What the Democrats’ Reactionary Views on Voting Actually Mean

The Democrats appear poised to win control of one or both houses of Congress. So it’s a good time to revisit the Democrats' reactionary designs on our electoral process, especially now that their party is increasingly captured by the radically counter-Enlightenment, Marxist-oriented anti-American Democratic Socialists of America, whose agenda includes totalitarian Democracy fundamentalism. 

In a leadup to Martin Luther King Jr. day, 2022, President Joe Biden gave a rousing speech in Georgia pushing his party’s so-called Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,* which combines the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But this was no mere campaign-style speech. Biden dove right into the thick of political philosophy, reaching straight back to the Founding of America. In doing so, Biden clearly and explicitly exposed the reactionary premises of the Democratic Party.

After falsely claiming voting rights across America as under threat from laws like Georgia’s new voting law as, Biden’s philosophic treason comes into full view:

The filibuster has been weaponized and abused.

Today I’m making it clear: To protect our democracy, I support changing the Senate rules, whichever way they need to be changed — (applause) — to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights.  (Applause.)  

When it comes to protecting majority rule in America, the majority should rule in the United States Senate.  

I make this announcement with careful deliberation, recognizing the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. [My emphasis]

This is nothing short of a repudiation of America and its Enlightenment roots. The Declaration of Independence states clearly, in these “magnificent words” as per Doctor Martin Luther King Jr., 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . [my emphasis]

This is not mere rhetorical flourish. America has never been about majority rule. The idea of unalienable Rights and the government’s sole purpose to “to secure these rights” is deeply rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, led by John Locke, embraced by America’s Founding Fathers, and ultimately, clarified and solidified by 20th Century philosopher Ayn Rand. The principle of individual rights is derived from man’s individual nature as a rational being, and precedes government. The truth is the exact opposite of Biden’s reactionary formulation: Man’s  fundamental inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are the rights from which all other rights—including the right to vote—flow.

After railing against Trump and his supporters for attempting to commandeer “the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies,” Biden announces that rights are privileges granted by government, a foundational power of totalitarian states. This is not a power of constitutional republics such as, in its Founding ideals—the very same ideals drawn on by King in support of his Civil Rights Movement—the United States of America!

So what does it mean, in practice, when “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow?” It means majority rule. Mob rule. When rights flow from the right to vote, then all rights flow from the government—and the flow goes both ways.

• It means the “rights” of majorities to vote minorities into slavery, which was a plank of the antebellum Democratic Party. 

• It means the “rights” of majorities, or the majority’s elected representatives, to force unwilling citizens to fund political campaigns. 

• It means the power to vote in governments to grant “rights” to material benefits, such as healthcare or education, that take away the rights of the citizens who are forced to provide and/or fund them—selectively, as in the regulatory welfare state, or across the board, as in a fully socialist country

• It means the “right” of voters to install sharia law, violating the right to freedom of religion.

• It means that Jim Crow laws were legitimate, democratically legitimate. Those laws were established by elected representatives--and, for a time upheld by the courts.

• It means endorsing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade because it made a women’s right to abortion a matter of democratic vote rather than inalienable. 

That’s exactly the evil that the Founders abolished. When the British government began systematically to take away the colonists’ “rights of Englishmen,” the Founders realized that there must be a firmer foundation for rights than the benevolent whims (or lack of) of a King or other ruling authority, including the rule of elected legislatures. They found that firm foundation for the preservation of their rights in the theory of natural rights, a product of The Enlightenment; the theory that man by his very nature, and his relationship to broader nature, requires the freedom to take the actions necessary for the furtherance of his life, secured by, in the words of John Locke, inalienable individual rights.  

The Democratic Party, along with the Confederate intellectuals, rejected those principles by radically reinterpreting the Founding of America as a Democracy, not a constitutional republic. The Democrats haven’t changed their stripes. They claimed rights were grants of state authority, derived from the vote, rather than from the laws of nature, and their elected governments deprived blacks their rights—The fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow--or not flow, as elected representatives deemed to declare. Today, on Democratic Party reactionary premises, an entire country can be voted into socialist slavery. The Democratic Party has Democratic Socialists embedded within. Venezuela elected and re-elected socialist leaders Chavez and Madura, and rights were systematically stripped away--voted away--turning Venezuela into an unfree, impoverished basket case. 

That’s what you get when you declare that rights come from the state--that the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. As we can clearly see in theory and in practice, a government from which rights flow is also a government from which rights can recede. Biden has it backwards. In fact, in a Democracy as conceived by Biden, the right to vote is the “right” that puts all other rights at risk.

