5 ms·

This is where truth and "truthiness" diverge, I suppose. "Two decades of claims about election fraud" shares character with "two decades of high rates of Stop-a

by bsanr 5y ago

This is where truth and "truthiness" diverge, I suppose. "Two decades of claims about election fraud" shares character with "two decades of high rates of Stop-and-Frisk detainments of black New Yorkers." The rest of the world looks at the reasonable behavior of liberal election workers and would be reformers - no the "Moderate" Democrats, who as recently as last week were working to gerrymander one of their own party members out of office because they're a progressive - and the way they're received by certain subsets of the electorate, and justifiably consider us insane. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29071163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29071163] This statement >That, in turn, has destroyed trust. Is useful, though not in the way you probably think. The notion of "trust" in American politics is an important and powerful one, and the root of much of our history. Our basic structure as a federation is built on interstate trust. Our major flirtation with dissolution was not predicated on actual legislative action, but a lack of trust that certain actions wouldn't eventually be taken. So, trust is both a bedrock of our society and a curiously fragile thing. As far as that notion goes, an examination of our history can yield the following statements: That the Left has not always trusted the Right to make the "correct" decisions, but has always trusted them with the right to vote. and The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote.

rayiner 5y ago
The rest of the world gets an extremely biased view of what’s happening in America. They may view “liberal election workers and would be reformers” as the good guys based on that, but the best way to tell what they think is reasonable is from the rules they impose on themselves. French people might not like Georgia Republicans, but France banned mail in voting in the 1970s, while Georgia has extensive mail in voting. Germans might not like Georgia Republicans either, but residency registration there—which is required for voting—requires shlepping down to a citizens office in person with a bunch of paperwork. Meanwhile you can register to vote in Georgia completely online. You can see this for many other issues as well. International media portrays American Republicans as crazy religious fundamentalists. But Mississippi’s 15-week abortion law is less restrictive than the laws in France or Germany. (In the latter country, abortion is technically still illegal under the basic law, though not punished.) I agree referencing international norms is a good way to sanity-check what’s within bounds. But obviously the way to do that is to look at the actual rules in place in other liberal democracies, not how people in those countries perceive Americans. On that front, the American left is outside the liberal democratic mainstream on many issues: voting, abortion, religious education, etc.
- bsanr 5y ago
  Cherry-picking restrictive (and, might I say, somewhat off-topic?) policies doesn't change that some form of postal voting is associated with national freedom and wealth, which is both an image I imagine that we'd like to project and a reality level-headed lovers of democracy support. Japan has it. Australia has it. The UK. Canada. Germany. It's a good thing. Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the truth that "liberal election workers and would-be reformers" ARE the good guys, because they are not bombarded with cynical, horse race-style coverage of the minutiae of our collective political life. When they learn of our goings-on, they usually receive facts, like: There has been no widespread election fraud in American federal elections at any point in living memory. and Certain US states have a documented history of voting discrimination. and A 2013 SCOTUS decision struck down key provisions of a law meant to protect people from this discrimination. and The conservative governments of those very same states immediately enacted new restrictive voter laws. and Officials have admitted that, in some cases, these laws were expressly designed not to enhance election security, but to lower turnout of "undesirable" voters. So, if non-Americans come away with the impression that conservatives are married to a century-and-a-half-long campaign of doing whatever it takes to try to restrict voting along lines of identity (sex, race, class, location), and that liberals are the ones trying to get the citizens, of a country that prides itself on its free and fair democracy, to... vote? It would be an accurate impression. It would be the truth. You completely ignored the bulk of my reply, probably because there's no getting around the fact that American conservatism, historically, radically diverges from liberalism on voting rights. They don't hold the same values at all, and the delineation is clear, as I'll state again: Liberals want people to be able to vote. Conservatives want to withhold the right to vote. Now, you can argue the merits of each stance. I would probably counter your likely argument that undue and onerous restrictions, which substantially resemble capricious tactics of the past, run counter to the most basic American ethos, and that our national experiment has been one of slowly uncovering the diamond of liberty that is recognizing and assuring the right of all sound-minded adults to agency and self-determination and a voice in the public square. It's a really pretty diamond. People around the world think so, too. I'm going to ask you to put down the shovel you seem intent on using to cover it back up again.
  - 5y ago
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> That the Left has not always trusted the Right to make the "correct" decisions, but has always trusted them with the right to vote. Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way? That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators? Yeah, they trust the right with the right to vote, as long as the left can finagle a way to outvote them. (Yes, I know, neither of those passed, nor has any likelihood of passing. Still, there's a profound distrust of democracy on the part of at least some of the left.) > The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote. That is so ridiculously wrong that it looks like you're just making stuff up to fit a totally slanted worldview. In particular, the word "never" is a dead giveaway.
- bsanr 5y ago
  >Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way? As much as I wish we would have breached this point of trust by now, liberals have never actually packed the Supreme Court. >That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators? I have never heard of this. Please focus on things that have actually happened, and not wild conspiracy theories. >That is so ridiculously wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_co... Each point of contention, hard fought by conservatives, who were dragged kicking and screaming into the future of a country that ever-so-slightly further embodied its highest ideals, despite their protests.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you think that article demonstrates. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that "The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote". I will give you that there have been times when the Right has not trusted the Left with the right to vote. I will give you that in some places, that is true right now. But a general, sweeping statement? "Never"? C'mon. You're simply wrong.
    - 5y ago

