H. Clinton earns feather in her cap from me for anti-voter suppression

  1. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    In an attempt to appeal to her more populist left flank, Candidate Clinton has put forth this initiatitive. My more conservative friends and hubbers have said that we (on the left) are making a "federal case" of the issue and that concern is not warranted, obviously Ms. Clinton sees it differently. In a Salon magazine article presented yesterday her vision on this matter was laid out. The GOP will be put on defensive about their "Voter ID" ideas. As part of their campaign I wonder how the GOP can explain its position. Here is the article:

    http://www.salon.com/2015/06/15/hillary … democracy/

    This is a classic excerpt from the article that defines the "right" to a "T".

    The right wing fears the vote because it knows that voting is power. In 1977, Reagan was horrified by Carter’s push for universal registration, worrying that it would make the Republican party “dead as a the Dodo bird.” Recently Noah Rothman wrote in Commentary, “It will never be popular to oppose extending voting rights to what Daniel Foster calls, perhaps uncharitably, ‘civic idiots,’ but there is something to be said for privileging the informed voter.” His argument is reminiscent of William Buckley’s famous defense of Jim Crow, “The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom… The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro-and a great many Whites-to cast an enlightened and responsible vote.”  The language is is changed, but the rhetoric is the same: supremacy before democracy.

    (Most disappointing that outside of his eloquent style, the late Bill Buckley was an elitist and racist)

    The end result of policies that restrict the franchise is to divert political influence away from people of color and low-income people and towards wealthy whites. Eliminating barriers to voting would be nothing less than a transformation of American democracy. That’s why conservatives are so terrified.

    Any thoughts?

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Just one...

      When you read a Salon article, you should wait a few minutes to ponder the balance of what you read before heading for the keyboard.

      I tried reading your linked article, including following its referenced and validating links, only to give up because it all appeared to be just a Left version of Sean Hannity - heavy on partisan rhetoric and assumed facts, but very light on verifiable facts or real research.

      Sort of like preaching to the choir right?

      For instance;

      - Felon Disenfranchisement:  As your article states - Rand Paul has already been talking about this, but to you, it's Hillary's idea now? Part of her 3-part voter reform plan?

      - racially biased voter ID laws - the good point here was the use of "research" that reached its conclusions by statistically measuring; "...anti-Black stereotypes dramatically increase the chance of a proposal of a restrictive voting measure. States with very little anti-Black attitudes would have four restrictions proposed every two years (on average), compared with seven restrictions every two years for a very racist state." Hmm...

      I know it is an old topic... but I can't see why something as important as voting should require less authentication than renting a power tool. Yet, you call it voter suppression. Hmm.. An objective opinion?

      - Automatic Voter Registration; Geez Louise! You can hardly get through any government interaction now without being asked if you are or want to register to vote. But I must have missed the Repubs assault on this one. Maybe you could point out their voter suppression efforts against automatic voter registration?

      And on... and on...

      Come on Cred. Put down the KoolAid and do a little thinking about what you are reading. You wouldn't believe everything you read in one of Max's GlobalSkyWatch.com conspiracy articles would you? Yet that is exactly what you appear to be doing with your recent Salon articles.

      Hmm... is that the choir I hear warming up? No worries, I'm done you still have time to make it.

      ps. That is not a feather in her cap... it's a tuft of hair that the colorist missed.


      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ok, I know your opinion about H. Clinton, she has more than a few hurdles to cross before she is heir apparent as the nominee.

        But, I have heard Ron Paul mentioned his concern about former felon and the franchise, but if he wants to run as a Republican, he will shelve that idea real fast.

        Your speak politics, I speak of fundamental principles, the conservative is never going to advocate universal suffrage for those adult citizens over 18. Because if everyone voted without exception, they could not remain in power. Expansion of the suffrage over the history of this country is the very antithesis of what it means to be conservative. The issue and the GOP/conservative behavior  over the last 3 years makes it clear to me, anyway, what their intent is. The excerpt provided is correct in speaking on their fears and concerns, and while you see it as politics, I see it as a fundamental ideological difference between the poliitcal parties. So, it is who you are verses the games you play.

        After all, we don't want that 47 percent of American electorate having access to the ballot, as moochers. They will never accept the status quo, the very basis of Conservatism and the Republican party.
        Regardless, that H. Clinton is playing a political card, there is a lot of real resentment on the left regarding this issue.

        I am not giving credibility to 'racist states' and 'non racist states' which was not defined in article.

        There are still far too many people that are not voting, beyond simple yes or no.  There were an example or two in the article.