Two voting rights posts for one Monday morning, my apologies, but this Harold Meyerson piece is really strong and I enjoyed reading it:
Suppose Mitt Romney ekes out a victory in November by a margin smaller than the number of young and minority voters who couldn’t cast ballots because the photo-identification laws enacted by Republican governors and legislators kept them from the polls. What should Democrats do then? What would Republicans do? And how would other nations respond?
If voter suppression goes forward and Romney narrowly prevails, consider the consequences. An overwhelmingly and increasingly white Republican Party, based in the South, will owe its power to discrimination against black and Latino voters, much like the old segregationist Dixiecrats. It’s not that Republicans haven’t run voter suppression operations before, but they’ve been under-the-table dirty tricks, such as calling minority voters with misinformation about polling-place locations and hours. By contrast, this year’s suppression would be the intended outcome of laws that Republicans publicly supported, just as the denial of the franchise to Southern blacks before 1965 was the intended result of laws such as poll taxes. More ominous still, by further estranging minority voters, even as minorities constitute a steadily larger share of the electorate, Republicans will be putting themselves in a position where they increasingly rely on only white voters and where their only path to victory will be the continued suppression of minority votes. A cycle more vicious is hard to imagine.
It’s also not a cycle calculated to endear America to the rest of the world. The United States abolished electoral apartheid in the 1960s for reasons that were largely moral but were also geopolitical. Eliminating segregation and race-specific voting helped our case against the Soviets during the Cold War, particularly among the emerging nations of Asia and Africa.
And what should Democrats do if Romney comes to power on the strength of racially suppressed votes? Such an outcome and such a presidency, I’d hope they contend, would be illegitimate — a betrayal of our laws and traditions, of our very essence as a democratic republic. Mass demonstrations would be in order. So would a congressional refusal to confirm any of Romney’s appointments.
A presidency premised on a racist restriction of the franchise creates a political and constitutional crisis, and responding to it with resigned acceptance or inaction would negate America’s hard-won commitment to democracy and equality.
The course on which Republicans have embarked isn’t politics as usual. We don’t rig elections by race in America, not anymore, and anyone who does should not be rewarded with uncontested power.
Voting rights inspire a lot of passion in certain people, and Meyerson obviously feels strongly about this. He isn’t afraid to say so.
Valdivia
boom. Pretty strong stuff. I am sure the Village will be pearl clutching about his mean mean words. Idiots chasing stupid stories instead of the biggest one under their noses.
eric
Voter suppression does not engender strong feelings of disgust among the media and that is all that matters when it comes to generating some form of large scale national discourse. The testimony in Pennsylvania should have generated front page stories and daily editorials about the “new Jim Crow.” But, alas, such messiness and rancor is not conducive to maximizing the interests of the sorts of people that own, run, and make the editorial decisions at major media outlets.
AliceBlue
I’m afraid “responding to it with resigned acceptance or inaction” would be exactly what would happen.
Villago Delenda Est
This is the sort of shit that gets people serious about torches and pitchforks.
IF they know about it, and the MSM is doing everything they can do to make sure the word does not get around.
Barry
The man’s a fool. Or he’s writing from a universe in which Bush v. Gore never happened, or caused a massive backlash.
If voter suppression works, the GOP will take and use power with no more qualms than any other sociopath. Most Dem ‘leaders’ will knuckle under, and get paid handsomely.
Minorities will simply know once again that the system deliberately screw them over.
liberal
@Villago Delenda Est:
Should be, but then again the banksters cratering the world economy should also, and nothing’s really happened on that front.
liberal
@Barry:
Let’s be clear on this. Yes, the direct victims are minorities, but more broadly all of us are victims.
It’s similar to the Trevon Martin case. Yes, it appears that victims who are the “wrong” color are more likely to have assailants go free. But the fact that FL has essentially legalized a broad class of homocides is a grotesque injustice beyond the issue of color.
Again, that’s not to say, of course, that people of color are not unwillingly on the front lines of this war over justice; they are.
liberal
Don’t understand all the words written by other commenters about the “media”. Sure, a sympathetic media would make the job easier, but it’s not a necessary or sufficient condition.
Like many political things, it’s a collective action problem. If enough people were outraged and did something about it that might cost them personally, then something would happen.