Then came the final outrage of Biden’s philosophic treason. Biden framed the debate over his Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act in apocalyptic demagoguery—as a choice of democracy over autocracy, light over shadows, justice over injustice; as a choice for or against voter suppression, election subversion, and democracy. With a straight face, Biden dropped the hammer on opponents:

So, I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered? 

At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to be the si- — on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?  Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor?  Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

It was the Confederate intelligentsia that repudiated the ideal of inalienable individual rights, or natural rights theory, and reconceived America as a Democracy under which all rights flow from government—to protect their slavocracy. Who, then, is siding with the president of the slaveholding Confederacy, Jefferson Davis? Biden’s belief that “the fundamental right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow,” a principle upon which his Justice Department is basing its lawsuit against the state of Georgia over that state’s new election law, dovetails seamlessly with the philosophy of the Slave Power centered in Confederate States of America and its Democratic Party allies. 

To Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, election to political office in America is not an honorable job that entails doing the legal work of securing the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. To today’s democratic socialist Democrats, like the antebellum Democrats and the Jim Crow Democrats and the welfare state Democrats, getting elected to political office is a license for totalitarian power—to the extent they can get away with it—to do the work of deciding what rights are, who gets them, who doesn’t, and to enforce those “rights” through legal coercion. While pretending to be on the side of mid-twentieth century civil rights crusaders, Biden is actually on the opposite side philosophically. Whereas Martin Luther King Jr., for all of his mixed and inconsistent politics, was squarely on the side of the Founding principles. Joe Biden has chosen the opposite side. 

In case you think this is hyperbole, consider that Biden’s view is precisely affirmed by his own Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland, and by his Vice President, Kamala Harris, during her presidential candidacy. Since philosophy is the primary engine of history, who, then, is the real Protégé of Jefferson Davis? Add to this the fact that, as political scholar Michael Barone reminds us, “George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis were all partisan Democrats.” 

There is plenty more that is bad about the Democrats’ attempt to enact their election reforms. I covered the bad elements in my post HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy. Some version of the Democrats’ “Voting Rights” bill has been kicking around Congress for years. For now, it remains stalled. Let’s hope it never becomes law, and fight to kill it.

* (This bill remains stalled in Congress.)

Related Reading:

HR-1 is An Assault on Free Speech, Property Rights, Freedom of Conscience, and Privacy

The Democrats’ Anti-Free Speech Bill HR-1—the ‘For the People Act’—is Still a Threat

The Dangerous Totalitarian Premise Underpinning the Justice Department’s Suit Against Georgia’s New Election Law

Harris's Unchanged anti-American Values

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right. 

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Understanding the Role of the Senate Filibuster

Jesse Jackson’s Big Lie: ‘American Democracy is Under Siege’

A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand edited by Jonathan Hoenig

New Jersey’s Racist John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act

New Jersey has gone full collectivist—especially racist—on the Democratic process. On July 2, 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act.

What does that law do? According to the AI summary of BillTrack50,

This bill, known as the "John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act of New Jersey," aims to strengthen voting rights and prevent voter suppression and dilution, particularly for "protected classes" which include racial, color, or language-minority groups. It establishes the public policy of New Jersey to maximize voter participation and ensure equal opportunity for all eligible voters, especially those in protected classes, to engage in the political process. [my emphasis]

This is a reaction to the SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which overturned a racially gerrymandered Congressional district because it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voter discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in language minority groups. 

The Left’s hysterical mantra has been that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been neutered, eviscerated, weakened, or even repealed, even though no one’s rights have been weakened, compromised, or otherwise violated. We had, and still have, equal voting rights for all—the proverbial, ironclad rule “one man, one vote” principle.

No one has been restricted from “engaging in the political process,” which involves more than voting, like campaign donations, issue advocacy, campaigning for a candidate, or debating fellow citizens. (It’s interesting that Democrats would use that terminology, since it is they who would restrict people from engaging in the political process, through various campaign finance legal restrictions, and fighting to overturn pro-free speech SCOTUS rulings like Citizen’s United.)

So, what gives?

