Up host Chris Hayes covers the state-level challenges to voting laws in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, and how they could affect the 2012 elections. Podcast host Sam Seder, non-profit founder Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion, Judith Browne-Dianis of the voting-rights group Advancement Project, and The Nation's Ari Berman join to discuss.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one institution after another – from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church to corporate America, even Major League Baseball – imploded under the weight of corruption and incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, Americans have historically low levels of trust in their institutions; the social contract between ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.
How did we get here? With "Twilight of the Elites," Christopher Hayes offers a radically novel answer. Since the 1960s, as the meritocracy elevated a more diverse group of men and women into power, they learned to embrace the accelerating inequality that had placed them near the very top. Their ascension heightened social distance and spawned a new American elite--one more prone to failure and corruption than any that came before it.
Leave a Comment:
Hey Chris:
Though I’m generally not a fan of MSNBC, I appreciate the scholarly and fresh perspective you bring to your program. [I also appreciate this in Rachel Maddow when
her commentary matches her PhD from Oxford, but that’s a separate topic…]
There is no more fundamental right and responsibility—with the possible exception of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—than the right to vote. I am only beginning to appreciate the historic struggle surrounding this right which many of us take
for granted, but many have been denied over our history. No sane, non-felon, adult American Citizen should be denied this right, and the responsibility that comes with it.
A quote attributed to Stalin, correctly or incorrectly, is the following:
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Joseph Stalin
[ brainy quote_com website ]
Regardless of whether he said it, it does point to the heart of the voter fraud issue. Stated opinions on MSNBC range from “There is NO voter fraud, NONE!” to “This is an illegal attempt by Republicans to disenfranchise minorities.” Historical controversy surrounds whether JFK beat Nixon in 1960 by virtue of several thousand dead people voting in a Chicago run by the Daly-mob machine. The 2000 election being decided by the Supreme Court after “our lawyers vs. their lawyers” could not erase GWB’s 514 vote margin in Florida by virtue of interpretation of “hanging chads” and other vagaries of the ballot system remains a rallying cry for the Left. A not unwarranted fear of future elections is that they will be decided not by the will of the American People, but by illegal immigrants voting by the thousands across the country. A Faustian grand bargain would go something like this:
“OK, You let us build THE FREAKIN’ FENCE all the way from Brownsville, TX to Ocean Beach south of San Diego, and we will let you win Illinois by virtue of people voting from Rohm Emanuel’s un-purged voting rolls which will include a WHOLE BUNCH of dead people, moved out of the state people, felons and ‘undocumented Americans’ in Chicago-land…”
But that doesn’t sound right, does it? Not in the land of “liberty and justice for
all.” Whether by different ethnic rates of reproduction (and abortions), and by immigration patterns (legal or otherwise), demographic shifts are inexorably changing voting patterns over generations and not-that-many decades.
It was the states who created the Federal Government in the first place, moving from the Articles of Confederation to the 1789 Constitution. With all its imperfections
and flaws, it did provide mechanisms for self-correction as the nation matured. What sounds to the majority like “the right thing to do for all Americans” may indeed sound like oppression to minorities and others who feel their voices are not being heard. There is a process for registering to vote, and yes this varies by state, as an artifact of our founding with states being the most direct local expression of the will of their peoples. A federal voting registry would be yet another elimination of the checks and balances provided by the states against the overreaching federal government, by which a small but powerful and monied minority controlling the capitol can impose its will on the majority in the rest of the country.
John Fund spoke on C-span Book TV late last month, and was discussing his latest book, “Who's Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk [Paperback]” along with his co-author Hans Von Spakovsky [New York: Encounter Books, 2012]. [ Google "John Fund Who's Counting YouTube" Published on 31 Jul 2012 by BookTV ] He argued that there have historically been THOUSANDS of ways in which election officials, individuals and groups have variously bribed, cheated, or stolen their way to a desired election outcome.
