Another Positive Review and a Jumping-Off Point

Warm reviews for economist Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter continue to pile up (indeed, I thought I'd made mention of the book here before, but can't find any such post). The latest is that of John Stossel - though warm may be a trite too optimistic; reviewers recognize the value of the book and its contribution to the discussion of voting behavior, turnout, etc., but no one is exactly cheered by its message.

NRO's Jonah Goldberg (writing on Townhall), however, goes one step further. He points out that if Caplan's arguments are correct then we shouldn't be trying to increase turnout (the ones who stay home in the first place are stupid) or make voting mandatory. Instead, in what is truly (a welcome) anti-democratic effort, he suggests that if immigrants must take a test to become citizens (and thus vote) why shouldn't we subject native-born citizens to such a test? Obviously it wouldn't go over too well in much of the US - Democrats and Republicans alike would scream bloody murder. Such distinctions within the electorate were quickly destroyed in the earliest days of the US; I doubt they'll make a return in the "enlightened" modern era. But he does breach a subject that has been wholly untouched by the recent immigration debate; namely changing the qualifications of citizenship so that one does not become a citizen automatically by being born here. In that the US is relatively alone in the West, and while it might give us warm fuzzy feelings inside, it also creates plenty of ingrates - both of native and immigrant stock. Maybe it's time to start talking about this?