Having spotted an argument for stubborn bipartisanship on voting rights, I decided to respond at New York:
Right now, voting rights in America are subject to a condition of partisan gridlock in Washington that preserves Republicans’ ability to wreak havoc on voting and election laws in the states they control. So long as centrist Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refuse to consider a carve-out for voting-rights legislation to liberate it from the Senate filibuster, that’s where things will stand at least through the 2022 elections, in which the GOP has a very good shot at busting up the current Democratic trifecta.
The Manchin-Sinema position is that voting-rights protections must be enacted by a bipartisan coalition to instill confidence in the system given the Trump-induced mistrust that metastasized during and after the 2020 elections, inspiring the attempted and ongoing MAGA coup to challenge or overturn the results. The central question now is what happens when (it’s no longer really a matter of “if”) it becomes unmistakably clear that Republicans won’t cooperate with “compromise” efforts like those in which Manchin has engaged twice this year.
At the invaluable Election Law Blog, Ohio State University professor Ned Foley answers the question by suggesting Democrats might just want to let the GOP do its worst for a while, assuming the “worst” doesn’t fall below some hypothetical “floor” of “minimal conditions necessary for an election to qualify as being small-d democratic.” His basic argument provides sort of a theoretical underpinning for Manchin’s reflexive belief (sincere or merely tactical, given the very red political coloration of his state) that election reforms that aren’t bipartisan simply aren’t worth enacting.
Before addressing Foley’s take, I will emphasize that his counsel of strategic surrender for Democrats is contingent, not absolute: If Republicans violate the hypothetical “floor” that Foley discusses but does not define, then he says Democrats have no choice but to override GOP voter-suppression measures if they can, even if such partisan action exacerbates the GOP’s “electoral McCarthyism” (his term for the Big Lie ideology of pervasive but never documented “voter fraud” claims).
But Foley pretty clearly thinks that what Republicans are doing in states like Georgia and Texas isn’t so very bad, and concentrates his argument on the importance of keeping Republicans from falling into an authoritarian pit forever:
“[W]hen as now the especially dangerous and distinctive paranoid conditions of electoral McCarthyism have taken root, and are growing, it seems as if that kind of one-party imposition of its electoral policy preference upon the other party that suffers from the paranoia of electoral McCarthyism has the potential of being extremely counterproductive. Indeed, it risks propelling forward the possibility of a reaction that would cause the society to fall below the floor of what’s essential for small-d democracy, thereby bringing out the circumstance that is exactly desired to be avoided.”
It’s less obvious how Foley (or Manchin) would ameliorate “electoral McCarthyism,” other than this very wishful thinking:
“Might it not be a smarter strategy to let Republicans write the rules for upcoming elections (as long as they remain within the realm of adequacy in terms of casting and counting votes), and then be able to say to them after they have lost, ‘Hey, we conducted the process exactly how you wanted it; what possibly gives you a basis for complaining with the result just because you lost?'”
There are two pretty big and obvious problems with this surrender strategy. The first is the most obvious: What if Republicans don’t lose in 2022 or 2024? If they win, they may very well be convinced that making it harder for their enemies to vote saved them, and ask for more helpings of the same satisfying meal. They will, moreover, have the power to do just that in more states, and to thwart Democratic voting-rights efforts in Washington for the foreseeable future. A Democratic surrender on voting rights that produces defeat would be accurately viewed as a betrayal of the loyal minority constituencies that lifted Democrats to victory in 2020.
The second flaw in the surrender strategy is it relies on the premise there is some silver bullet that will slay the Big Lie; that there is a single item feeding Republican “mistrust” of the electoral system that can be disproved by letting them indulge their malign fantasies. There really isn’t.
Yes, some Republican base voters believe without evidence that there is currently rampant “voter fraud” that can be prevented with greater vigilance. Others think voting by mail is inherently corrupt; since it hasn’t been outlawed anywhere, wouldn’t reestablishing the traditional Election Day — part of the lost America Donald Trump promised to restore — be an important agenda item to be pursued with renewed vigor? Still others think the problem is easily herded minority voters who want to vote themselves government benefits (the heart of Mitt Romney’s famous “47 percent” remark); they might favor a return to literacy tests or polls taxes. Some “constitutional conservatives” reject any electoral outcomes that undermine “natural rights” (e.g., to property or to fetal “personhood”) that they regard as having been established by the Founders and God Almighty. They aren’t going to wake up and recommit to small-d democracy.
And then you have the people who exist in both political parties, and indeed every political party from the beginning of time, who don’t bother with theories or evidence or “rights” at all and simply favor whatever electoral arrangements improve their chances of victory. What makes today’s Republicans distinctive in that respect is that their leader, the 45th president of the United States, exemplifies that attitude as much as Jesus Christ exemplified the Golden Rule. Indeed, winning at any cost is Donald Trump’s Golden Rule.
