A Catholic website for the modern reader
Voting Rights
Constitutional Conflict
13/09/20 20:33
I like to use alliteration in my writing and I had considered titling this piece “Constitutional Crisis.” However, in less than four years the Trump administration has created so many such crises that they have practically rendered the term trite. Still, Constitutional Conflict sufficiently serves my purpose.
We hear a lot about rights in today’s society. Of course, the consideration of rights has long been a part of American life, whether we speak of human rights, voting rights, equal rights… the list goes on and on. But in almost every instance we use the term incorrectly.
The Declaration of Independence states that all people are created equal and that “they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The enumeration of those three rights was not intended to be exhaustive, merely representative—a justification for declaring independence from an unjust and oppressive government.
Our own history, however, has been complicated when it comes to rights—even up to the present day. It is almost as if we were willing to slide into the same oppression exercised by King George III. And it did not take long. The original draft of the Declaration condemned slavery. But that condemnation was removed to gain the support of the Southern delegations and ensure their vote for independence.
Only twelve years after the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution was drafted and it failed to guarantee all citizens, among other things, the right to vote. And here is precisely where the Constitution, current state legislatures and even the US Supreme Court have failed.
By their very meaning, rights are not granted by a king, a parliament, a congress or any law. They are inherent in nature, in being a person. Unfortunately, we tend to subvert logic, reason and even basic principles by subjecting them to the the agenda of partisan politics.
The concept of American democracy rests on the principle of one person, one vote. By that standard the women’s suffrage movement should have been unnecessary. No government, at least not within a democracy, has the power to take away any rights. Privileges, yes. Rights, no.
For example, no one possesses a right to serve in Congress. That is a privilege granted by the electorate. It can be conditioned, as constitutional age restrictions do. It can be revoked by the same citizens who grant it. But it is not a right. Driving a car is not a right. It is a privilege that is controlled by the state.
Voting is a right and it cannot be taken away. Unlike the suffrage movement, the Voting Rights Act sought to restrict illegal state government activities. It attempted to guarantee that no state could take away a person’s right to vote. That it took years of suffering and bloodshed before Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, is a blot on our nation’s history. That states are attempting to restrict that right today, is unconscionable.
Similarly, rights cannot be forfeited. Once again, that basic principle does not serve our political purposes. One of the problems with the death penalty is the idea that if someone commits murder they forfeit their own right to life. That, however, is obscene. The right to life is not only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document also notes that the right is endowed by God and that it is inalienable.
The same holds true when people are incarcerated. They do not, indeed they cannot , forfeit their right to vote. And as noted above, it cannot be taken away. When they are released, that right is not restored to them. They never lost it. Unlike privileges, rights cannot be restricted. So poll taxes were declared unconstitutional.
In 2018 the people of Florida amended their constitution to restore voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences. First of all, it bears repeating that the right to vote could not have been surrendered or taken away even by the commission of a crime. What Floridians did, however, was to partially recognize that truth and correct a state injustice.
Immediately, the Republican led legislature realized that if more than a million former felons voted, the Republicans stood a good chance of being voted out of office. What to do? Deny the very definition of a right and pass an unjust law restricting that so-called right.
When the issue came up before the Supreme Court in July, the justices refused to intervene, just as they refused to intervene to protect voting rights in Wisconsin, Alabama and Texas. Just last week a federal appeals court upheld the illegal, illogical and unconscionable Florida law that restricts former felons from voting. I must stress and we must realize that this is not really an issue of law.
I suggest that each Supreme Court justice and each member of federal and state judiciaries be given two things: a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a dictionary. If any of them are serious about their work on the courts, they might also want to read the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and maybe a philosophy book or two.
We hear a lot about rights in today’s society. Of course, the consideration of rights has long been a part of American life, whether we speak of human rights, voting rights, equal rights… the list goes on and on. But in almost every instance we use the term incorrectly.
The Declaration of Independence states that all people are created equal and that “they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The enumeration of those three rights was not intended to be exhaustive, merely representative—a justification for declaring independence from an unjust and oppressive government.
Our own history, however, has been complicated when it comes to rights—even up to the present day. It is almost as if we were willing to slide into the same oppression exercised by King George III. And it did not take long. The original draft of the Declaration condemned slavery. But that condemnation was removed to gain the support of the Southern delegations and ensure their vote for independence.
