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I am not sure why but the age 26 sounds about right.

/

CW on May 12, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I agree with your point, but I think there is a legitimate argument that lowering the voting age dumbs down the electorate by lowering the overall mean voting age, thus resulting in worse monetary policy.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Under normal circumstances, if America were a moral country, then I would agree. But we’re not a moral country any longer, we are generational thieves. What I would like is some way for Americans that haven’t even been conceived yet to vote in the present so that they can have a chance to stop current day Americans from selling them out and stealing the proceeds for themselves.

That’s what the ruling class is doing already, and increasing the voting age even further will only cement the immoral nation of generational thieves that America has become in stone.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I don’t receive any of the above but here in the next 20 years or so when I do I want my contributions back with interest. Then you phuck you can have my vote.

CW on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

One way to increase the representation of the unborn in budgetary matters is if in order to raise the debt ceiling or print more money, causing inflation, it requires a super majority vote in Congress.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Were our youth responsible for this listing of federal entitlements? Read through some of these titles, some are really funny. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

mixplix on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Goldberg says in the interview that he would prefer a much higher voting age than 18,

i absolutely can’t stand anyone who says this. (i’m 21) it makes me so incredibly angry. i’m not a minor and i’m a citizen who hasn’t committed any crimes, i have the right to vote just like anyone else. no one should take it away from me.

Sachiko on May 12, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Certainly they can’t blame young people who haven’t even been born yet and can’t even vote and stick them with the bill.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Certainly not.

But, Goldberg’s point is rational. The “youth” vote is, in monolithic terms, an idiot.

I believe the health of liberty, freedom, and the economy would be relatively stronger and healthier the more the voting age is raised.

I would trust raising it more than I would trust lowering it.

I think a minimum age of 45 would render liberty, freedom, and the economy more robust than a minimum age of 35 and so on…

I don’t necessarily believe it should be done to such extremes, but to brush off Goldberg’s point as non-sense is completely blind.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Since the “youth” vote mostly for the democrat party, when you’re pointing at the “elders”, note that there are four fingers pointed back at you.

Rebar on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

..actually, only three because the thumb is technically not a finger — otherwise it would be called “the big finger” — and, anyway, it just kind of wraps around the other three fingers and points down at the feet of the person you are pointing at. And another thing..

The War Planner on May 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Were our youth responsible for this listing of federal entitlements? Read through some of these titles, some are really funny. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

mixplix on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

exactly… it’s the older generation that messed things up for us, the young generation. the older people were in charge, making the rules… now they want to take away our right to vote? are you kidding me?

Sachiko on May 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

So take away a persons right to vote until they are old enough to vote the “right” way?

EnochCain on May 12, 2012 at 7:40 PM

We’ve got a 50 year-old man slo-jamming the news & strutting around like a peacock to show the kids how “cool” and “young” he is. That not only diminishes the office of the prezzy of the united stezzy, but it just makes us all look bad.

You’re right. It seems so obviously ludicrous when you put it that way.

Alana on May 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

The willowy young blonde with the cornflower eyes and the ripe melons at my local supermarket is not an idiot.

Seth Halpern on May 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

At least, not so you would notice, given her other attributes.

Siddhartha Vicious on May 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I don’t receive any of the above but here in the next 20 years or so when I do I want my contributions back with interest. Then you phuck you can have my vote.

CW on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Well unless you’re willing to steal candy from babies that won’t have even been born yet when you retire, you had better vote against Obama and Romney. They both promise to spend all of the money you paid into the system on other things instead, so if you vote for them to do so, then you are no longer “entitled” to that money.

The only way you are entitled to money you pay into something is if you don’t withdraw it, or allow crony-politicians to withdraw it, and spend it on candy and bailouts instead.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM

As Vinny Gambini would say.

gregbert on May 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Awesome idea. If you receive SS, Medicare or Medicaid, you lose the right to vote. That makes a lot more sense than doing it by age.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Awesome idea. Let’s couple that with subsidized student loans, aid to families with dependent children, collectiong a government paycheck, living on your parents insurance (like julia), living in your parent’s home (because them might be getting social security), collecting government contraception, food stamps, and the whole host of other programs that have been designed to buy your votes. Which RELIABLY go to the democrats.

You get what you pay for. Sometimes not even that.

WryTrvllr on May 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I don’t receive any of the above but here in the next 20 years or so when I do I want my contributions back with interest. Then you phuck you can have my vote.

CW on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Well you can want in one hand and c— in the other, and see which one fills up first. You are fooling yourself if you think these entitlements will be here twenty years from now.

iwasbornwithit on May 12, 2012 at 7:46 PM

But we’re not a moral country any longer, we are generational thieves.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Monetary policy and banking in has been run by crooks and criminals since way before 1776 up until this current mess more often than not. The fiat system with an out of control Congress (voted into office by a dumbed down electorate i.e. too young ;) ) is the problem. Poor monetary policy coupled with immature fiscal policy is the culprit. I think you would agree.

One way to increase the representation of the unborn in budgetary matters is if in order to raise the debt ceiling or print more money, causing inflation, it requires a super majority vote in Congress.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM

This makes sense. Perfect sense.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

But, Goldberg’s point is rational. The “youth” vote is, in monolithic terms, an idiot.

Saltysam on May 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

If young voters are idiots, old ones are too. Most Americans are older and they vote and we are a nation of generational thieves. That is a fact. I don’t think age has much to do with it.

In fact the only people today that are fighting the immoral majority of generational thieves are Ron Paul and his supporters, and they are viciously smeared and ridiculed by supposedly “wiser” people, that are in reality a bunch of immoral bastards.

The old “moral majority” has cast it’s lot in with the immoral generational thieves. They’ve sold out young people too.

FloatingRock on May 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM

It should be the first day after 18, when you get your first pay stub

WryTrvllr on May 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I don’t have the link handy, but this reminds me of an article I read not too long ago about how a lot of churches in America are fixated on youth culture to the detriment of the church as a whole.

They are trying to lure the 20-somethings into churches by having lots of people on electric guitar on stage at worship services, or pastors with spiky hair, other things they think will draw the younger crowd in.

I can’t remember where I saw the exact article I had in mind about that, but here’s a similar page:

#108 Relevant interpretation of the dress suit

I don’t know if I’m fully on board with that blog. I am a Christian and share some of the blogger’s disdain for current trends in American Christianity, but at times her blog seems kind of condescending or disrespectful. But the photos on that page are representative of how pastors are trying to seem down with the kids these days.

TigerPaw on May 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM

The law treats 18-year-olds as fully responsible for their actions.

If that were true, why not allow 18 year old’s the right to drink?

JPeterman on May 12, 2012 at 5:56 PM

When I was young…a long time ago (heh)…the legal age for alcohol was 18 and the age requirement to vote was 21.

Things seem backwards nowadays.

kakypat on May 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4