We have elections for our future leaders. We educate our kids for a future in which they’ll participate. People come here from all over the world for a better future. We have a form of government designed to adapt to the future.
So – if we’re all about the future, why do we spend so much time listening to an entire political party that doesn’t believe in the future?
Don’t believe me? Democrats don’t have kids. Look at the Red/Blue states. Blue states (like the failed demi-continent of Europe) are declining in net population.
In the 2004 presidential election, “Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility (just as he did in 2000), and 25 out of the top 26, with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule. (The least prolific red states are West Virginia, North Dakota, and Florida.)
“In sharp contrast, Kerry won the 16 states at the bottom of the list, with the Democrats’ anchor states of California (1.65) and New York (1.72) having quite infertile whites.”
Obviously Blule state voters don’t believe in the future. So why does anyone listen to them about policies for that future?
It’s like voting for Obama as President of a Republic to which he won’t even pledge allegiance right? Just plain silly.
And doing everything, “For the children”? Please!
Liberals don’t have children.
That parents (Red State voters, those actually believing in the future and who, OBTW have a far higher opinion of America and our future) would listen to non-parents (Blue-state voters) instruct them about what is best for their children – our future – is mind-boggling.
Do you let bachelors instruct you on how to raise your kids?
So we have a political party in cahoots with unionized teachers to ensure our schools remain jobs programs for the few (teachers) rather than educational institutions for the many (students).
And it’s a party with no children of its own!
(Well, no young children, anyway; it’s hard to view the MoveOn.org and DU types as anything other than children – I mean they have no sense of responsibility and whine whenever they don’t get what they want – and they want it RIGHT NOW!)
Why we would let a combo union/political party that doesn’t have kids, consequently knows nothing about raising or educating them, run our schools is one of those unknowables.
Look at our schools. They’re pretty lousy, right? By every available measure we have educated our kids less-well every decade since WW2. Since WW2 every major school district in the US has been run by Democrats.
Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Look at our major cities. Bad, too, right? Every major city has been run by a Democrat City Council since WW2.
Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Here’s a proposal: Change the voting franchise.
Since voting is about choosing FUTURE policies and officials to carry them out, only let parents vote.
What’s wrong with that? You say single people and non-parents live in the society, too? So? Kids live in the society and we don’t let them vote. Foreigners live here and we don’t let them vote.
The franchise is not universal already. How about we just use some common sense and have people actually invested in the future – parents – have a say in that future?
How about telling those not invested in the future, “Thank you very much, we’ll call you when we’d like your opinion”?
Will this ever happen? Naahhh – the franchise is too ill-educated to figure this out. Or to understand why we need kids. Thank a unionized teacher.
But there are whispers out there of disenfranchising the Baby Boomers – that might be a close second.