Only twelve years after the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution was drafted and it failed to guarantee all citizens, among other things, the right to vote. And here is precisely where the Constitution, current state legislatures and even the US Supreme Court have failed.
By their very meaning, rights are not granted by a king, a parliament, a congress or any law. They are inherent in nature, in being a person. Unfortunately, we tend to subvert logic, reason and even basic principles by subjecting them to the the agenda of partisan politics.
The concept of American democracy rests on the principle of one person, one vote. By that standard the women’s suffrage movement should have been unnecessary. No government, at least not within a democracy, has the power to take away any rights. Privileges, yes. Rights, no.
For example, no one possesses a right to serve in Congress. That is a privilege granted by the electorate. It can be conditioned, as constitutional age restrictions do. It can be revoked by the same citizens who grant it. But it is not a right. Driving a car is not a right. It is a privilege that is controlled by the state.
Voting is a right and it cannot be taken away. Unlike the suffrage movement, the Voting Rights Act sought to restrict illegal state government activities. It attempted to guarantee that no state could take away a person’s right to vote. That it took years of suffering and bloodshed before Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, is a blot on our nation’s history. That states are attempting to restrict that right today, is unconscionable.
Similarly, rights cannot be forfeited. Once again, that basic principle does not serve our political purposes. One of the problems with the death penalty is the idea that if someone commits murder they forfeit their own right to life. That, however, is obscene. The right to life is not only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document also notes that the right is endowed by God and that it is inalienable.
The same holds true when people are incarcerated. They do not, indeed they cannot , forfeit their right to vote. And as noted above, it cannot be taken away. When they are released, that right is not restored to them. They never lost it. Unlike privileges, rights cannot be restricted. So poll taxes were declared unconstitutional.
In 2018 the people of Florida amended their constitution to restore voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences. First of all, it bears repeating that the right to vote could not have been surrendered or taken away even by the commission of a crime. What Floridians did, however, was to partially recognize that truth and correct a state injustice.
Immediately, the Republican led legislature realized that if more than a million former felons voted, the Republicans stood a good chance of being voted out of office. What to do? Deny the very definition of a right and pass an unjust law restricting that so-called right.
When the issue came up before the Supreme Court in July, the justices refused to intervene, just as they refused to intervene to protect voting rights in Wisconsin, Alabama and Texas. Just last week a federal appeals court upheld the illegal, illogical and unconscionable Florida law that restricts former felons from voting. I must stress and we must realize that this is not really an issue of law.
I suggest that each Supreme Court justice and each member of federal and state judiciaries be given two things: a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a dictionary. If any of them are serious about their work on the courts, they might also want to read the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and maybe a philosophy book or two.
Why Abortion Still Matters--and Why I Am Pro-Choice
20/05/16 09:35
Yesterday the Oklahoma Legislature passed another anti-abortion bill. This one attempts to end abortions by allowing felony charges to be brought against doctors who perform them and revocation of their licenses.
For more than forty years, America has wrestled with this issue. For more than thirty of those years I have been a Catholic priest committed to my church’s teachings in the abstract, while engaging a pastoral response for specific circumstances. I was satisfied with my position, comfortable in my conviction. Certain that no one wantonly desires an abortion, I was pro-life (in all its stages) and pro-choice. But I have grown increasingly troubled with that balance as unforeseen consequences of the anti-abortion movement have taken hold.
Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm, who authored the bill, attempted to present himself as a defender of rights and stated, “Those rights begin at conception.” That is a philosophical position that cannot be proved and one that is patently contrary to U.S. law as determined in Roe v Wade.
As I look backward, I observe that in typical American fashion we, as a society, have skirted honest debate regarding abortion—at least anything meaningful. There have been no discussions to explain to Senator Dahm why his position is philosophically (and religiously) untenable. For most of us our minds are made up and there is nothing to discuss. We prefer to sequester our thoughts and marshal our forces as if we are at war with one another.
