Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

swag

(26,487 posts)
Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:54 AM Sep 2016

Billings candidate suggests only wealthy should hold office, vote

http://mtcowgirl.com/2016/09/11/billings-candidate-suggests-only-wealthy-should-hold-office-vote/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MontanaCowgirlBlog+%28Montana+Cowgirl+Blog%29

The campaign of a GOP candidate in Billings is in damage control mode after he suggested, on an internet discussion board, that holding office and voting might be better off limited to those who are wealthy.

“The Founding Fathers believed (rightly) that the people with the most to lose would be the least likely to screw up,” wrote 27-year-old legislative candidate Robert Saunders, who comes from a wealthy Billings family. Those without money, he went on, “are unsafe custodians” of public funds.

When members of congress are very wealthy, he explains, it shows “they are at least good at something,” (unlike the rest of us poors I guess).

Saunders  says it’s no different than Corporations. Only a shareholder of a company can vote, Rob Saunders writes, hinting that perhaps there should be an asset test for voters. He says someone without personal wealth, like Bernie Sanders could be “catastrophic” and cause a result similar to what happened under the Russian Revolution that ousted the last of the Russian czars. “Our form of government was designed so that only those with a stake in the country’s future could vote,” Saunders said. “That’s why I think it’s a good thing that our leadership is relatively wealthy.”

. . . more
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Billings candidate suggests only wealthy should hold office, vote (Original Post) swag Sep 2016 OP
How Clever winetourdriver Sep 2016 #1
They really want to take us back to the day of landed gentry.... Historic NY Sep 2016 #2
Another alt-right talking point; take us back to when only white male property owners could vote Midnight Writer Sep 2016 #3
This attitude goes back thousands of years. Aristus Sep 2016 #4
Talking Points winetourdriver Sep 2016 #5
Nope. Aristus Sep 2016 #6
 

winetourdriver

(196 posts)
1. How Clever
Mon Sep 12, 2016, 10:59 AM
Sep 2016

I'm sure this would be the answer to all their problems, just "x" the poor out of the equation completely. Aristocracy is next for these reprehensible assholes. I truly detest them.

Midnight Writer

(21,768 posts)
3. Another alt-right talking point; take us back to when only white male property owners could vote
Mon Sep 12, 2016, 02:03 PM
Sep 2016

I have lots of exposure to right wing folk, and this is cropping up a lot.

The argument is that the Founding Fathers were all white, male property owners, as were all the voters that ratified the Constitution. Our country only started having problems when we let poor, non whites and women have political power.

Aristus

(66,386 posts)
4. This attitude goes back thousands of years.
Mon Sep 12, 2016, 04:34 PM
Sep 2016

During the era of the Roman Republic, male citizens who owned no property were prohibited from serving in the legions. One practical rationale was that each legionary had to pay for his own weapons, armor, and equipment.

But a far more classist rational was put forward as well: the notion that those with no property of their own had no incentive to fight to protect Rome.

As Rome fought more and more foreign wars in the First Century, BC, they started to run out of property owners to serve in the forces. Also, huge numbers of propertied legionaries were running from battle, possibly more concerned about their financial assets than the security of their country. Huge numbers of deaths in battle left Rome with a large surplus of weapons and armor gathering dust in warehouses, their monied owners gone to their graves.

Roman Senator and general Gaius Marius, himself an outsider, born to a minor family of rural aristocracy, was facing a potentially costly war with African ruler Jugurtha, and had few property owning soldiers left to levy for the legions. He proposed drafting members of the 'Head Count', male citizens of Rome with no property whatsoever, to serve. There were huge numbers of them, city slum-dwellers with no privileges other than citizenship and the vote. Marius could staff a number of legions with the Head Count alone.

Members of the conservative Senate faction opposed this, claiming that Head Count men would make poor soldiers, having no material assets worth defending. Marius, however, was counting on the natural, abstract patriotism of his pauper soldiers as a spur towards military greatness. He was right. Marius and his head-count army, equipped with all of that surplus materiel, covered themselves with glory, and build Rome into a military power that dominated the Mediterranean for 500 years. It was the beginning of professional, rather than militia, armies.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Billings candidate sugges...