Even in the more “reasonable” precincts of the Republican Party, among people who don’t promote the Big Lie and all but visibly roll their eyes at Trump’s excesses, there is currently an iron and nearly universal opposition to the enhancement of any federally established voting rights, even those (most notably those protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965) that their own party accepted and even celebrated until the U.S. Supreme Court began tearing them apart in recent years. So even if Foley is right and the current passion for vitiating voting rights at the state level burns itself out, does that mean bipartisan support for establishing a durable national floor for voting rights via federal legislation will magically return? There’s no reason to think so.
It’s regrettable that purely partisan avenues are the only ones available to Democrats right now on this and so many other crucial questions. And yes, wherever possible, Democrats should exhibit reasonableness unilaterally as the sole custodians of small-d democracy. A voting-rights bill imposed by a filibuster carve-out or (even less likely) budget reconciliation need not include every conceivable or advisable reform, so as to enable Republican claims of a “power grab.” Restoring the Voting Rights Act to its original dimensions might be enough, along with modest measures to clarify how post-election challenges work so the courts don’t have to litigate them endlessly.
If today’s wave of voter suppression in the States grows worse next year and after the midterms, the folly of Manchinism will become more evident than ever. You cannot restore bipartisanship, on voting rights or anything else of significance, by giving power to your extremist opponents in hopes they will come to their senses or become glutted with too much winning.
Marcus and Jeff (Jeff, not sure if you were responding in part to my comment): Just would like to clarify. My point was that the National Guard stuff is competing with what K/E are trying to say now. To the extent the National Guard coverage is being driven by 527s K/E cannot directly rein that in even if they would very much like to do so. If they did as you suggested, Marcus–make a public statement expressing their desire or intention to focus for the duration of this campaign on the issues voters are concerned about today–perhaps any 527s, with whom they cannot directly communicate, and other K/E supporters who are pushing more National Guard coverage would get the message and back off. Which of course guarantees nothing in terms of what the media decide to focus on.
I’m not aware of K/E voluntarily discussing Vietnam era events of late. This may be a situation where K/E’s efforts to get back control of the debate are being hurt by well-meaning pro-Kerry 527 groups and/or others.
Rasmussen polls daily and uses a three day rolling average for his daily numbers. Here is what they show:
————————————————-
***The Bush approval and disapproval numbers are exactly where they were before the Republican convention.
————————————————-
***The Bush v. Kerry numbers for voters are exactly where they were before the Republican convention.
————————————————-
Fox Dynamic poll
Fox reported RVs until after their August 4th poll showed Kerry gaining the lead. Once the RVs showed Bush losing the lead, Fox quit reporting their RV results and switched to the LV distinction. This is akin to discovering that Kerry is 6’3 and Bush is 5’9, so the Fox Pollster backs away until Bush APPEARS to be taller from this angle. Yeah, it is that BAD.
Fox shows Bush with only a two point lead TODAY, among LVs.
————————————————-
***Fox has Bush v. Kerry at two point race among LVs, clearly within the margin of error.
————————————————-
Tony makes a good point. As Ruy pointed out (trackback to http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000642.php) Kerry actually got a bump in the battleground. So the fact that ABC shows the race essentially tied in those states should mollify the hand-wringers.
And the ABC/Post poll shows the two tied among all voters in the battleground states. How much of what Bush did was to increase his strength in states he was going to win anyway?
OK, ABC is out. Taking a count again, for polls held at least in part after the convention, using RV’s when available, LV’s when not, we have:
CBS Bush +7 (Sept 6-8)
ABC Bush +6 (Sept 6-8)
Fox Bush +4% (LV, Sept 7-8)
Gallup Bush +1% (Sept 3-5)
ICR Kerry +1% (Sept 1-5)
There’s the question of what Labor Day is doing to all of this. And of whether the LV list (which favors Bush more) is better than the RV list. But this set has a median of Bush up by 4%. Hardly insurmountable.
I look forward to Ruy giving us a lot more insight on all of this.
Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. That’s most likely the election. And the debates.
Logan, I don’t think Inside politics is all that bad. I always found Judy Woodruff pretty fair and Bill Snider usually tilts to the left. Of course I think it is a little to early to say we have a front runner. If two weeks after the convention ALL the polls show a more than 5 point lead, than that could be true. Even then we have the debates. I heard that when Regan Ran against Carter that Carter had a double didget lead going into the debates then after the debates Carter was toast.
As far as the media declaring Bush the “frontrunner.” I knew this would happen.
I mean, didn’t we all?
When Kerry is ahead by 5 or 6% it is a virtual tie.
When Bush is ahead by 5 or 6% he is the “clear front runner.”
Truth is, Kerry should embrace his new “underdog status.” Let it be how he connects with people.