During the 1990s, it was difficult to drive more than ten miles without seeing a bumper sticker righteously screaming “Abortion is Murder” (Forgive the mixed metaphor). The sticker was simple, if not simplistic, for if ever a slogan skewed the truth, that was the one. On one end of the reality spectrum it played into popular imagination. One could visualize the termination of a living fetus suddenly rendered dead by another’s hands. But it clouded vision on the other end of the spectrum—the birth of a child into poverty, disease and destitution with no societal attention or concern for its plight. That, too, is murder, though it is not so easy to envision. And it carries with it even greater social ills.
The myopically obsessive focus on abortion, including actions by the U.S. Catholic bishops, turned millions of people into one-issue voters, enabling many an otherwise incompetent person to be propelled to public office. For two generations one needed only state his or her opposition to abortion and election was all but assured. I guess as a priest I can’t help but call to mind the biblical adage “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity” (Proverbs 22:8). As a result of these elections we are now reaping a whirlwind of calamity.
In many state legislatures, and even within Congress, Americans have elected representatives with no concept of a common good; legislators with no compassion for the poor or empathy for the infirm; no concern for the displaced or mercy for the alien. These are issues of great import in both the Old and New Testaments. “You shall not oppress an alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien; since you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9). When the arrogant and self-righteous challenged Jesus about his association with sinners he responded, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.” Then he concluded with the stinging indictment, “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’” (Matthew 9:12 &13).
This is the same Bible that right-wing elected officials claim is so dear to them and upon which most of them take their oaths. These legislators do not call out the best in us for there seems little that is Godly or biblical in them. They are driven by something else and in the process turn each of us into someone else. We are increasingly becoming a self-centered and self-serving people, unconcerned about the burdens we place on others, whether pregnant women, immigrants or the poor. America has become a country misled not by the left, but by the right. Not by those who defend personal freedoms, but by those who take them away. But there may be hope.
After forty-plus years the truth about abortion might just be emerging into focus. The facts speak something very different from what we hear in state legislatures and the halls of congress. Abortion in the United States has actually been on the decline since 1997. In 2012 there were 486,837 less abortions than in 1997. At least part of that downturn can be attributed to easier access to contraceptives. Why, then, would anti-abortion legislators want to restrict that, too? There are a number of answers.
The first is that this is really about sex. In the 1960 film “Inherit the Wind,” modestly based on the 1925 Scopes trial, the prosecuting attorney is asked about the Biblical evaluation of sex. His response? “It is considered original sin.” That is a level of ignorance that can only be found in right wing circles, and it seems as though they have not come very far in ninety years.
There is also a second conclusion. Opposition to abortion, whether genuine or merely perceived, has been but an instrument for many to obtain power. And history has repeatedly demonstrated how difficult it is to relinquish that. From one state to the next, elected officials are not content merely to force women to bring their pregnancies to term. They also want to restrict access to contraceptives, forcing women to get pregnant in the first place. And knowing full well that the wealthy will always be able either to obtain abortions or avoid the need, these elected officials target minorities and the poor and they have quite successfully managed to malign and denigrate them—the very people God chose as his own; the people Jesus frequently chose to spend time with. There is a pattern here. The same legislatures that assiduously pass burdensome anti-abortion laws also seek to exclude millions from medical coverage and food subsidies. As has been noted by others, the anti-abortion movement is not pro-life. It is, at best, pro-birth.
Should we choose honesty in this discussion, the anti-abortion laws have another intent that is beyond the birth of a baby. It is to keep women poor and disenfranchised, to strip them of their freedom and opportunities for advancement in education, employment, status—essentially all aspects of life. The extreme anti-abortion laws being advocated in various states are misogynistic and ultimately a modern form of slavery. Women become property to be owned and controlled with the result that these laws contribute to the income inequality that is so central in our current election cycle.
Finally, the third conclusion is the most insidious of all. The conservative legislatures that were created by the anti-abortion movement have cannibalistically turned on the very people they are forcing into existence by stripping them of their right to vote. Lest anyone think this is a non-sequitur, it cannot be mere coincidence that the states enacting voter restriction laws are the same ones that elected their officials with the singular qualification that they opposed abortion.
