"Threat to Democracy"

 There are many things that need concern us. One, that gets little attention from mainstream media, is the decline in population among Western nations. A recent report from the Gatestone Institute, pointed out that more children are born in Nigeria each year than in Europe, which has more than three times the population. In fact, the number of babies born in Nigeria each year is roughly equal to the number born each year in Europe and the United States.

 

While these statistics will not affect people my age, the world our grandchildren and great grandchildren inherit will be markedly different than what we have known. Will it be better or worse? No one knows, but it is food for thought.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Threat to Democracy”

September 26, 2022

 

“…the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough

to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well

enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.”

                                                                                                                                Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)

                                                                                                                                Radio “fireside chat”

                                                                                                                                April 14, 1938

 

Accusations of “threats to democracy,” are being tossed around with the abandon of rolls being thrown at a Drones Club dinner. This has especially been true from the “anointed” left toward their conservative opponents. They see a fascist behind every Republican. “With…democracy itself in the balance…” wrote Sara Burnett and John Hanna of the Associated Press in a recent article on Governor’s races taking on new prominence. CNN’s S.E. (Sarah Elizabeth) Cupp recently wrote of the ascendancy of right wing nationalism and “in some cases fascism,” in which she grouped Donald Trump with Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orban, and Liz Truss with Marine Le Pen. Hillary Clinton recently compared a Trump campaign event in Ohio to a Nazi rally, I guess “deplorables” wasn’t strong enough.

 

Catchy slogans are ubiquitous in politics. Most, unsurprisingly, have a positive slant: “Why not the best?” – Carter in ’76; “Morning in America!” – Reagan in ’80. A few carry an accusatory tone: “It’s the economy, stupid!” – Clinton in ‘92. Others are egotistical: “We are the ones we have been waiting for!” – Obama in 2008. And then there was Trump’s upbeat slogan in 2016, “Make America great again,” which Democrats, using the acronym “MAGA,” have turned into a pejorative in 2022.

 

Like the Left’s call for net-zero-emissions (which in reality is a regressive tax), the words “Republicans represent a threat to democracy” serve as a red herring, to detract from real issues, like inflation, the economy, immigration, jobs, crime, school choice, and the student mental health crisis. Yet democracy is fragile, so should be watched and handled with care. Our Constitution provides for a government based on the rule of law, with checks and balances cast in three co-equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The purpose – to make it difficult for any individual to wrest control. As early as September 1787, Benjamin Franklin allegedly responded to a query about the new government, that it was “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  In the same year, in “Federalist 26,” Alexander Hamilton addressed the debate between legislative power and individual liberty. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the threat of tyranny from unchecked demands of individuals and groups. A Civil War was fought in the early 1860s to combat slavery, but also to preserve the union. The American political system is not supposed to be efficient. It is designed for debate and collaboration, aimed at reaching a consensus. While advocacy is expected from political parties, constraints on government are critical for continued individual liberty.

 

To associate the Republican Party with fascism is absurd. Granted, there are extremists in the Republican Party, just as there are extremists in the Democrat Party. But in neither case do they constitute a majority. Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene may not seem, to most of us, to reflect American values, but they do represent distinct voices within America. 

 

Democrats have divided Republicans into many “Trumpers” and few “non-Trumpers.” But the truth is more complicated. Most Republicans believe in the sanctity of an individual who is responsible and accountable. They believe in conserving what has worked in our culture, while welcoming change that improves people’s lives. In terms of change, they are gradualists, not revolutionaries. Economically, they believe in free-market capitalism with limited regulation and favor progressive taxes that are not secretly regressive, like those imposed by limiting energy production or promoting gambling. They believe choice in schools should not be limited to the wealthy. They believe that respect for our borders is necessary, and that a strong military is required. They believe in the rule of law, not men. They believe we are all equal in our rights as citizens, but recognize we are not equal in our abilities and aspirations. Many of us liked much of what Trump accomplished, while disliking his character. But of this, I feel certain, he was never a “threat to democracy.” He was watched too closely and too critically.  Unarmed protesters invading the Capitol was wrong, and Trump was wrong not to call them off. But if armed capitol police had been there in force and done their job, the rioters would have been stopped before they entered the Capitol. If this had been a dangerous insurrection, why did the Dow Jones Industrial Averages, a barometer of such activity, rise modestly on January 6, 7, and 8? Regardless, Republican Vice President Michael Pence acceded to the law. 

 

Threats to democracy occur when individuals or parties seize the reins of government and use their power, with the backing of the media, to destroy opponents. Combatting that trend, Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat has been willing to accept conservative Republicans as clients when he believes their rights are in jeopardy. He recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that it is wrong for Biden administration officials “to abuse the law, particularly the criminal justice system, against our political opponents.” 

  

There is much that concerns me, such as the Left’s threats to do away with the Senate filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. I worry about political and “woke” indoctrination, along with the elevation of victimhood, in our schools and colleges. I worry about the subordination of our Judeo-Christian values to some relative moral standard. I worry – but have no answers – about bureaucrats’ self interest in supporting the Party that assures their continued employment. I worry about unscrupulous politicians colluding with independent agencies to pursue personal and Party agendas, such as we saw with Lois Lerner and the IRS in 2015, and in the Department of Justice today, where, like the Soviet’s Laventiy Beria, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James first named the suspect, then searched for the crime.

