I think this always goes back to my problem with movement conservatives: history that predates the Constitution has a lot to teach us, but our own nation's history after that doesn't have anything to teach us.
There have always been "rationalizations" for making it harder for people to vote, with the most basic presumption being that the people who can't meet such "standards" are the type of people who would not vote the way you do. Practically everything Mr. Loury says, at the end of the day, is arbitrary once you present the simple argument at the root of the American Revolutionary War: "No Taxation without Representation." If you're going to tax a people, they should be able to have a say if you're granted the "power" to do so.
Everything that Mr. Loury says is based on the presumption that "he" should have a say in how his fellow citizens have a way of determining who gets to represent their political interests. He shifts the burden of proof onto them to have to prove that they are worthy of having the right to vote, rather than on the "Representatives" who want to be able to choose who gets to vote for or replace them. The incoherence and just basic denial of a conflict of interest can only be denied on ideological grounds, not based on reason or evidence.
I'd also argue that the only difference between Jim Crow and what's done in the Voter ID Law is ultimately the same in principle; where it's different is in scale. Jim Crow was basically slavery within the limits of the Civil Rights Amendments. Had those not existed, Southerners would have simply just brought it back and not allowed any Black people to vote or exercise political power. These Voter ID laws aim to do the same, but within the limitations of the Civil Rights Amendments, the Civil Rights Act, and a weakened Voting Rights Act. The goal remains the same, which is to ensure that Black people's political power is limited and less represented than it ought to be.
Now of course, as Loury knows and is too smart to ignore, this is about politics and power - not abstract principle - because it was not created by philosophers, but by partisan politicians in gerrymandered districts. Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt over their intentions without first having to prove it? It's not about his "floating abstractions" that are not rooted in reality or facts but simply anxiety about POSSIBLE fraud (that he doesn't think needs to be proven to make it harder for black citizens in Georgia to vote, which is passed by people who often don't get their vote to begin with precisely due to such policies). If they couldn't do it, they'd be forced to reach out and negotiate with them, rather than try to weaken them as a group with force of law.
I understand Loury is a conservative, but he shouldn't let that prevent him from integrating the facts of and lessons of Black history from the time of the founding to the 1960s, especially the time of Reconstruction. Jim Crow didn't come out of nowhere, and neither did these kinds of laws. Saying "Oh, it's not as bad as Jim Crow!" Well, yeah, neither were the start of the Black Codes either... but we all know how it ended. I don't expect White Conservatives to be ignorant of such history, because much of conservatives interests/ideological concerns are rooted in problems that came from the New Deal, but as a Black man, he should know better.
It is likely that although voter ID and other laws will affect black people proportionately more, due to the fact that there are 5 times as many white people than black people in the US, it will affect more white people than black people by pure numbers. So the notion that this is done for racist reasoning is likely on its face false.
OT -- It's Monday morning (April 26), and I just learned from your latest podcast with Prof. M. that you and your wife have COVID-19. Please take care of yourselves! I'm offering a prayer for your quick recovery.
I believe there WAS voter fraud, and any amount of fraud is too much. Voter ID is a reasonable as Driver ID and getting on a plane ID. There may be other convenience issues that make one oppose the "Voter ID" law, but the ideal should be "One voter, one vote" - which requires good voter ID. Without Voter ID, election fraud is MUCH more like. The opposition to Voter ID by Dems implies they want more election fraud - which means the Deep State willing to do fraud with expectations of getting away with it will do more of.
Its sad and surprising that John believes, despite over a hundred of signed affidavits by election observers about irregularities, that there was no fraud worth changing laws about. How many cases in the USA were there of citizens wanting to vote but unable to because of missing ID? Any at all?
Oh Glenn - this discussion is very distressing to me, because I am one who does lean toward increasing voter security, certainly not because I want to suppress Black votes, but because I think it is in and of itself worthy of discussion. I have already had this talk with members of my family who vote Democrat, and they used all the arguments that John does. It is extremely distressing to me that people on the left unthinkingly, reflexively assume my motive is racist, so distressing that I shrink inwardly from even discussing it. And THAT bothers me even more - the reality that I should be afraid to have a robust discussion about an issue I do not think is racist and is a valid discussion topic, for fear of being dismissed and condemned as a racist, when I do not see this as a racist issue at all.
