Michael Kadish
Final Essay
Political Philosophy of Pluralism
5\23\99
Among philosophers' belief as to what a democracy is, there is a line of division that supercedes normal clarifications. Simply, one group has the rules of a democracy that has never been put to the test, while the second group manages to let most modern civilized nations be dubbed "Democracies." The general rules for this second group are that the governed decide on the laws that rule them, by voting. All of the polis, the citizens, can vote, save three groups; those without homes, those who are ruled mentally incapable, and minors.
Despite the fact that she is legally, and Constitutionally, a republic, this second group of thinkers considers The United States of America a democracy. Via indirect elections, any citizen of a state can vote for most of their local, state, and National Leaders. The same restrictions as above apply to limit the voters. Those who do not have a home cannot vote for logistical reasons; there is no place to mail the necessary forms to, furthermore, they do not pay taxes. Mentally incompetent people cannot vote because doctors have decided that they are not able to make choices to help themselves, which is the point of Democracy. Then there is the third group. Minors cannot vote.
I have been fruitlessly looking for a suitable reason for this, and have been unable to find one. I feel that the arguments for allowing children to vote heavily outweigh any restrictions on them participating in the voting process.
The intent of this paper is to argue to the various schools of philosophy, showing the merits of lowering the voting age. This is not a Swiftian "A Modest Proposal" type essay. This is, in my opinion, a legitimate argument that should be reviewed by politicians.
First, however, let me lay out the basic arguments for the Minor Vote, as the validity of the arguments, I hope, could sway the major philosophical schools we have discussed in class. Since Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776 that, "All men are created equal," America has since allowed three large voting blocks to be given the right to vote. During the Reconstruction of the 1860s and '70's, African Americans were allowed to vote. Then, a little less than a century ago, Native Americans were finally given the right to vote. Then, in the 1920s, women were finally given the right to vote. The African-Americans and the Native Americans were given citizenship when it was realized that they deserve full citizenship like anybody else, after being mistreated, abused, and considered inferior for so long. They were to pay taxes like any other citizen, and, so too, were given a say in who should govern them.
With women, the vote was given to them when it was realized that men were not of a superior gender, and that women could decide on their own, who would be the best to represent them.
This fourth group that I have brought forward has had all of the above and more to contend with. As it stands now, regardless of age, any US citizen must pay taxes. However, a minor, not only is refused the right to vote, none of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights can be invoked in school, nor anywhere else.
Students cannot express or practice their religion, speak freely, offer uncensored writings, have an unmoderated peaceful private assembly, nor petition for a redress of grievances. They cannot bear arms. Having no personal residence, quartering is not a problem, but search and seizure is normal at schools. Students do not have a "right to remain silent," and they ARE put in double jeopardy-first by the school, then by courts. There are no jury of peers, merely the decisions of tyrannical administrators. The seventh amendment does not apply, but the eighth, and its restriction of "cruel and unusual punishment" can be seriously questioned. The lack of rights makes the ninth irrelevant, and the tenth is a matter of states' rights. Minors are ignored by all of the rights offered to them.
Nevertheless, they are citizens. They pay taxes. Many work. They might not own their residences, but they have a residence. They are rational human beings. They have been continuously ignored, mistreated, and overlooked by the political powers that be. The school system is a joke, and politicians do not seem to offer any new ideas.
Obviously, not all of the rights mentioned above should be given to minors in full. However, the fact is that they are unfairly treated as second class citizens. If given the right to vote, they could at least see to it that their situation improves. As is it stands, there appears no improvement for them. With a vote, this should change.
The idea that children should be able to vote is such a radical idea that it seems absurd. 125 years ago, it was considered entirely mad to consider giving women the right to vote. 1 The same knee-jerk reaction occurs today at the thought of minors' votes. However, just as the objections to women votes were found flawed, so too the flawed objections to lowering the voting age demonstrates the legitimacy of the concept. Each objection that I have encountered is easily countered, and the dialogue has often brought new arguments for my side.
"They'll vote for whomever their parents vote for."
Possibly. Certainly, some will. However, as it stands, a significant number of the presently voting public does this as it is. Some minors may vote for whom their parents vote for. Some may intentionally vote in opposition to their parents as a form of rebellion. However many minors can and do think for themselves. They often see things differently than their parents. It was Winston Churchill who said, "A conservative below the age of forty has no heart, and a liberal over forty has no brain."
I am certain that these people will be able to make choices for themselves.
"Children will not be able to understand the complexity of the issues."
As it stands now, most Americans do not have any idea where Kosovo is.2 Perhaps children will not be able to fully comprehend the great significance of the President's sex life. However, with the possibility of current events being taught in school, minors are potentially more capable of understanding the issues than their parents. It would also be fantastic if politicians were to appear on MTV or Nickelodeon to present themselves to a significant segment of the population. Children would be considered a voting block, not just another promise, but somebody to offer promises to.