Here’s hoping Democrats, Republicans, and all Citizens pay heed, and keep the process honest. Only in that way can the will of the people, as well as the “right thing to do”, be fully expressed in our election process.
It's not clear what you're arguing for here. The new efforts from Republicans to suppress the vote by creating blocks to voting for the groups they don't favor would not stop the scenarios you describe, which in any case have not occurred for a very long time. So why are they relevant?
It seems to me the Republicans discovered in 2000 and 2004 that they would successfully manipulate the outcomes of elections through semi-legal means, and when those means are suppressed as they were in 2008, they tend to lose. They realize they don't have to engage in overt cheating, because they can now massage the laws and regulations in ways that favor their victory. So they're doing it.
On a related note, I wonder why gerrymandering is so rarely discussed in these debates -- it's a tactic used by both parties to manipulate election results, and it makes a mockery of the right to vote.
"...There is a process for registering to vote, and yes this varies by state, as an artifact of our founding with states being the most direct local expression of the will of their peoples...."
Not if the political class at the state level is disenfranchising voters at will. There was consternation over the reliability of the states to accurately represent their citizenry during the convention. It appears to have been borne out. I'm an American citizen first, and citizen of any state of residence secondly. I'd prefer federal registration.
If only one state is allowed to legally suppress the vote, the bonds of citizenship and civil rights are broken throughout the nation, in my view.
Had to see the Suffolk poll with my own eyes to connect the dots. We all know voter fraud is over-alleged, undocumented nonsense. Instances of voter fraud are infinitesimal, while voter apathy is monumental. 80 million eligible voters who won't cast a ballot. The GOP's answer to this apathy, in state legislature after state legislature: More restrictive laws. What could be more regressive, more cynical, and more un-American? Nothing, except doing it while your waving the flag and trumpeting silly jingoistic threats of socialism.
Forget Ryan's amateur budget. Fewer voters is the definition of smaller government in a representative democracy. The path to smaller government is to take government by the people and for the people, and make it informed by far fewer people. Or, at least far fewer of certain people.
Blame for the apathy is certainly bipartisan. But pushing regressive voter "reforms" is the perfect GOP strategy for staying competitive in the voting landscape described by the poll. With 80 million on the sidelines, and 100s of thousands more targeted for restrictions, the GOP can use special-interest money to hard target and motivate small blocs of voters, like Ho-lee-cow, who is more than happy to vote himself in the foot. Just spoon feed him one emotionally charged social issue, something about the evils of contraception... he's yours.
DonCoyotes, would you clarify exactly whom you would ban from the airwaves?
" The path to smaller government is to take government by the people and for the people, and make it informed by far fewer people. Or, at least far fewer of certain people. "
One party government, one party control of all media, a single voice sounding a single side of all the issues facing us? Isn't that what we almost have now? Sounds like Big Brother to me...
I should have said, "the GOP path to smaller government..." I'm speaking of election strategy, and the election demographics that make it possible. I thought that would be clear from everything else I wrote; It's not my prescription for smaller government. But I am giving voting advice: Look at the Suffolk poll and then read Jane Mayer's New Yorker article about Art Pope, the N.C. schlock mogul who an influence/buy a state legislature, and rather inexpensively. My previous post was ironic. Are you from the midwest?
How on earth could you tell I was a NAIEVE, GULLIBLE Midwesterner? DARN! Called out again! Gooarsh!!
Unfortunately, the topic at hand is deadly serious. It is likely already too late. Whatever control "We the People" have through voting seems to be at the margins. I forget the movie where Gene Hackman's character said that a Jury Trial is too important to be left to a jury. The same may be true of who runs our federal government. It BLOWS MY MIND the revolving door between "too big to fail" financial conglomerates and various levels of government--Treasury, the White House, Congress, you name it. Regardless of who wins in November, the power behind the throne remains BIG MONEY interests, with the machinery of the federal government as enforcers.