The Left has snuck in a sinister gimmick—switching the concept of voting rights from the individual to the collective. Reread the summary of the NJ law. There are no, and cannot be, “protected classes” in the United States of America. America is explicitly a nation built on the unalienable rights of the individual, not the group, and for which our government is legally bound to secure equally for all. But by the Left’s standards, certain groups or classes get the special privilege of being virtually guaranteed the election of politicians of its favored race, skin complexion, or language. (What of ideas, policy, character, or political philosophy of the candidates?) And what of the individuals who make up the dissenting minorities within those privileged classes, who have no such guarantee? What of un-”protected” classes? What of the equal protection of the laws? What is the unsaid premise behind such hideous laws as that of New Jersey, which are intended to rig certain elections in favor of certain politically privileged “protected” voting demographics? That unsaid premise amounts to, “All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others.”

There are no, and can logically never be, such a thing as collectivized voting rights, or collectivized rights of any kind. As the great American philosopher Ayn Rand has observed, 

Any group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the rights of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free association and free trade. (By legitimate, I mean: noncriminal and freely formed, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)

The notion of collective rights (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that rights belong to some men, but not to others; that some men have the right to dispose of others in any manner they please and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine rests on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like The Divine Right of Kings or on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

Of course, the “protected classes” are created by political fiat—i.e., by force—in which no individual member of that group was given a chance to consent or not. Thus, the “protected classes” are groups of individuals who are forced to join, whether they choose to or not.

Oh, well. It makes perfect sense from the standpoint of the Left’s long-held tribal narrative—That so-called “people of color” are an inferior human breed who need government favoritism to make it in a free society. As I noted in a Facebook post:

The violent Leftist reaction to the ruling also affirms the fundamental racial/collectivist orientation of the Left and the Democratic Party (I deliberately chose the NYT article to demonstrate this). That political block sees every issue through a lens of race. But, MEMO to the Left: dark skinned people are INDIVIDUALS, each with a mind of their own, capable of deciding FOR THEMSELVES how to vote, just like every other person. They are not some homogenous colored herd with some collective brain that they must be told they must follow.

Don’t believe the way most of the press is characterizing this ruling. This [SCOTUS] decision is a great outcome.

To demonstrate how the misrepresentation gets traction, consider the wording of these clips. From Supreme Court no ‘rubber stamp’ for Trump, Kagan says

While standing up for her conservative colleagues, Kagan did express disappointment with many of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, including what she termed the “evisceration of the Voting Rights Act.” 

The link connects to a Politico report:

From Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court significantly narrowed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a 6-3 ruling Wednesday, further eroding the impact of the landmark civil rights-era law.

For decades, Section 2 — a provision that broadly outlawed discrimination in voting on the basis of race — has been interpreted to allow, and sometimes demand, the use of race-conscious data in redistricting, to protect the voting power of minorities.

Note the glaring contradiction. The “key provision” that was allegedly “significantly narrowed” was Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But it was not actually Section 2 that was narrowed. It was a particular interpretation of Section 2—an interpretation that actually twisted the Voting Rights Act “to allow, and sometimes demand, the use of race-conscious data in redistricting, to protect the voting power of minorities” rather than individuals, a provision that is not found anywhere in the actual 1965 Act. What does the Act actually say?

Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act “prohibits voting practices or procedures [like redistricting?] that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act. [My emphasis]

New Jersey’s new John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act, which is intended as a counterweight to the “voter suppressing” SCOTUS ruling, is actually a hideous law that actually weakens the voting rights of individuals.

Clearly, Politico’s reporting is the most accurate. Note that the Act refers to “the right of any citizen to vote,” NOT the “right” of any citizen to rig an election so someone of his race or color can win. No citizen’s right to cast his vote was denied, abridged, or “eviscerated” by the SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. What was eviscerated was the hideous practice of race-based redistricting—a resounding victory for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the equal right of all citizens to vote.

Related Reading:

Woke Redistricting Madness in NJ

Did SCOTUS Promote or Reject Racism in Alabama Redistricting Case?

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice by Craig Biddle for The objective Standard

Democracy Wouldn’t Be a Gamble if American Principles are Adhered to.

Theodore R. Johnson posted a thoughtful pre-election op-ed in the Washington Post titled Black voters are joining a coalition. It’s always a gamble. “Black voters,” Johnson writes, “must always wonder whether their partners at the ballot box will remain partners after a victory” :

Black voters keep a watchful eye for these signs. Their trust in democracy — both the system and the people who operate it — is hard-earned. For them, choosing the right coalition partners has not been just a question of policy wins but a matter of life and death. The same system that legislated slavery and Jim Crow became the tool that secured rights and opportunity. This checkered past gives their politics a pronounced pragmatism, rooted in an understanding that Black people in America fare best when the federal government makes civil rights a priority. Their numbers and political solidarity give them electoral power — valuable even to those who might despise them.

