Tag: vote
'New York Times' Ripped Over Conservative's Smug 'Why Vote?' Op-Ed

'New York Times' Ripped Over Conservative's Smug 'Why Vote?' Op-Ed

On the Fourth of July, the New York Times opinion section chose to publish an op-ed from a Michigan resident making his case to not vote in the 2024 election. One democracy expert slammed the national paper of record for its decision to run the essay.

The column, titled, "Why I Don't Vote. And Why Maybe You Shouldn't Either," is by Matthew Walther, who is a contributing editor to The American Conservative. With a noticeable tone of disgust, Walther describes the term "civic duty" — which voting rights advocates often use when making the case to participate in the electoral process — as "off-putting."

"If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, civic duty is surely the first. Some version of the civic-duty line is trotted out by the sort of do-gooder who hands out voter registration forms to strangers — an activity I find as off-putting as I would an invitation to sit down and fill out a handgun permit," he wrote.


Journalist Stephen Wolf posted an excerpt of the essay to his X/Twitter account with the text: "This is what the New York Times chose to publish on Independence Day just one week after the Supreme Court ruled that Republican presidents are above the law."

While quote-tweeting Wolf's post, history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat — an expert on democracy and authoritarian governments around the world — admonished the national paper of record for its decision to publish Walther's column.

"This is just very sad and frankly just what the Autocracy Doctor ordered," she tweeted. "Not voting is a vote to let others decide your fate, and we know that many elections are decided by relatively few votes. The goal of many autocracies is 'demobilization': people detaching from politics so they don't resist."

The backlash the Times has received over Walther's op-ed comes after the paper was excoriated by supporters of President Joe Biden for its editorial calling on him to drop out — while notably remaining absent on the continued candidacy of former President Donald Trump despite his 34 felony convictions. Earlier this year, a Times journalist speaking anonymously to Politicoconfided to the publication that the paper's publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, had an axe to grind against Biden for so far declining to do an exclusive sit-down interview with the Times.

"All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” the Times reporter said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”

The Philadelphia Inquirerrecently trolled the Times' editorial board by running an editorial of its own with a title almost exactly replicating the title of the Times' editorial, except switching out Biden's name for Trump's.

"[T]he debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump," the paper argued. "Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world."

If 2016 and 2020 are proper indicators, it's likely the 2024 election will be decided by just tens of thousands of votes across five or six battleground states — including Walther's home state of Michigan. The combined Electoral College votes from Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin gave Trump the 270-vote majority to win the presidency in 2016. He won those three states by fewer than 80,000 total combined votes. Biden's 2020 electoral vote majority was decided by less than 45,000 total votes spread across Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Ted Cruz

When Senate Republicans Claim To Support IVF, They're Lying

Democrats are expected to call for a vote Thursday on legislation that would protect access to in-vitro fertilization procedures. All 49 Republican senators have signed onto a letter supposedly signaling their support for IVF, but what the letter shows is that—just as they did on contraception—Republicans will vote to block this bill.

Because no matter what Republicans say, their intent is obvious in their actions. They mean to leave both contraception and IVF unprotected, subject to limitation by state laws now and a federal law later.

The vote on this bill comes a day after the conservative Southern Baptist Convention voted to oppose IVF at its annual meeting in Indianapolis. Almost five decades after a conservative takeover, the SBC has become the bellwether of right-wing politics. And the vote on Wednesday makes it clear: Republicans can’t be anti-abortion and pro-IVF because their opposition to abortion is rooted in an ideology that simply won’t allow it.

Republicans briefly showed a flurry of support for IVF following an Alabama court ruling that shut down the procedure on a state level in February. Recognizing the overwhelming popularity of the procedure, Republicans—including Donald Trump—hurried to express their support.

Sen. Ted Cruz spoke out in the Senate Judiciary Committee to say that “IVF is fully protected in law, it should be fully protected in law, and it will remain 100% fully protected in law.”

However, the Alabama case illustrated just how vulnerable IVF was to the whims of state legislature and local judges. And now that Cruz has a chance to make sure that IVF actually is fully protected by law, he’s expected to vote against it. Republicans already voted down a bill supporting nationwide access to IVF in February, and now they’re scrambling for a way to appease their rampantly anti-abortion base while protecting the very popular procedure. They are not going to find it.