I will inform myself the best I am able. I'm gonna vote and "vote hard" hoping it will make a difference. The only PRAYER We the People have is to insist on opening locked doors, and shining as much light as we can on the money going to buy influence, nearly completely supplanting the will of the people. WE HAVE TO TRY. I believe it was Chris Hedges (not Chris Hayes) who stated "the refusal to quit is our greatest act of defiance."
I will take a look at the Suffolk Poll and Jane Mayer's article.
"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is
a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence." – Gary Lloyd
DonCoyotes, I did read the article and a couple of different takes on the Suffolk University Poll of "800 unlikely voters." The pollsters cited the difficulty in finding unlikely voters as the "untapped potential" for both GOP and DNC partisans. Usually, a sample size of 1000 or more is required before any kind of valid conclusions can be drawn by inferential statistics, according to my Biostats and Epidemiology professors. I'm sure the pollsters have taken this sort of thing into account.
I'm also fairly sure that Ms. Mayer, like many New Yorkers, views anything conservative or south of the Mason-Dixon Line with a wary eye. It's easy to call out "the enemy" on something questionable while ignoring similar foibles on one's own side.
Wondering if you've heard of a former 60's radical named David Horowitz. He and Jacob Laskin have co-authored a book called "The New Leviathan" [New York: Crown Forum (Random House), 2012]. Their appendices catalog the total assets of
conservative vs. liberal foundations whose money has been unleashed by the
Citizens United court case. Appendix I, p. 185, shows the 2010 combined assets of 82 conservative foundations at $10.29 Billion. Those of 115 liberal foundations total $104.56 Billion, giving those on the Left a funding advantage of over 10 to 1. The Left's New Leviathan (a la Thomas Hobbes) has the power to pull the government's leviathan around by the tail without breaking a sweat.
Ms. Mayer's assertion that the money on the right is greater would see, to a cynic, like a classic counter-propaganda trope that would make Trotsky proud. "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations." That is, accuse the opposition of doing what you yourself are trying to get away with. Although, in North Carolina, I'm sure there are more Conservative Good-ol-Boys with millions to spare than backers of the Occupy movements. In other locations, including the Coasts, Liberals with deep pockets would likely outnumber conservatives.
Bottom line, families, businesses and governments MUST LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS. We can't allow the current crop of scalawag lawyer politicians to BORROW FROM OUR UNBORN GREAT GRANDCHILDREN to buy votes through government entitlements and programs just to get their sorry [@$$es] re-elected to another two years in Congress.
Once again, Big Money rules on both sides of the aisle. Here's hoping Americans who care, and have A BRAIN, get off their duffs, vote, and DEMAND BETTERof THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. It's THEIR GOVERNMENT, and THEIR TAX MONEY, after all!!
Um, does it matter that we BORROW $4.1 BILLION EVERY DAY just to make the MINIMUM PAYMENTS to finance the $16 TRILLION national debt? Did you know your elected representatives allow the federal government to SPEND OVER $10 MILLION A MINUTE every day 24/7/365??? And Van Jones stated our "debt doesn't matter..." What was he smokin' when he said that???
</body>
John Fund is on C-span2 RIGHT NOW Book TV, and is discussing his latest book, “Who's Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk [Paperback]” along with his co-author Hans Von Spakovsky [New York: Encounter Books, 2012]. [ See Published on 31 Jul 2012 by BookTV ].
The authors are discussing in detail EACH OBJECTION raised by Linda Killian, Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Public Policy Studies. She has listed A through Z each litigation point brought up by the DNC, the ACLU, and liberal pundits, and the authors SHOOT DOWN EACH AND EVERY ONE. She is WAAAAAAY out-classed by the authors.
They argue that there have historically been THOUSANDS of ways in which election officials, individuals and groups have variously bribed, cheated, or stolen their way to a desired election outcome.
Is the TRUTH a partisan issue? Sure sounds like it to me...
SWITCH ON C-SPAN 2 RIGHT NOW AND WATCH THESE GUYS CLEAN THE FLOOR WITH THIS "SCHOLAR'S" OBJECTIONS!!!!