Eugenics in America?

Eugenics is commonly understood to be the attempt to improve the qualities of the human population through the effort of discouraging people with certain negative traits from reproducing and encouraging people with desirable traits to reproduce. It has become associated with the Nazi Germany attempts to eradicate the Jews, but it was practiced in many other countries. From genocide, to apartheid, to segregation, to something as innocuous as "the beautiful marrying the beautiful", on some level, eugenics has never really disappeared.

Of course it has sinister connotations of racism, and it has rightly fallen into ill repute. But eugenics can take on much more subtle, yet sinister forms, and in a rather mercurial way, it seems it is something that is being practiced by the left today. I'm not implying that Democrats are racists, or have some secret master race belief that motivates their actions. No, what motivates the left is the acquisition and retention of power. And the form of eugenics that takes is not racial but rather socio-political engineering.

In this sense eugenics is about trying to limit conservative voters either in numbers or in participation, while trying to artificially inflate the voter base on the left.

Let's look at some recent examples - many Democrats favor naturalization of illegal immigrants in the belief that it provides them with a stronger lock on the growing Hispanic demographic. Simply put more Hispanics means more Democrats. In a recent article on the World Socialist Web Site there was an article decrying the disenfranchisement of voters with felony convictions and how it disproportionately affects the African American male. Clearly there is a political motivation behind the complaint, despite the couching of phrases that try to paint the United States as a giant gulag. Another example can be found in the ACLU's attempt to allow unidentifiable voters to vote. In the excerpt below the article ties the ACLU challenge to a Democrat challenge that requires voters to be identified in order to vote. Apparently voter fraud is not a concern, but rather something the ACLU regards as an opportunity to rig the game in favor of the left.

ACLU Disappointed With Supreme Court's Voter ID Decision (4/28/2008)
Decision Will Harm Eligible Voters, But Leaves Door Open To Future New Legal Challenges FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; mailto:emedia@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to Indiana's most-restrictive-in-the-nation voter identification law. The American Civil Liberties Union's case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - consolidated with Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita - is an appeal of two lower court decisions that upheld the state's law requiring voters to present government-issued photo IDs in order to vote. The ACLU argued that the Indiana law creates an
unconstitutional burden on voting rights.

(Emphasis added).

Then there's ACORN. The penultimate liberal voter eugenics machine of today.










ACORN is neutral? Count how many times they endorse Obama in those previous 2 clips. They complain about disenfranchisement but is it really that or just an effort to keep the game fair? Conservative Dave nailed it.

Then there's conservative voter disenfranchisement. There's something tangible to this:




Eugenics might not be the right word, but it has an appeal in it's application. If people rightly loathe the idea of eugenics, then perhaps conservatives should do what the Democrats do so well - use the language in a way that supports and reinforces your point.


Then again, maybe eugenics fits. What is it all of these efforts have in common? The effort to encourage an increase in liberal voters and/or decrease the turnout of conservative voters. So it may not be eugenics in terms of population management, but it sure seems like an effort to control the voting population. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.