Forty-three years after Roe v Wade I still believe that no one actually wants an abortion. But I believe it is sometimes necessary and I am convinced that every woman should have the right to choose—informed by her beliefs, unencumbered by either church or state. As a priest I think, sadly, that the Catholic bishops were wrong to focus so narrowly on abortion and to encourage the election of officials whose social policies are so far removed from Gospel values.
Today I am no longer concerned about balance. I now nuance my position on a life continuum. I am pro-choice precisely because I am pro-life.
For more than forty years, America has wrestled with this issue. For more than thirty of those years I have been a Catholic priest committed to my church’s teachings in the abstract, while engaging a pastoral response for specific circumstances. I was satisfied with my position, comfortable in my conviction. Certain that no one wantonly desires an abortion, I was pro-life (in all its stages) and pro-choice. But I have grown increasingly troubled with that balance as unforeseen consequences of the anti-abortion movement have taken hold.
Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm, who authored the bill, attempted to present himself as a defender of rights and stated, “Those rights begin at conception.” That is a philosophical position that cannot be proved and one that is patently contrary to U.S. law as determined in Roe v Wade.
As I look backward, I observe that in typical American fashion we, as a society, have skirted honest debate regarding abortion—at least anything meaningful. There have been no discussions to explain to Senator Dahm why his position is philosophically (and religiously) untenable. For most of us our minds are made up and there is nothing to discuss. We prefer to sequester our thoughts and marshal our forces as if we are at war with one another.
During the 1990s, it was difficult to drive more than ten miles without seeing a bumper sticker righteously screaming “Abortion is Murder” (Forgive the mixed metaphor). The sticker was simple, if not simplistic, for if ever a slogan skewed the truth, that was the one. On one end of the reality spectrum it played into popular imagination. One could visualize the termination of a living fetus suddenly rendered dead by another’s hands. But it clouded vision on the other end of the spectrum—the birth of a child into poverty, disease and destitution with no societal attention or concern for its plight. That, too, is murder, though it is not so easy to envision. And it carries with it even greater social ills.
The myopically obsessive focus on abortion, including actions by the U.S. Catholic bishops, turned millions of people into one-issue voters, enabling many an otherwise incompetent person to be propelled to public office. For two generations one needed only state his or her opposition to abortion and election was all but assured. I guess as a priest I can’t help but call to mind the biblical adage “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity” (Proverbs 22:8). As a result of these elections we are now reaping a whirlwind of calamity.
In many state legislatures, and even within Congress, Americans have elected representatives with no concept of a common good; legislators with no compassion for the poor or empathy for the infirm; no concern for the displaced or mercy for the alien. These are issues of great import in both the Old and New Testaments. “You shall not oppress an alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien; since you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9). When the arrogant and self-righteous challenged Jesus about his association with sinners he responded, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.” Then he concluded with the stinging indictment, “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’” (Matthew 9:12 &13).
This is the same Bible that right-wing elected officials claim is so dear to them and upon which most of them take their oaths. These legislators do not call out the best in us for there seems little that is Godly or biblical in them. They are driven by something else and in the process turn each of us into someone else. We are increasingly becoming a self-centered and self-serving people, unconcerned about the burdens we place on others, whether pregnant women, immigrants or the poor. America has become a country misled not by the left, but by the right. Not by those who defend personal freedoms, but by those who take them away. But there may be hope.
After forty-plus years the truth about abortion might just be emerging into focus. The facts speak something very different from what we hear in state legislatures and the halls of congress. Abortion in the United States has actually been on the decline since 1997. In 2012 there were 486,837 less abortions than in 1997. At least part of that downturn can be attributed to easier access to contraceptives. Why, then, would anti-abortion legislators want to restrict that, too? There are a number of answers.
The first is that this is really about sex. In the 1960 film “Inherit the Wind,” modestly based on the 1925 Scopes trial, the prosecuting attorney is asked about the Biblical evaluation of sex. His response? “It is considered original sin.” That is a level of ignorance that can only be found in right wing circles, and it seems as though they have not come very far in ninety years.