by bsanr 5y ago

rayiner 5y ago

The rest of the world gets an extremely biased view of what’s happening in America. They may view “liberal election workers and would be reformers” as the good guys based on that, but the best way to tell what they think is reasonable is from the rules they impose on themselves. French people might not like Georgia Republicans, but France banned mail in voting in the 1970s, while Georgia has extensive mail in voting. Germans might not like Georgia Republicans either, but residency registration there—which is required for voting—requires shlepping down to a citizens office in person with a bunch of paperwork. Meanwhile you can register to vote in Georgia completely online. You can see this for many other issues as well. International media portrays American Republicans as crazy religious fundamentalists. But Mississippi’s 15-week abortion law is less restrictive than the laws in France or Germany. (In the latter country, abortion is technically still illegal under the basic law, though not punished.) I agree referencing international norms is a good way to sanity-check what’s within bounds. But obviously the way to do that is to look at the actual rules in place in other liberal democracies, not how people in those countries perceive Americans. On that front, the American left is outside the liberal democratic mainstream on many issues: voting, abortion, religious education, etc.

bsanr 5y ago
Cherry-picking restrictive (and, might I say, somewhat off-topic?) policies doesn't change that some form of postal voting is associated with national freedom and wealth, which is both an image I imagine that we'd like to project and a reality level-headed lovers of democracy support. Japan has it. Australia has it. The UK. Canada. Germany. It's a good thing. Many foreigners recognize this, just as they recognize the truth that "liberal election workers and would-be reformers" ARE the good guys, because they are not bombarded with cynical, horse race-style coverage of the minutiae of our collective political life. When they learn of our goings-on, they usually receive facts, like: There has been no widespread election fraud in American federal elections at any point in living memory. and Certain US states have a documented history of voting discrimination. and A 2013 SCOTUS decision struck down key provisions of a law meant to protect people from this discrimination. and The conservative governments of those very same states immediately enacted new restrictive voter laws. and Officials have admitted that, in some cases, these laws were expressly designed not to enhance election security, but to lower turnout of "undesirable" voters. So, if non-Americans come away with the impression that conservatives are married to a century-and-a-half-long campaign of doing whatever it takes to try to restrict voting along lines of identity (sex, race, class, location), and that liberals are the ones trying to get the citizens, of a country that prides itself on its free and fair democracy, to... vote? It would be an accurate impression. It would be the truth. You completely ignored the bulk of my reply, probably because there's no getting around the fact that American conservatism, historically, radically diverges from liberalism on voting rights. They don't hold the same values at all, and the delineation is clear, as I'll state again: Liberals want people to be able to vote. Conservatives want to withhold the right to vote. Now, you can argue the merits of each stance. I would probably counter your likely argument that undue and onerous restrictions, which substantially resemble capricious tactics of the past, run counter to the most basic American ethos, and that our national experiment has been one of slowly uncovering the diamond of liberty that is recognizing and assuring the right of all sound-minded adults to agency and self-determination and a voice in the public square. It's a really pretty diamond. People around the world think so, too. I'm going to ask you to put down the shovel you seem intent on using to cover it back up again.
- 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> That the Left has not always trusted the Right to make the "correct" decisions, but has always trusted them with the right to vote. Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way? That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators? Yeah, they trust the right with the right to vote, as long as the left can finagle a way to outvote them. (Yes, I know, neither of those passed, nor has any likelihood of passing. Still, there's a profound distrust of democracy on the part of at least some of the left.) > The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote. That is so ridiculously wrong that it looks like you're just making stuff up to fit a totally slanted worldview. In particular, the word "never" is a dead giveaway.

bsanr 5y ago
>Packing the Supreme Court because you can't trust the justices appointed by the right to vote the right way? As much as I wish we would have breached this point of trust by now, liberals have never actually packed the Supreme Court. >That crazy plan to make a separate state out of each DC neighborhood, so that DC would have dozens of senators? I have never heard of this. Please focus on things that have actually happened, and not wild conspiracy theories. >That is so ridiculously wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_co... Each point of contention, hard fought by conservatives, who were dragged kicking and screaming into the future of a country that ever-so-slightly further embodied its highest ideals, despite their protests.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you think that article demonstrates. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that "The Right has never trusted the Left with the right to vote". I will give you that there have been times when the Right has not trusted the Left with the right to vote. I will give you that in some places, that is true right now. But a general, sweeping statement? "Never"? C'mon. You're simply wrong.
  - 5y ago