The difficulty of course is that collective action problem are very hard to solve.
Not sure exactly what the best strategy would be, but some things come to mind: general strike; nonpayment of income taxes; …
Cacti
Disagree with this statement. Rigging elections by race is as American as apple pie, and still within living memory for millions.
Universal suffrage is a relatively recent practice in this country, and the unscrupulous have been out to reverse this trend from the very start.
JGabriel
Harold Myerson via Kay @ Top:
I don’t know what Democrats would do, but I can tell you with absolute certainty what Republicans would do: GLOAT, and claim their cheating was just “playing hardball”.
And the media would go along with it.
.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
We need so much more of this. (Duh). But I am moderately heartened by developments like this:
The great red rag of Cincinnati investigates voting issues, and will continue to do so. The piece she refers to Will Ohio count your vote has a surprising amount of information about why that’s a serious question.
This is unusual from such a reliably Republican stenographic newspaper. So, some people are paying attention.
Villago Delenda Est
@liberal:
Agreed.
AliceBlue has already given us the most likely reaction.
In the fucking Ukraine, THE UKRAINE, people rise in revolt over this shit.
In the United States, in 2000, a Presidential election was stolen, and next to no one gave a rat’s ass. The MSM actively suppressed reports of those who protested that stolen election.
Gus
Meyerson’s argument makes no sense, because racism died in America when Barack Obama was elected president. Doesn’t he read National Review?
liberal
@Villago Delenda Est:
I would assume a lot of this has to do with how well-off people in the country are. E.g. here people (at least well-off white males like myself) have a lot to lose if they undertake certain actions against the state.
One relevant factoid is that, AFAICT, most revolutions have not been led by the most down-and-out but rather by people in what we might call the upper middle class. Pretty sure that that even applies to Mao.
Here, upper middle class folks (I’m one, for better or worse) do pretty well.
eric
@Villago Delenda Est: That is entirely my point about the media. The collective action problem is engendered because there is a sense among individuals that a single voice will do nothing and would be a waste of time. However, when people see others acting, then they are far more likely to act on their own impulses and protest. the media suppresses or denigrates (see Occupy) to minimize the disruption to the status quo because the status quo is very good to the power brokers in the media and their (key point coming) friends and perceived social equals among the political class in that both set the terms for political discourse on all things important to america.
Think Bob Geldof and Live Aid. He had to go around the politicians and the media to bring a story of unimaginable suffering to the attention of the public because it received so little attention in the media and from mainstream politicians. And why was that? Because Ethiopia meant little to the geopolitical power structure or to anyone’s balance of trade.
JGabriel
__
__
Villago Delenda Est:
I’ve been thinking that since Reagan, with notably little appearance of torches & pitchforks* despite my perplexed frustration at their continued absence.
I mean, I hope you’re right. I just haven’t seen much evidence for the proposition in my lifetime.
(*except for the Occupy movement, which seems to have died down lately, and Wisconsin, where Scott Walker is still Governor despite the protests)
.
Holden Pattern
@JGabriel:
They won’t do that. They will say “Finally, it’s clear that only a silent epidemic of voter fraud gave the Democrats any advantage. Real America votes conservative and Republican, as we’ve always said. We pledge to continue our efforts to ensure that the voices of properly qualified voters are heard!”
And the media will nod sagely as if it must be true, and the Dems will by and large resign themselves to their role as the Washington Generals.
liberal
@eric:
That’s a pretty good summary of what the key difficulty is.
But in principle not having the establishment media on our side isn’t a showstopper, though it does indeed make things much more challenging.
John of Indiana
The Powers That Be will just keep ramping up the Video Drug for the Masses.
When you start seeing graphic BDSM pr0n and Snuff Flicks on cable, you’ll know the breaking point is near because they won’t have anything left to throw at Murrika’s eyeballs.
The Revolution will not be televised because that would preempt the news about the latest Zik-Zak Snak-Pak.
Gus
@Villago Delenda Est: I think that the problem is that people don’t believe that there is any alternative. Since communism as practiced in the 20th Century was proven to be a failed ideology, no one in America believes that there is any alternative to capitalism. The obvious end of capitalism with no counterweight is the kind of system we have now with a vast gulf between the tiny fraction of the fabulously wealthy and the rest of us. People are starting to believe that this is the natural order of things, and the change has happened slowly enough that it’s easier to forget the days of well paid blue collar work and a thriving middle and lower middle class. As older people who lived in those days die off, people will accept this as normal.
