What I’m about to write is an actual proposal made by a major Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, and discussed on Fox & Friends for how great an idea it is. It is all true. It is also all insane, but it’s still true.
I must say up front that I am sure that the candidate will insist that he wasn’t making this as a workable proposal to be enacted, but only as a foundational theory of what’s wrong in the country. And I’m sure that the “Fox News” hosts would say that they acknowledged on-air that it wasn’t actually workable, but is a foundational theory of what’s wrong in the country. The problem with all that is – workable or not, they were all discussing it as something truly, honestly, actually worth thinking about. And in reality, it’s quite insane and makes full-fascist look benign. The only thing it is – is a foundational theory of what’s profoundly, fundamentally wrong with today’s Republican Party. There is no explaining it away by “What we meant” and “You’re taking it all out of context.” That’s because it’s clear what they meant, and the full context is there on tape. They explain so in complete, precise detail. That it was discussed any further than “Hey, here’s something that’s insane, fascist, and against every concept of democracy” says all you need to know about it and them and all Republicans listening to it, nodding in agreement. And yes, I know that this is an odd, really long disclaimer with which to start, but I figured it’s best to get it out of the way up front, because as you’ll see it’s absolutely needed – and to bury it to the end would get people rolling their eyes after only a couple of paragraphs and give up and think, at best, it’s all just an early April Fool’s joke, or a parody from The Onion. So, to be clear, the point isn’t that what these far-right voices are discussing is in any manner of existence something they’ll try to contend is workable. Rather, the point is that just discussing it at length as a meaningful concept shows what the foundation of today’s Republican Party is. So, what is it? The Senate hopeful in question is J.D. Vance, a very successful venture capitalist who wrote the popular memoir, recently made into a movie, Hillbilly Elegy. He is hoping to get the Republican nomination as U.S. Senate candidate from Ohio. I wrote about him here when he said of one of the proposals in President Biden's family bill that "'Universal Day Care' is class warfare against normal people." That’s barely cracking the surface of the loony things said by Vance, who has redefined hypocrisy and pandering, even by Mitch McConnell standards – having spoken out strongly against Trump several years ago, and now has retracted all of that, saying that he fully supports everything about Trump. Last week, at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s conference on the Future of American Political Economy, Vance outdid himself, which is saying a lot, and railed against the “childless left.” "Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of the children" No, honest, he said that here n a speech that even The Federalist described as “fiery,, and much more, including naming many of the childless left who he thought worthy of denying democracy to. Mr. Vance has gone full insane and, as I said, has made full-fascist look benign. On every level this is truly nuts. His overall point – to save you having the words burned into your cornea and embedded in your head – is that childless people (apparently all of whom are on the left) don’t have a stake in the future, and so shouldn’t have a voice in it. So, let’s allow every child to have a vote, however young they are – but give full control of that vote to their parents. This raises oh-so many questions. But just for starters -- This suggests that it’s only the left that is childless, so where does that leave all those on the childless right? Does this mean all the Lindsey Grahams of the right will be unfairly disadvantaged? What if the two parents disagree on what the children’s votes should be? Who gets to break the tie? I assume that since this is a Republican idea the deciding vote would go to the father, since he’s a male. For that matter, what if the parents of a child are divorced and each of them gets remarried. Does each parent get one-quarter of the decision? Or only the natural parents? But what if a child adopted? Do the natural parents get to control the vote? Or the adoptive parents? What if it’s the natural parents, but they’re unknown? Is the child out of luck? If a mother is pregnant “with child,” does that count as being eligible for a vote? And if so, when does viability kick in for getting that vote. After the first trimester, or later? But since so many on the far-right consider a zygote to be a human life, does that still qualify, even if you can’t yet determine a child’s gender? What if one has children but sadly they died? Do they stop being their children, or can parents still control their votes in perpetuity? Do parents still get to control their child’s vote once the child turns 18? If so, does the child still get to vote themselves when they come “of age”? But wouldn’t that violate the principle of one person-one vote? However, if the now-adult can’t control their own vote because they are still officially a child, does that mean one loses controlling your own vote forever as long as your parents are alive? (But then, even once a parent dies, aren’t you still always their child?) Do parents get to control the votes of their grandchildren? Or only their immediate children? Here’s a big deal: how will the Republican Party react to black families with lots of children? And won’t this cause a huge problem for overpopulation in the country? If all children get the vote, and parents get to control the vote of those children, wouldn’t there be pressure by political parties for them members to give birth to as many votes as possible? In fact, won’t this put pressure on minors having children? And if they do, who controls the vote of that child – its parents who are minors, or their parents who are legally responsible for their minor children? Finally – well, okay, not “finally,” since there are still so many other questions – there’s one other question that impacts the very foundation of Republican Party and conservative philosophy. After all, J.D. Vance's point is that a childless adult (apparently all of whom are on the left...) has nothing at stake in the game, and so they shouldn't have a voice in voting. So, how does this insane voting theory jibe with men deciding on issues that impact only a woman's body? Or white people deciding on issues black people's lives? And what about rich people? Since they own land and other property, don’t they have more “at stake” in the country than those who are poor? Shouldn’t the rich control more votes? Yes, this is all crazy and deeply fascist. But hey, that’s J.D. Vance for you. Pandering, hypocrisy