He can claim that, like the people, he is the underdog against corporate interests, et al.
He then should say, there are more of us then them.
P.S. I agree that he should stop talking about Vietnam. Christ Almighty. I wish he had never brought up fucking Vietnam.
Think about the irony. That pitiful country cost us the 1968 and 1972 elections. Imagine if it costs us 2004 as well.
P.P.S. I’m beginning to think that Kerry is a dipshit.
FYI,
ABC poll includes “leaners.”
Well someone’s wrong. Either Zogby, Rasmussen Economist and Fox or CBS, ABC, Newsweek and Time.
I understand how you can spin maybe one or two polls, but almost every mainstream poll coming out lately has Bush up. ABC and CBS came out today. both have Bush up by seven and nine respectively. Can all these polls be wrong at the moment?
> Just a followup comment. When the Republicans were
> trying to run Clinton out of town on a rail Carville
> used to say that the public wants to know what the
> politicians are going to do about their problems and
> has little use for politicians who want all the talk to be
> about themselves and who did what to whom when.
Precisely why Kerry needs to stop talking about Vietnam already… Sure, he is justifiably proud of his medals, but that’s no substitute for real policies and ideas. If he can present those to the American public (and avoid “Kerrymeandering” by giving simple, clear answers to questions) during the debates, he still has a good chance.
Fortunately, “Shrub” also has offered little but cliches and tired rhetoric for his political base.
MARCU$
Just a followup comment. When the Republicans were trying to run Clinton out of town on a rail Carville used to say that the public wants to know what the politicians are going to do about their problems and has little use for politicians who want all the talk to be about themselves and who did what to whom when. Something along those lines.
This sort of mindset says: when you come right down to it, our side just has better ideas about what to do to improve the lives of ordinary citizens. The public has for decades agreed. It continues to agree. When we offer our ideas in straightforward, digestible language that frames the choice clearly, we usually win.
Why is Bill Schneider of CNN allowed to lie about the polls on their little Inside Politics right wing biased show? All the legitimate polls show a close race, yet Mr. Schneider claimed, “Well, we can now say that Bush is the clear front runner.” Say what? Just recently Kerry was in the lead, by about the same margins as Bush is supposedly now, yet Mr. S. nor anyone at CNN ever called Kerry the front runner. The Bush crowd and their media mininons are obvioulsy trying to use fake polls to influence a “band waggon” effort to sway voters, which seems really crass and clearly based on fake data.
Marcus, likewise I am hoping this campaign will move to, and stay in, the 21st century from this point forward. The National Guard stuff that is being reported is competing with what K/E are trying to get out there. If it’s about the distant past we are way off message. Yes, Bush and his surrogates continue to deceive about the distant past. But they have been both deceitful and wildly incorrect in what they have said to the public on matters of much more pressing concern to the voters.
Not really related to the Subject, but I think Kerry needs to do the smart but high-minded thing by urging _EVERYONE_ to stop talking about the supposed inconsistencies regarding a) “Shrub’s” national guard service in the early 70’s, b) his own Vietnam record. As some pundit pointed out, this discussion will not bring a single U.S. serviceman home from Iraq and nor will it be very helpful when trying to figure out how to shrink the annual $0.5-trillion federal deficit.
Let’s face it: the likelihood of another four years of “Shrub” will decrease if the election debate is focused on factual issues like the federal economy, jobs, Iraq and the role the current President’s decisions has played in all that. Conversely, an angry mud-slinging debate will only divert attention away from this Administration’s many failures while discouraging independents from voting for anybody. This will make it easier for Karl Rove to win by simply bringing the committed GOP base to the voting booths.
MARCU$
Interesting that Fox News has a poll that shows Kerry doing better than CBS’ poll.
And to answer some of JDC’s questions, I think Kerry has some ground to make up, but not really a lot. I don’t think Bush holds that “strong” a lead; to me strong indicates a wide margin that has held up for a long time, not a few points gained over the last couple of weeks. I
If Bush gets PA and FL, then I think he wins. But I personally wouldn’t bet too heavily on him winning Pennsylvania. With the GOP convention just last week, and with all the “Kerry is tanking/can’t do anything right” coverage we’ve been subjected to lately, this may be Bush’s highwater mark (barring external events, of course) and they’re still tied there.
Does anyone know what has happened to coldheartedtruth.com?
Ruy or anyone,
At this site:
http://www.dalythoughts.com/summary-classic-nozog.htm
…the ECV map seems to indicate Bush is holding a strong lead in the state polls and the national map. Aside from the Gallup fallacies you’ve been discussing, are there other fallacies internal to it, or is it accurate that Kerrry has alot of ground to make up? Is Zogby worth following or not?
If Pennsylvania and Florida break for Bush, is the election over?
Thank you.