Have you ever wondered why minors are not allowed to vote? We have all met 17 year olds who are more informed, mature and consciences than many adults. No one can deny that minors are human beings with as much right to life as anyone else. This is certainly a self-evident truth. They also have as much or more at stake concerning the decisions made at the voting booths. How then do we justify denying this important cohort suffrage?
Essentially, it boils down to stereotyping, which is a function of good old-fashioned common sense. It is assumed through thousands of years of empirical evidence passed down to us from our ancestors that minors, more commonly known as children, are generally immature. Basically, adults who hold all the power believe children are not sophisticated enough to vote.
If children were allowed to vote, it is assumed, our society would become imperiled because we would be more likely to elect politicians that make bad decisions. Children, according to adults, are not sophisticated enough to understand what is important. They would, the reasoning goes, vote for unsophisticated politicians who would make bad decisions for everyone.
Imagine the spectacle of the political system resulting from adults entering into an arrangement of political equivalence with children. One can imagine politicians going on the Barney show – probably giving Barney a kiss (sound familiar?). There would probably be a push for a nationally mandated minimum allowance or even universal ice cream coverage.
Although these examples are relatively benign in and of themselves, collectively, an indolent and pathologic process would result from politicians pandering to the youthful vote. Public discourse and ,eventually, the essence of society would change. Important issues would be marginalized. As a result, society would deteriorate. Ultimately, we would be faced with one of two options: 1.disenfranchise children and have a chance to save ourselves or 2. embrace the fantasy of equality for all at the expense of civilization.
If the loopy left ever decided to start a movement for children's suffrage, their arguments would be purely factual but utterly nonsensical. They would argue that the power of the older majority was used to discriminate against the younger minority. This would be unequivocally true. They would argue that conclusions about minors are based on stereotypes, which would also be true. Basically, they would use facts that appeal to emotions. As always, their arguments would be devoid of logic and based in superficial analysis. This technique is what I like to refer to as factual emotionalism.
Their rhetoric would provide anecdotal evidence of brilliant children contributing to society. The leftist media would be saturated with television shows and movies demonstrating the drudgery and oppression of childhood. Soon age discrimination (maybe called birth order discrimination in PC language) would be a sin with any proponent being labeled an extremist. Denying children the right to vote would be widely denounced and any proponent of this oppressive system would be an immoral hate monger.
There would be no way to counter their illogical arguments without presenting an honest defense of stereotypes as a necessarily efficient thought process for survival based in the reality of nature. Not only do groups have tendencies or typical behavior, group averages often impact society more than behavior by a few at the extremes. Order, efficiency and pragmatism mandates stereotyping. Ultimately, the maintenance of civilization itself relies on this much-maligned way of thinking.
Fortunately, the left has not (yet) made this argument concerning age discrimination. It is generally understood, although not explicitly stated, that the discrimination against and stereotyping of minors is based in common sense, and ultimately, necessity justifies it. Adults care about children and have established a system based in pragmatism to ensure that the best possible decisions are made for them.
It is my opinion, that if we truly love our children and desire a system sophisticated enough to plan for the future and disciplined enough to show self-restraint, we should honestly reassess this experiment called America. We should realize that the line of suffrage is an arbitrary one that should ultimately be based in pragmatism rather than the dreams of utopists. What will it take to accomplish this? It will take the return of a stereotype that nature has required for human civility – a society filled with stereotypical men of honor, guided by common sense, who do not melt when presented with factual emotionalism and who are willing, if necessary, to physically resist a tyrannical, internecine system based in anti-logic.
November 14, 2000
John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.