 

But I am not seriously concerned about a “threat to democracy.” The hyperbolic words reflect the partisanship of our time. While I am not so naïve as to expect I will ever read unbiased newspapers or watch cable or network news that gives equal airtime to each side, I do not worry about democracy, so long as the Washington Post and the New York Post publish what they each claim to be news, and as long as Fox News, CNN, and PBS promote their versions of events. We are free to read and watch what we choose. We are divided, but we have not yet been rendered asunder. 

 

As long as we remember FDR’s words in the rubric that heads this essay, and recall Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg in late 1863, that we are “a government of the people, by the people and for the people,” our nation will remain free and democratic, even when diffuse and spirited.

"Voting"

                                                                      Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Voting”

August 25, 2020

 

“Our American heritage is threatened as much by our own indifference,

as it is by the most unscrupulous office or the most powerful foreign threat.

The future of this Republic is in the hands of the American voter.”

                                                                                                Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969)

                                                                                                New York Herald Tribune Forum

                                                                                                October 24, 1949

 

The ability to vote is a privilege, as well as a responsibility. It should not be denied any eligible individual, nor should it be granted to any non-citizen. Voters should learn all they can about candidates and their policies. To paraphrase Sy Syms’ ads from the 1980s, democracy depends on an educated electorate. “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all,” said John F. Kennedy.

 

Many of us live in one-party states. A consequence is that if one is registered with the “out” party, there is a tendency to feel one’s vote will not matter, for example a Democrat in Wyoming or a Republican in San Francisco or New York City. Trends in voter registration suggest dissatisfaction with both parties. Twenty years ago, 30% of all voters were registered as Independents (up from 20% in 1960), today that number is 40%, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in May 2020. Nevertheless, not voting should never be one’s decision. “Nobody will ever deprive the American people the right to vote,” said Franklin D. Roosevelt, “except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” And we should vote based on knowledge and reason, not inanity and emotion. Voting should be convenient and simple and should protect against fraud.

 

The presence of COVID-19 has many skeptical of being anyplace where crowds gather, including polling stations. One proposed alternative is to send ballots to every registered voter. There are about 153 million registered voters in the U.S. There are approximately 140,000 polling stations. Tracking legal voters is not easy. Every year, approximately 14% of the population – roughly 21 million voters – moves; another 1.5 million die and a similar number attain voting age. Keeping accurate records is a formidable task, which is why, historically, people have gone to their local polling stations to vote. Three states – Colorado, Oregon and Washington – have instituted a system to vote by mail, and their experience lends credibility to the viability of the process, but all three have been doing so for several years, ten years in the case of Colorado and twenty years for Oregon. Nevertheless, to take the process national will not be easy. “But running a vote-by-mail election is surprisingly complicated, and there’s a lot of room for things to go wrong. Validating and counting a deluge of posted ballots in an open and accountable way presents a major challenge, one that only half a dozen states are fully prepared for,” so ran an article in the August 9^th edition of The Oregonian. In close elections, unintentional errors are viewed with mistrust.

 

Absentee ballots are issued on request in every state, in some states for any reason. (When living in Connecticut but spending the work week in New York, I would go to the town hall in Old Lyme on the Friday before Election Day where, after showing ID, I would be given a ballot. I would fill it out, seal it and hand it back to the registrar.) Some commentators equate universal mail-in-voting and absentee voting, but they are different. In the first instance, ballots are sent to last-known addresses; in the second, ballots are sent by request. The mailing of 153 million ballots, having them filled out accurately and then having them returned and secured by election day eve is bound to encounter obstacles – ballots undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service, errors and confusion among voters and fraud, especially by those who “harvest” ballots. “A potential disaster arises not because of any deficiency at the post office but because of unrealistic ballot deadline and validation standards imposed recklessly by the states,” wrote Holman Jenkins in last Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. Anyone who thinks the process will be easy, free of error and not lead to recriminations is living in fantasy land.

 

This year’s primaries provided trial runs in states new to universal-mail-in ballots. The results should serve as a warning for national elections on November 3: Two months after the election, the outcome of New York’s 12^th Congressional District remained unknown, as did results from Paterson, New Jersey’s Third Ward City Council elections, where 24.3% of ballots were deemed ineligible. Ballots were left in the foyers of apartment buildings, not delivered to eligible citizens. The Center for Voter Information has said that half a million inaccurate applications for ballots were sent to Virginians two weeks ago. In Florida’s 2018 elections, a state Trump won in 2016 by a margin of 1.8%, 1.2% of mailed in ballots were rejected. Margins of victory in Presidential elections have narrowed over the past two decades, making disputes more likely.

 

The greater concern, in my opinion, is early voting, a separate issue, but also a consequence of universal-write-in voting. Voting early does not accord with an informed electorate. Partisans vote straight Party lines, but as Independents have become the largest segment of voters, time favors those who wait until election day. However, politicians love early voting. Each vote cast is one less to seek. People are encouraged to vote early, especially after boisterous rallies, before enthusiasm dims. Forty states, plus the District of Columbia, offer early voting options, some allowing voters to vote forty-five days in advance. Early voting diminishes, not enhances, democracy.

 

Elections should be free and fair. Results should express the intent of voters. Winners should be magnanimous in victory and losers gracious in defeat. There will always be those unable to get to their designated place to vote, thus a need for absentee ballots. Voters should base decisions on thoughtful considerations of the best and latest information available. The media should put aside bias and be alert to fraud. In the same column by Holman Jenkins quoted above, he wrote: “Elections, in fact, are on the list of things that people like to steal and will steal if opportunities are available.” Problems are fewer when voters go to polling stations on election day. That may not be possible in this season of COVID-19 and with government’s Orwellian response; so be ready for a fight that will make hanging chads in the 2000 election seem like a fond memory.