The Democrats just can't stop trying to force open the back
door to America's voting booths. Their recent suggestions about lowering the
voting age to sixteen is just the next predictable step in their efforts to
pack the ballot box and stack the vote in their favor. It was July of 1971 when
President Richard Nixon certified the 26th Amendment to the Constitution giving
18 year-olds the right to vote. The Amendment was necessary because Oregon and
Texas had challenged the constitutionality of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that
gave 18 year-olds that right. Looking back, there was a compelling argument for
lowering the age: if young men could be drafted at 18 and be sent to war then
it was only fair that they could also vote.
The Constitution didn't make any provision for an official
voting age, so from 1787-1870 it was basically up to the states to decide who
should or shouldn't vote. There are three Amendments to the Constitution that deal with voting:
the 15th 19th and 26th, and lowering the age to 16 would require a new
Amendment just as it did in 1971. But that begs several questions about voting
in general. Why do we allow people to vote in the first place? Because we
believe that people should have the right to influence the laws that affect
them and because we're a constitutional republic that sends representatives to
Washington to make the laws that affect us and that the citizenry should be
allowed to cast votes for them.
Without spending too much time in ancient U.S. voting
history, we have always had a lively discussion about who should be able to
vote. There's the 'only property owners' argument that basically says that only
those who have an investment (property) in America should be able to vote, the
thought being that only those with something to lose should be allowed to
protect it. Contrast that with the argument popular in some liberal circles today
that everyone (even illegal aliens and those who are living here legally but are
not citizens) should have the right to vote and you can see that voting still
is a volatile issue.
What should the legal age of adulthood be and should it be
the same as the legal voting age?
THAT'S the $64,000 question. The 'National Minimum Age
Drinking Act of 1984' makes it unlawful for persons under the age of 21 to
purchase alcohol, but if you're 18 (the age of 'majority') you can be drafted
into the military. At 18 you can also sign a legally binding contract (in most
states) and get married (or divorced), but there are exceptions. AND you can
vote in local and national elections. At the age of 16, you're considered a
minor - a child - not having achieved 'majority.' You can't sign a binding
contract, be drafted, drink alcohol, or get married on your own without
parental consent. Why, then, should 16 year-olds be allowed to vote when
society says they're not ready to be regarded as adults who can be solely responsible
for their own actions?
The short answer is that the Democrats want more voters
and they know that younger voters will vote their way. Two-thirds of 18-29
year-olds voted for the Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. Only 32% voted
for Republican candidates. This is the largest voting gap in the last 25 years,
but while the Democrats won the younger vote, they lost the over-45 vote. That
says it all. To win future elections will either require more over-45 voters
voting Democratic (or hope that many of them who would vote Republican will die)
or Dems must stimulate a larger youth voter turnout (or gain more voters if the
voting age is lowered to 16).
This is part of the Dems' voter demographic strategy that
includes absolving illegal aliens of their crime of entering the U.S. (amnesty)
AND then registering them to vote. Should this happen, Republicans would suffer
a haymaker to the voter solar plexus: illegal aliens would be allowed to vote
PLUS their children would be allowed to vote, too! We all know that those new
16 year-old newly-amnestytized voters would be voting Democrat because their
parents will and because the Democrats have historically been perceived as the
party of the 'little guy', the downtrodden, the persecuted.No matter that the Democrats' voting record on civil rights
legislation has been a blemish on their party. For most people that's ancient
history and water over the dam - and long forgotten.
I don't know about you, but I remember what my sixteenth and
seventeenth years were like. Politics and civic responsibility weren't even in
the footnotes of my teenage lexicon. Had I been able to vote then (in 1960) I
probably would have voted for the 'cool' guy, John F. Kennedy. He had the
looks, the girl and the money - the political candidate's trifecta. While those
things qualified him for celebritydom, I'm pretty sure that nobody should have
voted for him because of them. Seen in the rear-view mirror of my life, I'm
really glad that my government said that while it valued my opinion I should
really keep it to myself and let it ferment a little until I reached the age of
reason. Matter of fact, considering how high school and college-age students
are acting today, we might even want to consider returning the age to 21. It's
just a thought.
Stephan Helgesen is a
former career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in thirty different countries,
specializing in export promotion. He is now a political analyst and strategist
and author of nine books and over 1,000 articles on politics, the economy and
social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com
No comments:
Post a Comment