There is also a second conclusion. Opposition to abortion, whether genuine or merely perceived, has been but an instrument for many to obtain power. And history has repeatedly demonstrated how difficult it is to relinquish that. From one state to the next, elected officials are not content merely to force women to bring their pregnancies to term. They also want to restrict access to contraceptives, forcing women to get pregnant in the first place. And knowing full well that the wealthy will always be able either to obtain abortions or avoid the need, these elected officials target minorities and the poor and they have quite successfully managed to malign and denigrate them—the very people God chose as his own; the people Jesus frequently chose to spend time with. There is a pattern here. The same legislatures that assiduously pass burdensome anti-abortion laws also seek to exclude millions from medical coverage and food subsidies. As has been noted by others, the anti-abortion movement is not pro-life. It is, at best, pro-birth.
Should we choose honesty in this discussion, the anti-abortion laws have another intent that is beyond the birth of a baby. It is to keep women poor and disenfranchised, to strip them of their freedom and opportunities for advancement in education, employment, status—essentially all aspects of life. The extreme anti-abortion laws being advocated in various states are misogynistic and ultimately a modern form of slavery. Women become property to be owned and controlled with the result that these laws contribute to the income inequality that is so central in our current election cycle.
Finally, the third conclusion is the most insidious of all. The conservative legislatures that were created by the anti-abortion movement have cannibalistically turned on the very people they are forcing into existence by stripping them of their right to vote. Lest anyone think this is a non-sequitur, it cannot be mere coincidence that the states enacting voter restriction laws are the same ones that elected their officials with the singular qualification that they opposed abortion.
Forty-three years after Roe v Wade I still believe that no one actually wants an abortion. But I believe it is sometimes necessary and I am convinced that every woman should have the right to choose—informed by her beliefs, unencumbered by either church or state. As a priest I think, sadly, that the Catholic bishops were wrong to focus so narrowly on abortion and to encourage the election of officials whose social policies are so far removed from Gospel values.
Today I am no longer concerned about balance. I now nuance my position on a life continuum. I am pro-choice precisely because I am pro-life.
Voting Rights and Election Monitors
12/10/12 13:34
Throughout the world, mostly in emerging democracies and dictatorships, there has long been a need for independent, international election observers. It is a common occurrence to see vote manipulation and downright fraud in many third world countries. In the western world, one expects a different situation. Voting should be free and universal, honest and accurate.
Maybe it is the ease with which corruption embeds itself in the exercise of power; maybe it is insecurity after an opponent has unmasked one’s vacuous concepts; maybe it is the fear of losing control; maybe it is the dread of a rising and empowered populace; maybe it is merely the fact of human weakness. Whatever the cause, the electoral process as practiced in the Western world is not as elevated as we want to claim. This is one reason that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is called upon to monitor elections around the globe, including longstanding democracies such as France, the United Kingdom, and even the United States of America.
It is a necessary and daunting task. Take for example, the United States, the root of modern democracy. In the current election cycle, fraud rules the day. Not the fraud of unregistered, illegal, or even dead people voting. The real voter fraud is far more pernicious. It is not merely an effort to influence the outcome of an election. It is an attempt to prevent a large portion of the electorate from participating in the first place.
Not surprisingly, this fraud is exercised primarily by elected state officials, specifically Republicans, striving to cement their uncertain grasp on power. In a manner most deceitful, they espouse lofty principles even while they seek to undermine those principles. They use simple sounding words and frame their policies as “Voter ID laws.” That seems reasonable. Everyone would agree that there must be some regulations around the act of voting. Sadly, it’s just not that simple.
These Republicans know it is only a matter of time before their true intentions and their policies come to light. Unable to win by the force of their arguments, they seek to solidify their grip on power through oppression. Will these legions of darkness be allowed to prevail? That depends on whether or not people will see the truth, expose it to the light, and fearlessly condemn it in speech.
Many commentators, I presume unintentionally, play into the hands of corrupt Republican legislators by describing these machinations as disenfranchisement. That sounds almost harmless. Such language, however, is many degrees removed from the very real and deleterious effects of these laws, enabling politicians to disguise their true motives.
This is not the only corruption. Employers such as David Siegel, the Koch brothers and Richard Lacks are pressuring their employees to vote for Romney. Robert Murray forced coal miners in Ohio to attend--without pay--a Romney rally during the summer. The miners were even used a backdrop behind Romney during his speech.