and idiocy. And the leading contender to be the Republican Party nominee for the U.S. Senate. And none of this even takes into consideration that the hosts of Fox & Friends thought this was such a great concept and discussed it with enthusiasm. (And you can watch the video of it at this link, as well.) “I think it's an interesting idea," said host Will Cain. "I'm into interesting ideas. Let's think about it. Let's talk about it. He's saying childless leaders are making decisions that are short-term in mind, not focused on the long-term future health of this country because they don't have a stake in the game. Parents have a stake in the game, they have children so give parents a bigger say. Well, for starters, no, it’s not an “interesting idea.” It’s an idiotic idea – not just on general anti-democratic principle, but because it’s totally unworkable and wildly unconstitutional and could never be implemented. It’s also idiotic because it’s based on Vance’s unsupportable idea that he pulled from his butt that only parents think about long-term health of the country. Never mind that many parents are probably thinking about struggling with today and paying today’s bills for their family, trying to figure out how to get their children in college, not how to get other people’s children in college, too – while those without children (including young adults not yet even married) have more freedom and flexibility in their lives to think about making this a better world. But then, the reality is that having children has little to do with whether you think about making this a better world. In fact, I’d suggest that “making this a better world” is the foundation of liberalism, while holding on to what’s good in the past is the core of conservatism. "I don't know about that solution, that seems not feasible," said co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy who has nine children. "But I will say that I agree with the premise of it, that it is absolutely true that people like [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], Pete Buttigieg -- you can name the left-wing politicians, people who think that we should legalize marijuana because they don't have kids and they don't really have a stake in what that looks like." On the positive end, Ms. Campos-Duffy had the presence of mind to acknowledge that this idiotic, insane idea doesn’t “seem” feasible. By the way, I don’t know the public position that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez or Sec. Buttigieg have taken on legalizing marijuana. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Campos-Duffy does either. But even if she does, I would suggest strongly that the only politicians throughout the country who think we should legalize marijuana are not just those without kids. In fact, many probably support such a proposal specifically because they do have kids and know exactly what “that looks like.” Host Cain decided to jump back in and exacerbate his already nutty position. "And if you're Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- our favorite comrade -- and you've said the world is going to end in 12 years, what do you care?" he continued. I have never seen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even hint that the world was going to end in 12 years. And I’m certain that Will Cain hasn’t either. But I would add that if she ever did, her point would not be, “Well, let’s give up and just smoke pot,” but rather – “Folks, we have to do something right now to make absolutely sure that doesn’t happen!!!” And that’s without even considering his smarmy “our favorite comrade” crack. Never mind that Republicans have been trying to smear liberals with this tripe for 70 years since Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) helped pave the way for the fascist Blacklist. And never mind, too, that Mr. Cain clearly doesn’t show a clue that he knows what a communist is – and that’s most-definitely not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But if he actually is as virulently anti-communist as he wants you to believe, then he should have been outraged by Trump sending love letters to Chinese President Xi, North Korea’s Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il and playing fealty to Vladimir Putin. But of course, he’s been silent about that. Because he’s clueless. Again, none of this is has anything to do with whether J.D. Vance can actually push through a law where all children have the vote but their parents control those votes. Nor whether support of this by “Fox News” has any meaning. He can’t and it doesn’t. But it speaks to who today’s far-right fascist Republican Party is because they think it’s a great idea, if only. And a "great idea" without even thinking it through. I don't just mean all those question I asked above that they clearly haven't thought through, but I mean this -- why in the world does J.D. Vance and the Fox & Friends hosts and probably so many of their viewers think this is a :great idea" because there are most Republican children in America???!!! If Republicans actually thought there were more Republicans and Republican children in the country, they not only wouldn't be trying to pass voter suppression laws, the would be doing everything they could to make 100% sure that as many Americans could vote as possible. But they don't do that. Because they seem to think that there as a lot more Democrats in the country than Republicans. And they think it's "great idea" to get even more Democrats to vote, by giving parents the votes of their children? Great, swell. That's how totally unthinking these far-right fascists are. But here's the thing -- even though I think Democrats would wildly benefit from this proposal...I think it's idiotic, anti-democratic and if any Democratic politician ever was crazy enough to suggest it, I be as virulent in saying this. But then this is a pure GOP fascist thing. "Do you want to pass AOC's America off to America or J.D. Vance's?" Ms. Campos-Duffy asked. "American Marxists want to tear down the American family." Given that J.D. Vance’s America is fascist, unconstitutional, insane and wildly unworkable, I don’t believe that any American should want to pass that off as the country future. And given that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s America is of a sustainable future that benefits everyone – Democrat and Republican alike – and wants to promote fairness and equality to all – Democrat and Republican alike, whether you have children or not – promotes and tries to pass laws to end child poverty with child tax credits, give parental pregnancy leave extensions, pushes education, offers programs to end child hunger and much more -- with one vote (and one vote only) for every qualified American, that seems to be a far, far, far better answer. Because, also, America’s fascists want to tear down America.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|