"Children will just vote for their TV idols"
It would be disturbing if Ernest or Marilyn Manson would be given a spot in the political arena. As it stands now however, there are three former NFL players in Congress, two former actors, and an astronaut.3 Only due to his early death does the singer of "I got you Babe" not represent his Californian district. An actor was president, Shirley Temple is an ambassador.4 In 1976 we had a former college football star run for president against a former ABA star in the Republican primaries.
This is nothing new. Bud Abbott was elected mayor of his town in the 40's.5 People vote for their childhood heroes. Will this increase though, with minors voting? A little, but I do not think it would be that much. A minors' vote will not create Land of the Giants. Minors will be a segment of the population, nothing more. Giving women the vote, this block constitutes half the country, did not enable females to overrun the political system; they are merely a segment. They will effect the system, but do not have the numbers, especially with the growing life-spans, to turn the whole system on its ear.
"They won't take it seriously."
The governor of Minnesota is a former professional wrestler. He was a cinderella candidate from a third party. Howard Stern ran for governor of New York in '96. He was ahead in the polls until he quit the race, because he refused to announce his previous year's income.6 The same holds true here, as does above. The protest\mockery vote is there, sometimes it wins. Minors may influence or add to it. But they won't be able to do it single-handedly. The same holds true for the concept of childish promises. If somebody runs, promising "no more homework or brussel sprouts," they will not get a majority of the whole populations support.
"They aren't intelligent enough to make the choices/are not fully functioning humans."
As it stands, the average minimum IQ required to be considered functional to vote is 45 to 55. 7To have an IQ of 50 is to have the intelligence of a seven-year-old. 8 I, personally, feel that the vote should be at least eight, an age where most will be able to read at an acceptable level. If an immigrant has to wait seven years to vote, certainly a child can wait.
Furthermore, the human body peaks, creating a parabola of its capabilities. There is nothing prohibiting senior citizens over a certain age from voting. If they can decide the leaders who will make choices that the senior citizens won't see the effects of, it would seem all the more prudent to allow those who will receive the results of the politicians decisions, the right to vote. In the same line, if retirees vote, minors, who though at the very least have strong working restrictions, should not have their lack of employment be made an issue.
"What's it really going to do?"
It's a first step. People will be able to decide their own destinies. Such is the right of a democracy.
"The next step is letting animals vote?"
If the animals are citizens with passports, pay taxes, considered as rational as human beings, and have an understanding of the political system, then perhaps.
"Teachers will be bribed"
Maybe this way, teachers might get decent salaries. More to the point however, it is then the responsibility of both sides to inform minors, to visit them personally. If they can counter the teacher's perspectives, they should.
"Why, these kids today�"
There does seem to be a certain feeling that all, or most, minors are gunpacking, drug-dealing delinquents that simply kill Officer Krupke rather than their parents disobeying of him. The recent tragedy in Colorado adds to this concept. However, this, thank god, is a rare occurrence, and in fact, a severe exception to Minor's behavior. As a leading online magazine puts it,
The children, simply, are not the problem.
With all of that evidence, convincing this to the Neutralist philosophers should be easy. Given all of the above, with specific emphasis on, "they are not given their rights," the straightforward situation should compel them towards the cause. Hermeneutically, Naturalists should appreciate the merits of giving the rights to minors. I spent most of the paper so far showing them the logic of the vote, which is their interest.
Furthermore, the rulebook mentality of the thick Neutralists is not in jeopardy. The twenty-sixth amendment to the Constitution states that no prohibition can be made to a citizen over the age of 18, based on age. Nothing is said about under the age of 18. As it is, a state could allow any particular group of minors to vote.10 Since it can refuse a group of minors of dissenting opinion, "because of age," but accept a different group, because there is no prohibition, it would be in the Neutralists best interest to clear the matter up.
A pure Pluralist should immediately support this. If one wants to encourage any dialogue, a voice is needed. Voting is the voice of a democracy. Once the Pluralist accepts the first part of the paper, that the children are not being mistreated, giving them voting rights should be a legitamite solution. It is the most important aspect of the Classical Republican ideal, and it would be ones duty to insure that all are allowed to participate.
However, it's obviously not that simple. Pluralists may be willing to change. The problem however is that certain thick Pluralist philosophers such as T.D. Weldon, who said, "the theoretical foundations of political thinking which are claimed by democracy, Hegelian Idealism, and Marxism are equally worthless11 The question I tried to answer before of "What's it really going to do?" is more seriously pressed here, with the focus that giving a vote will not solve the problem.
But, assuming that the Pluralists in question value the democratic process, then the Pluralists, seeing the plights and the needs of this class would presumably offer the vote. The Platonic approach, focusing on the State, the Individual, Rights, and Liberty, do seem quite apropos.12
Magazine Description Afro-Centric Xwordz & Puzzlez is a quarterly magazine offering fun, challenging, and educational crosswords and puzzles based on African-American history and culture. Every issue delivers word searches, logic problems, math puzzles, cryptograms, and more.
