The recent partisan censorship by the New York Times regarding Senator John McCain’s op–ed article speaks for itself regardless of the spin the Times and its champions attempt to put on it. That their censorship is unfair, especially after publishing Senator Obama’s article, and that their love for all things left and their hate of most things right is equally apparent.
But there is in this election cycle a much larger issue which is brought to mind when media manipulation is so clearly displayed. Namely, should just any citizen have the sacred right to vote? Those of us who can read and understand issues and arguments, can and often do disagree. Those of us who are able to read the New York Times and decipher what is being said, really, for the most part, have already decided what we need to know to make a decision between the two apparent major party Presidential nominees.
Even if the Times fails to gives us the other side of an argument in one particular instance, or on many, we with some intellect and some sense of caring can discern that fact and distill it further into our choice of a candidate.
In short, if you are intelligent enough to read the Times or to boycott it on purpose because of its consistent left-biased slant, you are most certainly smart enough to be a voter, whatever your ultimate choice for the election.
Sadly, as we have seen, media manipulation is a lot deeper than just the New York Times snobbery in deciding which news they feel is “fit to print.” Media manipulation occurs every day, 24-7, at the most local levels and all the way to major international content.
In the drive to get more people registered, both parties, but most especially the Democrats, do everything they can to get anybody registered who appears to “support” their cause. It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether these new registrants can speak our language or indeed have the slightest idea of any of the basic, let alone the subtle, issues of the campaign.
I saw a recent set of “man on the street” interviews in which the question of “who will you vote for” arose. Some people didn’t know who was running, some others wanted the candidate who looked “cute,” and one clueless fellow wouldn’t vote for McCain because he had heard that he was George Bush’s cousin. Probably his fogged mind had retained only a bit of the fact that Senator O’bama is apparently distantly related to Dick Cheney.
The truth is that a citizen who takes the time to study the major issues and reach a conclusion based on that study is definitely to be at least off-set by a voting citizen who will vote because he likes Obama’s tie or McCain’s fatherly white hair.
If we were in a time when issues didn’t have the basic survival implications for all of us that today’s choices most certainly do, perhaps such a voter base of both intellects and outright idiots would be just laughable. But the present era is most dangerous and the need for informed voting has never been clearer.
The Times latest censorship of John McCain’s own opinions is not the real problem, bad as it most obviously is (an opinion editorial, duh, after all should reflect the writer’s opinions and not the Times’ views). No the real problem is the dummying down of America in an effort to win at any cost.
Should we allow just anyone with a registration card to vote? In my view, we should not. There will be those who will abhor the notion that only “smart” people should be allowed to vote and how and where, they will argue, can you draw the line? Good questions, certainly, but we had better try real hard to embrace the argument and find some answers.
The vetting process can be debated and the final definitions of the “authorities” over voter legitimacy can be formulated at length to make a new system as fair as can be. But it does need to be done, and the sooner the better, because allowing really stupid people to vote for really stupid reasons or no reason at all is in itself a very bad idea.
Now notice in the commentary lines for this article who will address the concepts embraced in this article and who will instead simply attack me for having a father they didn’t like, or call me a “neo-con” (whatever that really is), or decry my Harvard education or some other utterly absurd personal attack and/or off the issue remark. Certainly that is their right
as a responding reader, and in such a small matter as this article it doesn’t much matter, but in an American presidential election, with so much at stake for the mass of humanity, does it make sense to have a voter base made up of people who in some cases haven’t the slightest idea at all what they are voting for?