This is where international election observers come in. They cannot affect the outcome of an election, but they can help reveal the truth of corruption. They can expose the real American election fraud to the entire world—on election day when people are turned away from polling places, and before elections begin when minorities are deliberately shut out of voting procedures or when voters’ freedoms are stripped through employer coercion.
The surface question is whether or not the people of America care what others think—does America’s standing in the world matter anymore? The deeper question is whether or not America’s founding values still matter to Americans, themselves.
I don’t know if Americans are gullible, ignorant, or if they just don’t care. This country used to stand for great things: for equality and equal opportunity. The American Revolution started something new in the world. The U.S. Constitution laid the groundwork for modern democracy, and the United States stood as a beacon of hope and progress in a changing world. These new “Voter ID” laws, coupled with employee coercion, crumble the very foundations of democracy.
Every person running for President is required to declare: “The United States is the greatest country on earth.” That kind of hyperbole was never really true, but it soothes the anxiety of a people who are insecure and need to feel important. It should be said, that citizens of most countries share that angst. In the United States it is amplified by this question: Are we as good as the generations who came before us?
At least when it comes to voting rights, the answer is clear. No. We are not.
Maybe it is the ease with which corruption embeds itself in the exercise of power; maybe it is insecurity after an opponent has unmasked one’s vacuous concepts; maybe it is the fear of losing control; maybe it is the dread of a rising and empowered populace; maybe it is merely the fact of human weakness. Whatever the cause, the electoral process as practiced in the Western world is not as elevated as we want to claim. This is one reason that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is called upon to monitor elections around the globe, including longstanding democracies such as France, the United Kingdom, and even the United States of America.
It is a necessary and daunting task. Take for example, the United States, the root of modern democracy. In the current election cycle, fraud rules the day. Not the fraud of unregistered, illegal, or even dead people voting. The real voter fraud is far more pernicious. It is not merely an effort to influence the outcome of an election. It is an attempt to prevent a large portion of the electorate from participating in the first place.
Not surprisingly, this fraud is exercised primarily by elected state officials, specifically Republicans, striving to cement their uncertain grasp on power. In a manner most deceitful, they espouse lofty principles even while they seek to undermine those principles. They use simple sounding words and frame their policies as “Voter ID laws.” That seems reasonable. Everyone would agree that there must be some regulations around the act of voting. Sadly, it’s just not that simple.
These Republicans know it is only a matter of time before their true intentions and their policies come to light. Unable to win by the force of their arguments, they seek to solidify their grip on power through oppression. Will these legions of darkness be allowed to prevail? That depends on whether or not people will see the truth, expose it to the light, and fearlessly condemn it in speech.
Many commentators, I presume unintentionally, play into the hands of corrupt Republican legislators by describing these machinations as disenfranchisement. That sounds almost harmless. Such language, however, is many degrees removed from the very real and deleterious effects of these laws, enabling politicians to disguise their true motives.
This is not the only corruption. Employers such as David Siegel, the Koch brothers and Richard Lacks are pressuring their employees to vote for Romney. Robert Murray forced coal miners in Ohio to attend--without pay--a Romney rally during the summer. The miners were even used a backdrop behind Romney during his speech.
This is where international election observers come in. They cannot affect the outcome of an election, but they can help reveal the truth of corruption. They can expose the real American election fraud to the entire world—on election day when people are turned away from polling places, and before elections begin when minorities are deliberately shut out of voting procedures or when voters’ freedoms are stripped through employer coercion.
The surface question is whether or not the people of America care what others think—does America’s standing in the world matter anymore? The deeper question is whether or not America’s founding values still matter to Americans, themselves.
I don’t know if Americans are gullible, ignorant, or if they just don’t care. This country used to stand for great things: for equality and equal opportunity. The American Revolution started something new in the world. The U.S. Constitution laid the groundwork for modern democracy, and the United States stood as a beacon of hope and progress in a changing world. These new “Voter ID” laws, coupled with employee coercion, crumble the very foundations of democracy.
Every person running for President is required to declare: “The United States is the greatest country on earth.” That kind of hyperbole was never really true, but it soothes the anxiety of a people who are insecure and need to feel important. It should be said, that citizens of most countries share that angst. In the United States it is amplified by this question: Are we as good as the generations who came before us?
At least when it comes to voting rights, the answer is clear. No. We are not.