Like every other Republican, Cruz will continue to pretend that since IVF is already legal, there’s no reason to vote to protect it, which purposely leaves IVF’s legality open to challenge.

What Republicans aren’t saying is that they have a very good reason to vote against the Democratic bill. The over 10,000 delegates at the SBC not only voted to oppose IVF, they also called on the 13 million members of their affiliated churches “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.”

If “frozen embryonic human beings” sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. But the moral and legal basis of Republican opposition to abortion lies on the equally ridiculous idea that “life begins at conception.” That idea is irreconcilable with protecting IVF because it inevitably produces excess embryos that, at best, will stay eternally trapped in a deep freeze.

Republicans might have hoped that, having been handed their long-time dream of overturning Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion forces would remain ever satisfied (and ever willing to donate and work for Republican candidates). But that’s not how it’s working out.

After destroying Roe, their base still wants more. They want a national ban. They want to end birth control. And they want to end IVF.

The bill introduced by Democrats would not just protect IVF, but it would also help to make it more available and affordable.

Expect Republicans to block the bill on Thursday, while continuing to give limp statements of support to IVF.

But that support won’t last. "Life begins at conception" isn't just a slogan; it's something with far-ranging consequences that Republicans mean to enforce.

If Republicans get a chance to draft their national abortion ban, don’t expect it to be too different from the language used by the SBC this week in Indianapolis, frozen embryonic Americans and all.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Nearly Every GOP Senator Votes Against Right To Contraception Act

Nearly Every GOP Senator Votes Against Right To Contraception Act

Sure, the Republican Party wants to convince voters they really aren’t that radical when it comes to reproductive rights. But voting against a bill to protect access to birth control isn’t the way to do it.

On Wednesday, almost every Senate Republican voted to block the Right to Contraception Act—legislation that should be uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Only two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted to let the bill move forward.

“The right to contraception is a fundamental right, central to a person’s privacy, health, wellbeing, dignity, liberty, equality, and ability to participate in the social and economic life of the Nation,” the bill states. So yes, you can see why Republicans—who don’t value any of those things—took issue with it.

Of course, that’s not the justification they’re giving.

“This is a show vote. It’s not serious,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said. “It’s a phony vote because contraception, to my knowledge, is not illegal. It’s not unavailable.”

Sure, it’s not illegal or unavailable now. But that’s hardly the point.

The point is that there are plenty of Republicans who’ve said it should be illegal or at least unavailable or at least highly restricted.

One of those Republicans is Donald Trump. Perhaps Cornyn’s heard of him? Just last month, Trump said that contraception, like abortion, should probably be decided by the states. He also promised a “very comprehensive” plan he’s yet to deliver.

Another one of those Republicans Cornyn might know? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has not been quite as explicit as Trump. But pretty close. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health—the case that overturned Roe v. Wade—he wrote that the court should next overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, the case that recognized a right to birth control.

And it’s because of those threats to birth control that Senate Democrats want to act now to protect the right to contraception before it’s too late.

"Today, we live in a country where not only tens of millions of women have been robbed of their reproductive freedoms. We also live in a country where tens of millions more worry about something as basic as birth control," Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday. "That's utterly medieval."

It’s not just utterly medieval; it’s also a threat. First, abortion and next up: birth control.

"If Roe v. Wade can fall, anything can fall,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a recent “60 Minutes” interview. That’s the lesson Democrats have had to learn the hard way.

The lesson Republicans are now learning the hard way is that fighting to get rid of a freedom the majority of Americans supports is really unpopular. Really super very unpopular. Which is why they’ve been scrambling to find a way to talk about it without sounding like the radical extremist freaks they are.

And it’s why Senate Republicans are now pretending they don’t have a problem with contraception—they just don’t like the bill to protect it.

“We will have an alternative that will make very clear that Republicans are for contraception,” GOP Whip John Thune said. Yeah, sure they will. And what will make their bill better?

According to Iowa’s Joni Ernst, who’s supposedly working on her own bill, it will be better because it will cover less contraception. No, that’s not a joke.

