Attacking 15th Amendment now, 19th later
“Because it puts us at a disadvantage relative to Democrats.”
Michael Carvin, Attorney for the State of Arizona, in the Supreme Court last Tuesday, answering Justice Barrett’s question as to why the Arizona RNC has an interest in keeping voter suppression laws on the books
The case in front of the Court is a 15th Amendment case. The 15th Amendments states that:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Arizona is trying to enforce legislation that deliberately makes it more difficult for minorities to vote. If the legislation is blatant about this, it’s unconstitutional, but there are ways to make it less blatant, specifically by introducing a universally enforced condition that happens to affect one group adversely more than others. In Arizona’s case it has to do with addresses, a logistical problem on Native American reservations.
What’s important here isn’t the how, it’s the why. It’s the concept that voter disenfranchisement is OK to win elections, that the point of elections is not to put people in power who the majority of eligible voters vote for but to put one side in power. Power is being valued over democracy itself.
I’m sure if you asked a Republican in a Voter ID state – or most Gerrymandered states – why they were targeting Black people and they were to have the guts to answer you honestly, they’d say: “Because Black people tend to vote Democratic. Our problem with them is not that they’re Black, it’s that they tend to vote for our opponents. This isn’t racism, it’s partisanship.”
The principle here being exercised by Republicans is to disenfranchise populations that tend to vote against you. Statistically speaking, what’s the largest population that tends to vote Democratic?
Women.
If Republicans want to win elections, one of the most effective things they could do would be to reduce female voting. Don’t stop at the Fifteenth Amendment, go after the Nineteenth:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex.”
They will figure this out. When it comes to voter disenfranchisement, they figure most things out. And, as we’ve seen time and time again, most Republican legislators don’t have ethical limits.
For Republican women, I’ll quote Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
For everyone else, I’ll quote my colleague Ron Powell:
Don’t believe me? Just watch.
Ron Powell
03/05/2021 @ 8:23 am
“Because Black people tend to vote Democratic. Our problem with them is not that they’re “Black, it’s that they tend to vote for our opponents. This isn’t racism, it’s partisanship.”
However, when you ask black people why they tend to vote for Democrats, the response will almost always go something like this:
“Because the party of Lincoln has become the party of white supremacy, white nationalism, racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hatred.”
And, because;
Republicans want to make America great again by putting LGBTQ people back in the closet, women back in the kitchen, and black folks back in their ‘place’.”
koshersalaami
03/05/2021 @ 9:53 am
Well, yes. This is how Republican thought works. They’re conveniently unconscious of bigotry but hyper conscious of the reaction to it. If you look at the reaction to bigotry while not believing in the reaction’s cause, the reaction looks unreasonable, arbitrary, exaggerating, and cynical, like a selfish grab for attention, power, and resources. It would look like assuming that Rev. Sharpton knew Tawana Brawley was lying when he advocated for her, which they do assume.
Where most Republican immorality really comes from is in insisting on trusting the comfortable without attempting to really verify it. I keep saying that the best witnesses are actual witnesses. If you want to know what Black people really face you don’t go to Rush or Fox. You verify what you think you know by listening to the other side and checking out what they say. If you hear about an incident where a cop kills an unarmed Black guy, is your first reaction to ask who’s wrong? If you’re Republican, your first reaction is to assume the cop was right and proceed from there. Defend the comfortable and don’t look for the truth; in fact, don’t acknowledge that the truth might be true.
If this is your perspective, you think that Black people being overwhelmingly Democrats is some weird mass psychosis where they’re all being duped or they’re cynically looking to be supported by White people, neither of which speaks well of them.
What the country is learning, to the horror of millions, is just how far this will go. This is what Trumpism reveals. Millions and millions of Republicans believe that the election was stolen from Trump, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (and no evidence supporting this) and the fact that this evidence is heavily supported by Republican election officials and Republican judges. Millions of Republicans think it’s a good idea to congregate and not wear masks. Presumably most of these people have doctors, and very presumably if they asked their doctors they’d be told unambiguously to wear masks and socially distance. And absolutely presumably their doctors are the people in their lives who actually understand infectious diseases. If you want to know the truth about something, your best bet is not to avoid talking to the experts in your life.
