San Francisco Appoints First Noncitizen to Serve on Elections Commission | KQED
San Francisco Appoints First Noncitizen to Serve on Elections Commission | KQED
Kelly Wong's appointment is the result of a 2020 voter-approved measure that removed the citizenship requirement to serve on San Francisco boards, commissions and advisory bodies.
You're viewing a single thread.
I think the discomfort with this situation comes from very foundational conservative thinking. It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom. Including noncitizens in voting upsets this hierarchical model, where outsiders oughtn't have any political clout at all.
But there's another element of conservative ideology that is violated by including noncitizens in the electoral process. It is zero-sum thinking that posits any gain for one group results in a loss to another. So handing out rights and and opportunities for political participation will diminish the the rights and opportunities for the rest of us.
As a leftist, I can understand this reasoning and see that it is a functional way of organizing and dealing with people and situations, as long as you are ok with the consequences of of the hierarchal model. I feel that the advantages of such an approach are far outweighed by the disadvantages. It is, at it's core, antidémocratic. I personally don't think it's worth it to accept those consequences, nor do I think zero-sum applies well to issues like rights or matters of common good.
It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid:
No, it isn't. I have never heard that from a conservative at all.
Well either you're not familiar with the regressive underpinnings of modern social conservatism or you want to deny it for some reason, but either way it doesn't make me wrong.
Let’s see your citation for that, otherwise it’s made up garbage.
So for those of you reading along at home this is where wintermute tries to hijack the conversation off the rails into some far off-topic tangent by demanding I teach him about the origins of modern conservatism by going all the way back to Edmund Burke, but no matter what I put forth he's going to probably not read it and say it's not valid or "just as I thought, made up garbage" and act like he has somehow invalidated my whole explanation of why people don't want noncitizens on an elections commission.
So then yeah sure maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing. But why then, why is it a problem that a noncitizen is on an election commission? Why would someone be upset with that, or noncitizens voting in local elections? Either because they are against democracy and don't believe in voting or for some other mysterious reason. No reason is given. Maybe I'm right and it's because social stratification is seen as the natural order of things based on individual choices, and to give political power to outsiders is seen as unnatural and disruptive social engineering leading to anarchy and chaos. That's pretty much what Joseph de Maistre said but hey I'm not here to teach history or connect dots for people who just want to argue.
So, I know where you're coming from because I've read stuff by Edmund Burke and other conservatives. But, unless the conservative you're talking with is the intellectual type, they probably haven't. They've probably just internalized some version of social conservatism but would also be appalled that you'd accuse them of supporting social stratification even as they support it.
I learned some time ago that this particular argumentative strategy is incredibly pointless. They don't care that you know the historical and philosophical foundation of their beliefs. For them, that foundation isn't there for them. They probably don't know it! Their life experiences inform them more than anything else.
They don't care that you know the historical and philosophical foundation of their beliefs. For them, that foundation isn't there for them. They probably don't know it!
Hold on, this came back into my mind and I'm not sure how to interpret it. It seems like, someone who feels that they hold an opinion but can't really say why they do, can't point to some principle upon which the opinion rests, nor articulate any deeply held beliefs that would direct their thinking to come to such and such a conclusion- that person (and I am not directing this at any particular individual), that hypothetical person seems like a dumbass. Am I totally misunderstanding what is being said here?
Am I totally misunderstanding what is being said here?
You are not.
Yeah thanks man. I don't really expect to convince anybody here who is already been programed into a republican aparatchik. I am mostly posting for anyone reading this stuff who may be swayed by dumb arguments but can be pulled back from the brink by reason.
I'm also using these posts as a way of clarifying and organizing my own thoughts. What do I think about things? Why do I think this or that? It can be useful to have somethi g to react to, and examine my own reactions.
Seconded
It was the exact same for me back when I argued about religion. But, a decent portion of it is also just for entertainment.
Right now my girlfriend is in the ER with me, and I don't have much else to do. Arguing on here passes the time rather quickly.
In the ER? Hope everbody's ok.
She has a number of chronic illnesses. All in all its a pretty normal day as unfortunate as that is. She will be ok, but it's still spooky.
She is on medicaid. So when the conservatives around here say stupid shit like "i don'T wANt To pAy FOr SOmEbody ELse's CARE. they sHoULD Get a JOb AnD pull ThEMSeLves UP By tHeIr BOoTSTrApS" it hits closer to home. They effectively want my girlfriend dead.
Screaming my head off around here about it is slightly better than screaming into the void over their attempts to kill social services.
I wish you two luck, I hope everything will be okay!
I didn't say teach me anything. I asked you for a citation which should be easy to do if it’s as common as you claim.
Thanks for admitting you’re full of shit.
So you made it up. Got it.
Pretty much. If you really look at true modern American conservative values. There is a belief anyone can climb as hard as they are willing to work. If anything we believe in a more oval shape where the majority of Americans are in the middle.
Democrats are more about a pyramid shape where you have the rich ruling class, a small middle class and a large group of poor people who depend on the government. It's why the war on poverty, increased poverty. It's a feature.
There is a belief anyone can climb as hard as they are willing to work.
An objectively false belief. The American dream has been dead for decades.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/
Democrats are more about a pyramid shape where you have the rich ruling class, a small middle class and a large group of poor people who depend on the government.
Tell me you don't understand anything about the left without telling me.
There are certainly oligarch owned democrats who are in favor of a rich ruling class (with that said, republicans are far worse about this).
And then there are the progressives, the actual leftists that begrudgingly vote democrat, and want to see an end to the ruling class and dependence on the state.
It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom.
Wtf are you talking about? Where did you hear that?
It's like you guys are unaware of the ideological assumptions that color all of your opinions. Is it shocking to hear that social conservatives believe in hierarchy? Is it surprising to be told that religious conservatives believe there is an overarching authority to which all of humanity, and all of nature is subject? Is it news to you that inequality is seen as inevitable, and this is why liberal ideas about forcing equality on everyone are seen as foolish?
Why then is there any objection to feminism? Why the opposition to DEI programs? Whats wrong with migrant refugees getting US government assistance and why did Ronald Reagan complain about "welfare queens"? What is the problem some people have with young men becoming young women? Is there not some philosophical thread that connects these things as wrong or bad or out of order? It's because they all seem to violate deeply held assumptions about social order.
If you've never heard of Edmund Burke (called by many the father of modern conservatism) you should absolutely read up on him. He definately makes a case for heirarchy. I'm sure you have heard of Jordan Peterson who tries to claim that hierarchy is part of the natural order by famously pointing to lobsters. Peterson is less of a political thinker, but an alt-right hero I suppose, who dresses up conservative christian talking points with academic sounding language.
Anyway I feel like I made my case, debate it or not I don't care. it seems super funny to me that I am called on to justify a connection between conservatism and hierarchy. It's like if I said "water is so important to fish" and immediately wintermute is like " what? I literally never heard a fish say anything about water you are making that up you got a cite forr that?"
Is it shocking to hear that social conservatives believe in hierarchy?
Seeing as Im a conservative and dont believe that, yes.
Edmund Burke
And there it is. You read some book and youve confirmation biased yourself.
Hmm yes maybe that's what happened. My daddy did say book learnin don't come to no damn good.
Then wtf happened? You have these absurd takes that make no sense.
Come on, man. We felt that whoosh over on the east coast.
Okay, what fucking woosh?