My emphasis highlights a crucial philosophical observation that begs the question: “Is the American system both the ‘system that legislated slavery and Jim Crow’ and the system that protects civil rights the same?” Are they even compatible? Put differently, did the Founders create a Democracy, which means unlimited majority rule with our individual rights determined by vote? Or did they create a constitutionally limited republic that limits democratic power and prioritizes individual rights, which means rights are unalienable and thus outside the authority for any electoral majority to infringe? 

I posted these comments:

Democracy wouldn’t have to be a gamble if American principles are adhered to. Yes, democracy can enslave people or subjugate them under segregation. Or it can liberate them, all based on the vagaries of electoral outcomes. Democracy unconstrained by constitutional protections for individual rights is fundamentally totalitarian. That’s democracy. 

But it’s not America. 

America is the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes that fundamental intellectual, political, and economic individual rights to life, liberty, and property are equal and universal, are unalienable, and precede government. A constitution based on these principles protects us from the three basic governmental manifestations of tyranny identified by James Madison; the tyranny of the one (autocracy), of the few (aristocracy), or of the many (democracy). The U.S. Constitution, despite its flaws, is intended to implement these principles and thus secure our liberties by limiting the powers of the government.

That’s why it’s crucial to recognize that America is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democracy. Slavery and Jim Crow—and, now, the steadily encroaching “soft” tyranny of the regulatory welfare state—result when people calling themselves Americans abandon the Founding principles, and declare that America is a democracy. But no one’s rights should ever be determined by majority vote. We must recommit to the principles of the Declaration and the legislative power-limiting intent of the Constitution so that elections no longer have to be a gamble on our civil liberties. 

Related Reading:

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Abortion Rights and Majority Rule

Rights and Democracy

Constitutional Republicanism: A Counter-Argument to Barbara Rank’s Ode to Democracy

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur

QUORA: Why does the Pledge of Allegiance say the USA is Republican not Democratic?

Senator Mike Lee is Right: America ‘is not a Democracy’

Why I Declined to Wear My ‘I Voted’ Sticker

Yes. These lapel stickers were handed out at New Jersey polling stations. In fact, my poll worker went a step further; she peeled off the backing and stuck the sticker on my shirt as I was about to enter the voting booth. But I removed it from my shirt before I was even out the door. Why? To protest the vote--specifically, the outsized importance that voting has come to acquire.

In its Founding principles, America is a nation based on the primacy of liberty--the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are regarded as guarantees to freedom to take the actions the individual deems necessary to achieve one’s goals and values. Rights are not an automatic claim on goods or services that others must be forced to provide. America’s government was instituted to secure these rights. Importantly, the right to vote is not among these fundamental rights. It is a secondary right derived from the need for free people to manage its government, and therefore strictly limited in scope. Voters could make certain political choices, such as choosing their political representatives. But the inalienable rights of individuals were outside the scope of electoral power.

But beginning around 1900, this republican orientation of government--first come rights, then comes limited government, then comes the vote--came under severe attack by the Progressive Movement. Instead of its primary function to protect individual rights, so-called Progressive ideology asserted that the government would represent “the will of the people” as determined by electoral victors. Thus began the radical transformation of America from a republic to a democracy, which increasingly subjected individual rights to the mercy of victorious electoral factions. As the Progressives’ democracy gained ground, more and more of our freedom gave way to electoral tyranny. 

Today, the radical transformation of our individual rights-oriented republican constitution into a “will-of-the-people” democratic constitution is close to complete. The result is that elections now are pitched battles between opposing factions eager to force their values on everyone else. In this “cold” civil war, defenders of individual rights and limited government are caught in the crossfire.

Case in point: Consider Amy Goldstein’s Three deep red states vote to expand Medicaid, published in The Washington Post after the 2018 midterm elections. She “reports”:

Citizen power propelled the biggest expansion of Medicaid in heavily Republican states since the early years of the Affordable Care Act, with hundreds of thousands of poor and vulnerable residents standing to gain health coverage as a result of Tuesday’s elections.