Commenting at Balloon Juice Since 1937
How groups in other countries have responded is by boycotting – don’t participate. How about if every Dem senator and representative refuse to participate? That would delegitimize the government based on a fraudulent election. To quote one wingnut politician “Shut it down!”.
JGabriel
__
__
Holden Pattern:
That’s kind of what I meant by GLOAT.
liberal:
Unfortunately, history shows us that enough people rarely become outraged to do something until it doesn’t cost them personally, either because they have little or nothing left to lose, or because the cause has somehow become popular.
.
JGabriel
Commenting at Balloon Juice Since 1937:
It would also put the most sociopathic right-wing authoritarian elements in power and in charge of the country.
At that point, what we had under Bush II would look like a progressive alternative; I can’t see how that would help our cause.
.
Ash Can
@JGabriel: Scott Walker is still governor, true, but now he can’t do shit — and it’s because, in one little corner of the state, a GOP state senator was recalled, thanks to the protests, and the Walker cabal got its rubber stamp taken away.
After having seen first hand how the civil rights movement and the protests against the Viet Nam War played out, I find I can’t really join in the hand-wringing here, at least not for the reasons given here so far. Popular uprisings do happen in this country, and they are effective. The thing is, they take an excruciatingly long time to have their effect. First and foremost, the PTB are against them, and it takes time and energy to wear those folks down. And in the meantime bad things continue to happen, so it can be demoralizing. But, as Dr. King said, you have to keep your eyes on the prize.
Also, you can count on the press to follow, not lead, in national movements. Media owners may start out by pushing their personal agendas, of course, but people are going to want to read about what’s relevant to their lives. If their local newspaper fails for the umpteenth time to report on the big rally they saw/attended that day, they’ll blow said publication off, and said publication will do the one thing that makes the owners really sit up and take notice — it will start losing money. Worse, maybe the area’s competing publication will have gotten out in front and started reporting on the rallies, and started digging into the revenue stream of the first publication. So Publication One has no choice but to hop on the bandwagon itself. In short, don’t look to the media to spearhead any popular movements (with the Tea Party as the exception that proves the rule by its egregiousness). Look for it to be all but bullied into reporting on the movement, because that’s just how they roll.
kerFuFFler
Kay, you needn’t worry that two consecutive posts on voting rights is ever too much—–even on a Monday morning! This is a hugely important issue and story, not only for the danger to our society it presents in electoral outcomes. Now that Republicans are not even trying to hide their vote tampering shenanigans but are instead trying to enshrine it into law, this issue gives us a clear look at the soul of their party. What we see is racism, abuse of power, dishonesty and lust for more power!
Thanks for being a dependably vigilant blogger on this topic!
patrick II
Umbrage taken against “Taxation without representation” caused the American revolution in the first place. The right to vote for our own representatives was the essential assertion of the establishment of our country. People fought and died for that right to vote. The Supreme Court’s decision to validate a voter id law when there is essentially no voter fraud existent, thus depriving thousands of the right to vote to “correct” a chimera is a fundamentally un-American and un-democratic act worthy of the courts of the old Soviet Union, not one of the United States.
Voting is the most fundamental vote we have. The people who work against may be called oligarchs or fascist, but they can’t be called believers in the constitution, democracy, or the fundamental established rights of this country. Evidently the fundamental assertion of that right needs to be made again .
liberal
@JGabriel:
Yeah, I know.
liberal
@Ash Can:
That certainly seems true. A book whose title I forget on my mom’s bookshelf was about the lesson of history for attempts to get the ERA passed. It pointed out how long it took to get women’s right to vote, and to abolish child labor (IIRC). Answer: things like that often take a century.
Big difference here, though, is that those represented progress. In this case, it would be a matter of stopping a regression.
If things don’t go well in the next couple of decades, we’re in at least moderate danger of becoming a Latin Ameican-style hellhole.
Brachiator
Mass demonstrations might happen. Congressional refusal to confirm Romney’s appointments would never happen.
There is no constitutional framework to declare an elected government illegitimate.
This is little more than a tired fantasy.