I can see and accept that others may worry that such laws will have a disparate impact on minority voters - although surely the difficulties of getting an ID would be as onerous for poor rural whites as Blacks. But as you, Glenn, point out, why cannot the solution be to help all citizens to get an ID? In fact it is the Democrat Party that seems to me to have a much better organizational zeal and passion for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote movements than do Republicans, so I would encourage Democrats to get behind such an initiative - and by doing so they would likely increase their share of the vote by being so much more helpful than any other party!
Meaning no disrespect to John, I have no respect at all for the argument that "there is no voter fraud", and therefore there is no reason for enhancing election security. I do not know that there is enough evidence to be able to say that with any assurance, given the history of voteing "machines" such as Chicago famously had in years gone by, given that the Heritage Foundation collects data on voter irregularities, and given persistent rumors of old-time politicians like LBJ stuffing ballot boxes to get his seat in the Senate. In fact the left did itself no favors by insisting loudly and repeatedly, beginning virtually when the polls closed in November 2020, that "there is no evidence of voter fraud" , and subsequently tolerating the silencing of public discussion of the issue on social media. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
We know that elections have consequences - sometimes severe ones - and that makes it absolutely vital that we ensure that every citizen gets to vote - once only - and that every citizen believes that the election is free and fair. Currently a majority of Republicans, a majority of Independents, and even 30 percent of Democrats have doubts about the reliability of our elections. That should be a strong signal that all is not well, that protestations to the contrary ring hollow with those who doubt, and that those doubts will affect voter turnout. Having the discussion is essential.
Hmm, well, I would say that you lock up your bike because it's a best practice. If you don't want anyone stealing your bike, you just always lock it up regardless of where you are. Otherwise, you may be surprised someday when your bike actually gets stolen, even in a low-crime area, and then you'll feel like a fool for not having locked it up.
This is not to say that all security measures are sensible, of course. Locking a bike up is easy and inexpensive and may actually deter some thieves, so it's a reasonable thing to do. But you probably wouldn't hire an armed guard to follow you around and shoot anyone who tries to walk off with your bike. So the real question for election security is, what are the biggest risk areas and what can we reasonably do that will be beneficial in those areas without having side effects that are as bad or worse than the original problem? I don't really see that kind of discussion going on, probably in part because it would require some level of analysis which could then be rebutted, and most of the public would understand neither the analysis nor the rebuttal.
The one thing we can be sure of in all the discussions of election security is that there will be no bipartisan agreement on reasonable and effective solutions. Whatever happens, both sides will be accusing the other of something, not because it's necessarily true, but just to gain some political advantage.
“Voter suppression” is an excuse for the Democrat Party to maintain power. They have been successful in maintaining an army of black congressional reps to shield themselves from scrutiny to appear as if they are the “anti-racist” party. Black people have been held in a 2nd class status, increasingly dependent on the government, with excuses for not being capable to function like everyone else. “They can’t get Proper ID to vote”, etc, etc. Democrats need to keep them down and dependent. The Black Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus are Socialist. Communists, Socialists, etc believe that American black people are the “Chosen People” or the “Vanguard” for the Socialist Revolution. Take it from a former member of a communist party, all these political movements (anti war, feminism, anti racism) have nothing to do with solving problems and improving our county. They are excuses to engage Americans in believing our country, and capitalism, is systemically oppressive and needs to be destroyed. The “Resistance”, a top-down organized movement created by the Dems when Hillary lost, is in reality, a communist insurgency from within. They are winning.
He makes a good case that the new law is not perfect, but is really pretty reasonable.
Interestingly, I believe Mickey Kaus theorized that that the controversy over these laws is artificially inflated by the fact that (i) D's want to oppose them to drive turnout in the next election (which Bill Scher argues persuasively is the dominant effect), and (ii) R's want to be seen by Trump supporters as doing something radical to suppress voter fraud that cost Trump the election. Neither political group has a good political incentive to defend the laws as reasonable compromises .
I think this always goes back to my problem with movement conservatives: history that predates the Constitution has a lot to teach us, but our own nation's history after that doesn't have anything to teach us.
