I realize that many Republicans are doing their best to make a case why laws that suppress the vote in their states is just a way to have safer elections. I realize, too, that it's total nonsense, but I accept the concept of people twisting themselves into pretzel trying not to let their racism and fascism show.
After all, people have been voting by mail for 150 years. Expanding that doesn't change the reality. And people have been voting early for decades. Maintaining that doesn't change the reality. And people have cast their ballots in drop-boxes for years. Adding more drop-boxes doesn't change that reality. And people being given water while standing in line is basic, foundation-level humanity. Denying people water is the sort of thing that gets you brought up before a war crimes tribunal. And yes, I know that there will be people who argue, "Yes, but..." and try to convince you that their actions are helpful and their motives pure. The problem is that any argument that rolls back conditions both the norm and decency which begins with "Yes, but..." generally means you should check your pocket -- and watch your back -- because someone is trying to flim-flam you. Actually, let's make it easier: any package of legislation that includes the phrase, "You can't be given water," should not only be dismissed immediately, but you avoid any debate on the issues out of risk of giving them even a hint of credibility. (Perhaps it's this "No water" law in Georgia that is keep the Atlanta-based Coca-Cola company from putting its substantive corporate muscle behind the opposition. Maybe they mistakenly believe that there is a loophole which will allow soft drinks to be served to voters in line.) I notice that when Republican supporters of these suppression laws get asked about them, the questions are generally phrased in a way that's easy to wiggle out of saying what's actually being done. The questions usually allow for a "Yes, but..." answer that makes it seem like you only, merely, solely are on the side of the angels by supporting safe voting and protecting us all from fraud -- which, of course, is a canard because there is absolutely zero evidence of any meaningful unsafe voting and voter fraud going back decades. What I would love, instead, is for reporters to phrase their questions differently, in a way that pretty much would make the person's repressive intentions crystal clear. I would love to hear a question asked along the lines of -- "If you were given a questionnaire, and you were asked, 'Do you think all eligible voters should be allowed to vote?', and the only two options were Yes or No, which box would you check?" I'm sure that many people who support the repressive voter laws would try to do a song-and-dance to get out of answering. "Well, it's not that easy an answer, and mumble, mumble, gibberish..." Except, yes, it is that easy an answer. We can get into the "Yes, but..." gumfummery later, but for now the question is very simple -- "Do you think all eligible voters have the right to vote?', and which of the only two boxes, Yes or No, would you check?" And if they don't answer, you ask it again. And again. And again. It's a basic, Yes/No question about democracy. I suspect that after a while, the person might feel finally compelled to answer, "Well, Yes, of course, but..." And at that point the reporter should say that they'll get to the "but..." part later, because for now the only question was the Yes/No one on the table. And they answered, "Yes." So, then you ask the follow-up question -- "Okay, you said that you believe that every eligible voter has the right to vote. My follow-up question is -- why then should anything restrict them in that right in any way?" No doubt, again, the person will start dancing in circles and flibberty-gibbering and try to get into secure elections and voter fraud. But they should be stopped again by nothing those are issues for later. For now, the only question is if all eligible voters should be allowed to vote -- which you say is so -- why should anything restrict them in that right?" The alternative is coming right out and saying, no, I don't think all eligible voters should be allowed to vote. Which I suspect is what many on the fascist far-right think. But that's really a bad look when you say it out loud. The odd thing is that voter suppression tends to back-fire. For starters, history shows that Republicans generally have voted by mail more than Democrats. The only reason that was different in 2020 is because we were in a pandemic -- and Democrats because it was unsafe to go to the polls, and Republicans different. That dynamic isn't likely to hold in future elections, at least to the degree it did in 2020. So, in some ways, Republicans are hurting their own voters. But more to the point, it's not like any of these laws are keeping people from voting. It's just making it harder. And from all I've read and heard, when you try to restrict people from voting, then tend to find out. And the opposing forces push back with voter information. And organize to make sure the voters come out. And voters are angry enough that they'll stand in line for a long time -- and probably even bring their own water. But still, the bottom line is -- do you believe that every eligible voter should be allowed to vote? Check Yes or No. And if yes -- please explain why anything should restrict them in that right in any way? This isn't about Trump, we know who he is. The is about the fascist, racist elected Republicans officials who enabled him...becomes he helped push everything they believed in.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|