Voters in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah approved ballot initiatives to include in their Medicaid programs adults with incomes of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line. The results accomplish a broadening of the safety-net insurance that the states’ legislatures had balked at for years. [My Emphasis]

Notice the generalization. “Citizen power propelled. . .” “Voters approved. . .” Which citizens? Which voters? Not all citizens. Not all voters. “Citizen power. . .” What is the nature of that power? The power of government; which means, the power of law; which means, the power of physical force--i.e., the gun. Which means, the majority of voters get to force their values on the minority who did not vote to expand Medicaid. Medicaid is a wealth redistribution program. Expanding Medicaid imposes additional costs on taxpayers--the citizens who actually pay taxes--whether they want to pay the additional cost or not. Medicaid is government-enforced “charity,” and the citizens who voted no are deprived of their moral right to judge for themselves whether to give. Why? Because other individuals voted differently, and their voting bloc outnumbered those who voted against.

These three “deep red states” did not “vote to expand Medicaid.” The simple, brutal fact is that a majority of citizens voted to impose, by force, their values on those who disagreed.

It’s not just about money. Forcing people to pay for something against their will can violate their freedom of conscience, as well. By forcing people to pay for public schools, you are not just imposing monetary costs of thousands of dollars a year. You are forcing people to support educational philosophies and curricula they may not agree with. There is no room for conscientious objectors.

These are a few examples. But the areas of voter coercion are expanding, especially considering the increasingly influential Democratic Socialist wing of the Democratic Party, which is now openly calling for the full enslavement of the healthcare profession (single payer, or Medicare-for-All), “free’ college, “guaranteed” employment, and a host of other encroachments on our freedom.

What feeds this frenzy of statism? A hideous political philosophy that constitutes the ideological heart of democracy--the idea that society is above the moral law, meaning that citizens in their capacity as government officials are not bound by the same laws or moral restraints that private individuals must adhere to. This premise means that morality is determined by society, by way of elections, which means that morality is determined by government. This means, in principle, that whatever the politicians choose to do is moral because they chose to do it. It’s a modern reincarnation of the “Divine Right of Kings”--the idea that the King is representative of God’s will, who is the sole arbiter of moral action. The modern version might be called the “Divine Right of Majorities,” with “society” replacing God as the sole arbiter of moral action. Thus, if your neighbor robs you at gunpoint to pay for some poor person’s healthcare, hers or someone else’s, the neighbor would rightfully be arrested, charged with theft, prosecuted, and sentenced by government officials. But if that same neighbor votes for politicians who pass laws to rob you at gunpoint to pay for some poor person’s healthcare, it is right because of . . . an election. Instead of law protecting you from the criminal, the law protects the criminal.

We have reached the point where whatever the government chooses to do is moral, for no other reason than that its elected officials chose to do it. This is wrong, with dangerous ramifications--and the reason for my symbolic refusal to wear the sticker. I don’t mean to say that the vote is not an important procedure. I haven’t missed a midterm or presidential election in decades, if ever. But it is just that--a procedure for free people to select the political leaders and decide certain kinds of public issues. I protest what is essentially the weaponization of the vote, which placed our liberty and property rights at the mercy of elections. 

It’s noteworthy to observe that the one major area of our lives that is electorily out of bounds is religion. No one can force their religious beliefs on you, or force you to pay for others’ religious observances. Why? Because we have an explicit doctrine, laid out in the First Amendment--the separation of religion and state. If government is to be pushed back within its proper bounds, we need more separations--the separation of economics and state; of education and state; of science and state; of healthcare and state; of charity and state--so no one can force their values in these and other areas of life on us, and force us to pay for them. Freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live your life by your own judgement and values regardless of anyone else’s vote.

Related Reading:

What does it Mean to Say: "We'll Have to Agree to Disagree?"

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

Abortion Rights and Majority Rule

F.A. Harper: The Greatest Threat to Liberty Is the Idea That Democracy Guarantees Freedom

[D]emocracy is not the defining characteristic of the idea that became America—liberty is. Democracy is important only insofar as it serves and defends liberty.

Are We Now a Nation of Moochers and Thieves?

Our Pick-Pocket Nation

Related Viewing:

What Are Rights and Where Do They Come From? by Harry Binswanger

RELATED INTEREST:

The Purpose of Politics: No More Politics!--HURD

The more involved a government becomes in the everyday lives of people, the more it matters who will run that government. Because, after all, the people in politics and government are the ones who will dominate most of what goes on in your daily life.

Do Partisans Hate Each Other More Than Ever?: Scholars try to explain today's political warfare.

"Social sorting of the American electorate has been, on balance, normatively bad for American democracy," Mason concludes. "The voting booths are increasingly occupied by those who fiercely want their side to win and consider the other party to be disastrous.…As long as a social divide is maintained between the parties, the electorate will behave more like a pair of warring tribes than like the people of a single nation, caring for their shared future."