But avoiding talking to experts about anything uncomfortable is exactly the Republican mindset. How else could we possibly get QAnon? How else could we possibly get a resurgence in Flat Earthers?
Think about this. Flat Eartherism can be disproved by looking at airline schedules. If Flat Eartherism was true, to fly from LA to Tokyo you’d fly across the United States, across the Atlantic, across Europe, and across Asia (by the way, not taking a Great Circle route). How long it takes to fly from LA to Tokyo is easily verifiable. Thousands of people do it every day.
What you really need to understand about the Republican Party is that it is to a varying degree a party of intellectual cowards. They’re people who in many areas don’t want to seek the truth.
Democrats have their own problems, but they’re different. They’re mainly fine about seeking out the truth about bigotry and science – up to a point – but they tend not to look at the truth about what it takes to change anything. This isn’t about laziness, they’re willing to put in a ton of effort, but there is a definite unwillingness to confront the messiness of what it takes to be effective.
Bitey
03/05/2021 @ 9:33 pm
I had an epiphany today which involves much of this. I tried explaining it to my wife first, and it has this chain reaction aspect which makes it difficult to encapsulate in a post. It can be explained by discrepancies in the ways in which conservatives and liberals think about certain things. It has been previously explained that liberals and conservatives have different intellectual responses to fear. I’m sure you’re both familiar with the lambic brain discussions, etc. I think it is something similar to that, but different.
Basically, I think it is how we think about trust, and how we define it differently. Also, I think it shows a similarity between the far right and the far left, as they both gravitate toward purity tests/requirements. In brief, “purity” eliminates the need for trust in the way that a diverse system proponent values it.
Ron Powell
03/06/2021 @ 12:21 pm
“It can be explained by discrepancies in the ways in which conservatives and liberals think about certain things.”
Discrepancies or disparities, or both?
Disparities re their differences.
Discrepancies re the thinking about trust and purity.
Ron Powell
03/06/2021 @ 12:36 pm
Also:
We might wish to delve into the distinction between a political ‘purity test’ and a political ‘litmus test’.
Bitey
03/06/2021 @ 7:26 pm
Disparities would be the correct word. Thanks.
As for purity or litmus…I specifically mean purity. A litmus test determines the level to (whatever) in the political context, as it applies to an individual. A purity test determines the essence of a (thing) and its appropriateness to be a part of a homogeneous whole. Metaphorically, determining acidity allows for compromise. Purity does not. Our problem currently is the trend toward purity tests, and not political litmus tests.
Ron Powell
03/06/2021 @ 7:50 pm
“Our problem currently is the trend toward purity tests, and not political litmus tests.”
Agreed….
koshersalaami
03/06/2021 @ 10:52 pm
It’s absolutely about purity, and that is a function of both the far Right and the far Left. In fact, it may be a good way of illustrating how they got to be far anything.
There’s an important thing to understand about purity mania that normally isn’t discussed because it isn’t widely known. I learned about this from my wife, who is a professor in Student Affairs Administration/College Student Personnel (it’s called both, depending where) with a specialty in student development theory. What I learned from her is that cognitive development continues way past childhood. Think Piaget for college students.
(If you aren’t familiar with Piaget, he’s a psychologist who figured out that children physically can’t grasp some concepts at some ages because their brains aren’t developed enough yet. Best example: a little kid thinks a tall thin glass can hold more liquid than a short fat glass, regardless of whether it’s true.)
She teaches theorists in overall cognitive development and also in moral development. If you want to go deeper, the most interesting theorist in cognitive development in that age is probably Perry, though there are others. In moral development there are two: Kohlberg and Gilligan.
In terms of moral development, people can freeze at certain stages and may never get past them. The rule of thumb those theorists discovered is that someone can see the merit in a moral argument one stage past theirs but can’t come up with that argument themselves. If the argument is more than one stage past them, they can’t comprehend it at all.
I wish I’d understood (or been exposed to) this moral development theory when I was at OS. I would have understood some things (and some people) I saw in a very different light and would have stopped knocking my head against the wall.
Purity is, quite simply, an earlier stage in moral development.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/ethicalbeings/theoretical_approach_intro_reading.pdf