There have always been "rationalizations" for making it harder for people to vote, with the most basic presumption being that the people who can't meet such "standards" are the type of people who would not vote the way you do. Practically everything Mr. Loury says, at the end of the day, is arbitrary once you present the simple argument at the root of the American Revolutionary War: "No Taxation without Representation." If you're going to tax a people, they should be able to have a say if you're granted the "power" to do so.
Everything that Mr. Loury says is based on the presumption that "he" should have a say in how his fellow citizens have a way of determining who gets to represent their political interests. He shifts the burden of proof onto them to have to prove that they are worthy of having the right to vote, rather than on the "Representatives" who want to be able to choose who gets to vote for or replace them. The incoherence and just basic denial of a conflict of interest can only be denied on ideological grounds, not based on reason or evidence.
I'd also argue that the only difference between Jim Crow and what's done in the Voter ID Law is ultimately the same in principle; where it's different is in scale. Jim Crow was basically slavery within the limits of the Civil Rights Amendments. Had those not existed, Southerners would have simply just brought it back and not allowed any Black people to vote or exercise political power. These Voter ID laws aim to do the same, but within the limitations of the Civil Rights Amendments, the Civil Rights Act, and a weakened Voting Rights Act. The goal remains the same, which is to ensure that Black people's political power is limited and less represented than it ought to be.
Now of course, as Loury knows and is too smart to ignore, this is about politics and power - not abstract principle - because it was not created by philosophers, but by partisan politicians in gerrymandered districts. Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt over their intentions without first having to prove it? It's not about his "floating abstractions" that are not rooted in reality or facts but simply anxiety about POSSIBLE fraud (that he doesn't think needs to be proven to make it harder for black citizens in Georgia to vote, which is passed by people who often don't get their vote to begin with precisely due to such policies). If they couldn't do it, they'd be forced to reach out and negotiate with them, rather than try to weaken them as a group with force of law.
I understand Loury is a conservative, but he shouldn't let that prevent him from integrating the facts of and lessons of Black history from the time of the founding to the 1960s, especially the time of Reconstruction. Jim Crow didn't come out of nowhere, and neither did these kinds of laws. Saying "Oh, it's not as bad as Jim Crow!" Well, yeah, neither were the start of the Black Codes either... but we all know how it ended. I don't expect White Conservatives to be ignorant of such history, because much of conservatives interests/ideological concerns are rooted in problems that came from the New Deal, but as a Black man, he should know better.
It is likely that although voter ID and other laws will affect black people proportionately more, due to the fact that there are 5 times as many white people than black people in the US, it will affect more white people than black people by pure numbers. So the notion that this is done for racist reasoning is likely on its face false.
OT -- It's Monday morning (April 26), and I just learned from your latest podcast with Prof. M. that you and your wife have COVID-19. Please take care of yourselves! I'm offering a prayer for your quick recovery.
I believe there WAS voter fraud, and any amount of fraud is too much. Voter ID is a reasonable as Driver ID and getting on a plane ID. There may be other convenience issues that make one oppose the "Voter ID" law, but the ideal should be "One voter, one vote" - which requires good voter ID. Without Voter ID, election fraud is MUCH more like. The opposition to Voter ID by Dems implies they want more election fraud - which means the Deep State willing to do fraud with expectations of getting away with it will do more of.
Its sad and surprising that John believes, despite over a hundred of signed affidavits by election observers about irregularities, that there was no fraud worth changing laws about. How many cases in the USA were there of citizens wanting to vote but unable to because of missing ID? Any at all?
Oh Glenn - this discussion is very distressing to me, because I am one who does lean toward increasing voter security, certainly not because I want to suppress Black votes, but because I think it is in and of itself worthy of discussion. I have already had this talk with members of my family who vote Democrat, and they used all the arguments that John does. It is extremely distressing to me that people on the left unthinkingly, reflexively assume my motive is racist, so distressing that I shrink inwardly from even discussing it. And THAT bothers me even more - the reality that I should be afraid to have a robust discussion about an issue I do not think is racist and is a valid discussion topic, for fear of being dismissed and condemned as a racist, when I do not see this as a racist issue at all.
