New Fox News Promo Asks: Everyone Should Vote? Answers: No

In a promotion for a new John Stossel program on Fox News, the viewer is asked whether “everyone should vote.” That question, which by itself belittles the traditional American value of Democracy and civic participation, is followed by a loud game show style buzzer and a big red circle with a line through it – the universal symbol for the negative.

So once again, Fox is taking a position in favor of shrinking the electorate. It’s a position that is consistent with their campaign to help states purge their voter rolls of undesirable voters like minorities, seniors, students, and the poor. The evidence of their determination to undermine free elections is overwhelming. The vast majority of those on the purge lists of states like Florida and Pennsylvania are citizens who would be likely to vote Democratic. And just this morning a report revealed that the former head of the Florida Republican Party admitted in a court deposition that the party openly discussed plans aimed at “keeping blacks from voting.”

Conservatives have long had an aversion to full participation in Democracy. They believe that the right to vote is extended too generously to members of society that they don’t happen to like. Here is a brief sampling of their recent remarks on the subject beginning with Stossel himself:

John Stossel (Fox News): “Let’s stop saying everyone should vote.”

Matthew Vadum: “Registering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country.”

Rush Limbaugh: “If people cannot even feed and clothe themselves, should they be allowed to vote?”

Judson Phillips (Tea Party Nation): “If you’re not a property owner, I’m sorry, but property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than not property owners do.”

Steve Doocy (Fox News): “With 47% of Americans not paying taxes – 47% – should those who don”t pay be allowed to vote?”

Republicans know they can’t win elections honestly, so they plot to steal elections by preventing, discouraging, and obstructing legitimate citizens from voting. And this new program on Fox is further evidence of their brazen disrespect for Democracy.


10 thoughts on “New Fox News Promo Asks: Everyone Should Vote? Answers: No

  1. Stossel has never learned a fringe science “fact” he wasn’t willing to manipulate, has never performed a stunt that he was sure was a “scientific experiment” and has never seen a lower class citizen he thought of as a person.

  2. Dehumanizing certain segments of society is something that has been far too common throughout world history. The results are never good. I have said this before and I will say it again, the republican governors of these states that are suppressing the vote, under the totally false claim of voter fraud, are acting more like grand wizards of the kkk then they are representatives of the people. They have nothing but contempt for the people and demonstrate as much in their behavior and policies everyday.

  3. So Mark, how exactly do you determine which of our rights you will defend on your website? On one hand you come up with lots of reasons why the 2nd amendment should be limited, but here you go crazy over voting rights – for the honorable reason that a democrat may lose. I guess our rights are not all created equal.

    I’m sure you will contemplate deleting this post as you threatened on another article – a clear judgement on where the first amendment falls on your priority list.

    • Rights are NOT the same, regardless of the question about whether they are EQUAL in priority or not (something which CAN be argued, for example through the following question: which of these is more important on an individual, the first amendment that governs individual rights and freedom of expression? Or the second that dictates right to bear arms?).

      As for LIMITING rights, the argument boils down again to why rights should be limited on the virtue of what those rights entail. No one is saying rights can never be restricted in any way, even the first amendment is restricted under laws, you can express your freedom by killing someone without having your rights curtailed as a consequence. The fallacy of your false dichotomy lies in looking on the surface, asserting that since all rights can be considered equal in value, they are essentially the same and can be addressed the same way therefore defending the limitation of one and rejecting the limitation of another is hypocrisy. Without looking at what these rights entail you have not even begun any discussion of any importance.

      Let’s take a look at the 2 rights that are in focus. What criteria should we use to evaluate the restriction of either? A restriction of rights usually comes in the form of a penalty or when the current extent to which those rights can be expressed harms society more than it does good to it or to any individual/group. On this second criteria an argument can be put forward that supports restriction of firearms, and not that of votes.

      The NRA seeks to expand upon the second amendment right, almost to the point of having no actual restrictions upon any type of hand carried firearms. However lesser restrictions causes problems to society in terms of gun related deaths. I know that advocates always say people and not guns kill people, and therein lies the problem, how can we better ensure that those who own guns have that personal responsibility not to abuse their right? One method is through things such as background checks and training requirements, something which is in itself already a restriction on the right to own such arms. The more important issues would be the owning of more lethal types of firearms such as assault weapons, the accessibility of such weapons as well as where these weapons can be allowed (concealed carry etc). Restrictions on each of these rights will affect an individual’s 2nd amendment right. However these restrictions also lessen the chances of mass shootings and gun related deaths, that coupled with the fact that there is really no reason or need or positive results to owning such arms or carry them around concealed makes the case for these restrictions.

      For voting on the other hand, one cannot make the case for disqualification of voting based on issues like socioeconomic status as several Fox figures are cheerfully doing. That’s because any and all opinions by the citizens of the state (assuming they are truly of sound mind) are valid and differing opinions are not only welcome but good based on the virtue of them being differing opinions. A Democracy’s foundations is based upon such a diaspora of views from a ll walks of life. To ignore the opinions of the poor or uneducated would be to ignore problems relating to them and pretending that America is without such problems.

      Finally, on the issue of vote fraud, while the harms that result can be significant, one first has to address the issue whether existing restraints are insufficient. That has not been done, with existing restraints in place, it has yet to be shown how voter fraud is a widespread problem. Such additional restrictions to prevent voter fraud will also result in the harm I mentioned above, the disenfranchisement of certain groups of legitimate voters, something that goes against the essence of Democracy

      • Well, you certainly typed a lot, but here is the problem – as always – with liberal thinking on rights – you still cling to the idea that you know better how to manage our lives through restrictions to our rights (your fellow citizens) – here is one example and I’m not trying to take something out of context given the long response – just re-read above if there is question:
        “However these restrictions also lessen the chances of mass shootings and gun related deaths” and here is my favorite part – “that coupled with the fact that there is really no reason or need or positive results to owning such arms or carry them around concealed makes the case for these restrictions.” As I noted in another article to Mark – I have much more to fear from you (liberals/progressives) than you do from me.

  4. “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t allow it”, Mark Twain.

    He was a wise man. We need to be honest with ourselves and realize we have been sold a bill of goods. Our democracy, where the people rule, does not exist. Our elected representatives have time and again betrayed the people’s trust. They enacted policies they knew were unpopular, even Obama failed to live up to his boast.

  5. Make sure to vote Demo-publican, because there really is just one party to vote for.

  6. Man, you usually have good things to say, but this false democracy shit is just crazy. If you can’t tell the difference between parties then you aren’t paying attention. And if you think the president ‘failed’ then look no further than the opposition which has stymied everything he’s tried to do since day fucking one. If there was no difference then shit would get done.

    Seriously, this idea is bullshit.

    • Ok – in what way has Barak Obama been different than GW Bush? Honestly, I’m not sure there is much of a difference and you saw how that turned out. he actually appears even more political than GW Bush, and i thought that wasn’t possible.

Comments are closed.