Some lessons

From Taipei Times:

Democrat Senator Barack Obama won most of the votes from women, blacks and Hispanics and siphoned off enough white support to leave Republican Senator John McCain with no way to win.

[. . .]

Obama drew the votes of two-thirds of Hispanic voters — heavily courted by both candidates — and 95 percent of blacks who went to the polls.

A healthy lead among women voters typically is key to a Democratic presidential victory, and Obama attracted 56 percent of their votes. He split the overall male vote with McCain.

[. . .]

Obama, who will become the first black president and at age 47 one of the youngest, ran away with the youth vote. He won the under-30 crowd by 34 percentage points, even better than Democrat Bill Clinton’s 19-point advantage when he defeated Bob Dole in 1996.

First lesson. I and the others who screamed from the rooftops that it was a mistake for the GOP to embrace amnesty and open borders have been vindicated. John McCain was the leader of the amnesty movement and Hispanic voters rejected him by an overwhelming margin.

Second lesson. Women's suffrage was a mistake if you judge its results by the standards of the women who originally advocated for it.

The women who began the push for granting women the right to vote argued that because wives were already accustomed to managing the household budget that women voters would be fiscal conservatives who would hold the government to strict standards of fiscal discipline and accountability.

They also argued that because women tended to be more sincere and devout in their Christian religious faith that women voters would cause the government to hew more closely to Christian morality and more effectively uphold Christian values and principles.

Today we know that women voters are the biggest supporters of the legalized murder of children and the most fanatical supporters of the ruinous welfare state. If Susan B Anthony and the others were telling the truth about what they hoped for women's suffrage to achieve then they must surely be turning over in their graves.

The fact is that the Founders realized that a universal franchise would destroy the nation so they limited the vote to those who they believed had the greatest stake in the survival of the nation as a free and prosperous place and at the time of the founding that was white male landowners.

The "white" part of the equation is now obsolete but not the "male" part and not the idea behind the "landowner" part.

Taking these criteria in turn we first come to "white". This was simply an artifact of 18th century attitudes about race which we have moved beyond.

"Male" we have already touched upon but the question is why do women tend to vote in ways which will destroy the nation? The answer is revealed in the fact that most married women vote Republican while most single women vote Democrat. Women are hardwired to seek a protector and provider. This is because pregnancy and caring for small children makes them vulnerable and limits their ability to gather their own food. This doesn't mean that all women will always act the same way just that there is a predisposition to act in a certain way among the entire population of women which will make the majority of them act in certain ways most of time.

Single women are tend to place government in the place of protector and provider, causing them to vote for the party which seeks to make government richer and more powerful. But when a woman marries a man whom she loves and trusts a chemical switch trips in her brain and she stops seeking a protector and provider. This allows married women to engage the political process with their intellect rather than their emotions and tends to make them Republicans.

All humans have this biological programming. It is God's way of ensuring that the current generation creates the next generation and that we take proper care of them until they are able to take care of themselves.

Then we come to "landowner". At the time of the founding the gentleman farmer sat at the top of the social pyramid. Professional men like lawyers and doctors and skilled workers like blacksmiths and carpenters saved their money against the day in which they could buy their very own farm and till the land.

This attitude was why George Washington wished for his epitaph not to be "father of his country" but simply "he was a farmer".

So the Framers restricted the franchise to landowners because the land holding farmer was the backbone of the economy in their day and they wanted the only people voting to be those who had a stake in the preservation of the nation as it was then constituted.

Who comprises the backbone of the nation's economy today? The answer is the investor class. Whether you are investing in your own business or holding publicly traded stock the fact that you have risked your capital to build something makes you the 21st century gentleman farmer.

Final lesson. Obama ran away with the youth vote. That is those who are least knowledgeable, least experienced and most immature chose Obama. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

If you want to achieve liberty and prosperity for the United States of America and lock those conditions in to as near a state of permanence as possible the best way to achieve that goal is to restrict the franchise to men and married women who either own successful businesses (successful being defined as generating a profit large enough for the owners to live on) or have a significant part of their net worth invested in stocks or non-government bonds. The age when one becomes eligible to vote should be 30 unless you join the active duty military, in which case you should receive the franchise immediately even if you are 17 and joining under a parental waiver.

Many will complain that this is not fair and they will be right. However "fairness" is not the goal The goal is to achieve the maximum amount of individual liberty and prosperity. "Fairness" expressed as universal suffrage has gotten us nothing but the welfare state, massive national debt, sky high taxes and Barack Obama in the White House.

Clearly "fairness" is not a worthwhile goal and we should abandon it for the much more desirable rewards of freedom and wealth.