I can see and accept that others may worry that such laws will have a disparate impact on minority voters - although surely the difficulties of getting an ID would be as onerous for poor rural whites as Blacks. But as you, Glenn, point out, why cannot the solution be to help all citizens to get an ID? In fact it is the Democrat Party that seems to me to have a much better organizational zeal and passion for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote movements than do Republicans, so I would encourage Democrats to get behind such an initiative - and by doing so they would likely increase their share of the vote by being so much more helpful than any other party!
Meaning no disrespect to John, I have no respect at all for the argument that "there is no voter fraud", and therefore there is no reason for enhancing election security. I do not know that there is enough evidence to be able to say that with any assurance, given the history of voteing "machines" such as Chicago famously had in years gone by, given that the Heritage Foundation collects data on voter irregularities, and given persistent rumors of old-time politicians like LBJ stuffing ballot boxes to get his seat in the Senate. In fact the left did itself no favors by insisting loudly and repeatedly, beginning virtually when the polls closed in November 2020, that "there is no evidence of voter fraud" , and subsequently tolerating the silencing of public discussion of the issue on social media. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
We know that elections have consequences - sometimes severe ones - and that makes it absolutely vital that we ensure that every citizen gets to vote - once only - and that every citizen believes that the election is free and fair. Currently a majority of Republicans, a majority of Independents, and even 30 percent of Democrats have doubts about the reliability of our elections. That should be a strong signal that all is not well, that protestations to the contrary ring hollow with those who doubt, and that those doubts will affect voter turnout. Having the discussion is essential.
Hmm, well, I would say that you lock up your bike because it's a best practice. If you don't want anyone stealing your bike, you just always lock it up regardless of where you are. Otherwise, you may be surprised someday when your bike actually gets stolen, even in a low-crime area, and then you'll feel like a fool for not having locked it up.
This is not to say that all security measures are sensible, of course. Locking a bike up is easy and inexpensive and may actually deter some thieves, so it's a reasonable thing to do. But you probably wouldn't hire an armed guard to follow you around and shoot anyone who tries to walk off with your bike. So the real question for election security is, what are the biggest risk areas and what can we reasonably do that will be beneficial in those areas without having side effects that are as bad or worse than the original problem? I don't really see that kind of discussion going on, probably in part because it would require some level of analysis which could then be rebutted, and most of the public would understand neither the analysis nor the rebuttal.
The one thing we can be sure of in all the discussions of election security is that there will be no bipartisan agreement on reasonable and effective solutions. Whatever happens, both sides will be accusing the other of something, not because it's necessarily true, but just to gain some political advantage.
“Voter suppression” is an excuse for the Democrat Party to maintain power. They have been successful in maintaining an army of black congressional reps to shield themselves from scrutiny to appear as if they are the “anti-racist” party. Black people have been held in a 2nd class status, increasingly dependent on the government, with excuses for not being capable to function like everyone else. “They can’t get Proper ID to vote”, etc, etc. Democrats need to keep them down and dependent. The Black Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus are Socialist. Communists, Socialists, etc believe that American black people are the “Chosen People” or the “Vanguard” for the Socialist Revolution. Take it from a former member of a communist party, all these political movements (anti war, feminism, anti racism) have nothing to do with solving problems and improving our county. They are excuses to engage Americans in believing our country, and capitalism, is systemically oppressive and needs to be destroyed. The “Resistance”, a top-down organized movement created by the Dems when Hillary lost, is in reality, a communist insurgency from within. They are winning.
Matt Lewis did a good interview that Gabriel Sterling-- a Georgia official who was a hero of the GA recount, turned villain re the new GA law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aRN33bSun4&ab_channel=MattLewis
He makes a good case that the new law is not perfect, but is really pretty reasonable.
Interestingly, I believe Mickey Kaus theorized that that the controversy over these laws is artificially inflated by the fact that (i) D's want to oppose them to drive turnout in the next election (which Bill Scher argues persuasively is the dominant effect), and (ii) R's want to be seen by Trump supporters as doing something radical to suppress voter fraud that cost Trump the election. Neither political group has a good political incentive to defend the laws as reasonable compromises .