“It does not include Plan B, which many folks on the right would consider abortive services,” she said. The fact that “many folks” consider emergency contraception “abortive services” does not make it so. And that’s according to actual doctors, not radical right-wing activists.

But it’s those radical right-wing activists Republican senators can’t resist, even as they’re trying to convince voters they really aren’t that radical. So they’ve blocked a bill to protect contraception, with only the empty and vague promise to voters that there’s no need to worry, it’s perfectly safe. For now.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

A Shameful Tradition: Republicans Erect New Hurdles To Voting

A Shameful Tradition: Republicans Erect New Hurdles To Voting

After the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution — abolishing enslavement, awarding citizenship to Black Americans and guaranteeing their right to vote (Black men, anyway) — it was a time of progress and celebration.

African Americans were elevated to positions in cities, states and at the federal level, including American heroes such as Robert Smalls of South Carolina, first elected in 1874, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was well known by then, though. His sailing skills were crucial in a dramatic escape from enslavement that saw him hijack a Confederate ship he would turn over to the U.S. Navy.

But not everyone viewed the success of Smalls and so many like him as triumphs, proof of the “all men are created equal” doctrine in the Declaration of Independence. For some whites, steeped in the tangled myth of white supremacy and superiority and shocked by the rise of those they considered beneath them, the only answer was repression and violence, often meted out at polling places and the ballot box.

It didn’t matter that these newly elected legislators, when given power, promoted policies that benefited everyone, such as universal public schooling.

In incidents throughout the South, the White League and the Klan killed Black men who had the audacity to exercise their right to vote, intimidating and silencing those who considered doing the same. In the Colfax Massacre in April 1873, an armed group set fire to the Colfax, Louisiana, courthouse, where Republicans and freed people had gathered; between 70 and 150 African Americans were killed by gunfire or in the flames. In Wilmington, North Carolina., white vigilantes intimidated Black voters at the polls, and in 1898, in a bloody coup, overthrew the duly elected, biracial “Fusion” government.

Reconstruction gave way to “Redemption,” couching a return to white domination in the pious language of religion, not the first or last time God was used so shamelessly as cover.

The perpetrators then were Democrats, allied against Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Today, it’s most often Republicans — afraid they can’t convince a majority with ideas alone — who engage in tactics to shrink the electorate to one more amenable to a “Make America Great Again” promise, one that harks back to a time that was not so great for everyone.

It’s not a coincidence that those most amenable to the leader of that movement are white Christian nationalists, eager to align a flawed messenger with a higher power, in order to gain more power on earth.

But the tools are subtle in 2024.

In Republican-led states, with like-minded legislatures, a proliferation of laws has erected hurdles to voting, ones that opponents say disproportionately hit minorities, the poor and the elderly. This week, a federal court in North Carolina is hearing a case brought by the NAACP that is fighting voter ID requirements that Republicans in the state say are not tough enough.

Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee have announced an effort to recruit 100,000 poll watchers in battleground states. You don’t have to be a mind reader to imagine where they could be stationed — Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee — the places where minority voters are concentrated and where Trump insists fraud is going on.

From the 1980s until a few years ago, the RNC was hampered by a consent decree after complaints that posting armed, off-duty law enforcement officers at polls in minority neighborhoods just might intimidate voters. You have to wonder if they’ve learned anything.

America has seen it all before.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, laws that simply sought to balance the scales, right wrongs and achieve some semblance of justice, were all greeted with pushback that the government was going too far, too fast — that whites were losing something when minorities gained long-denied rights.

Some in the crowd in America’s 21st-century attempted coup, on Jan, 6, 2021, toted Confederate flags and signs demanding a violent take back of a country they don’t recognize and don’t want to accept.

Trump in Time magazine echoes the grievances that have never faded away, as he lays out his plans if elected in November. He promises policies to address what he calls a “definite anti-white feeling” in America.

“If you look at the Biden administration, they’re sort of against anybody depending on certain views,” Trump told Time. “They’re against Catholics. They’re against a lot of different people. … I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed either.”

No proof, of course, that Mass-attending President Joe Biden is anti-Catholic, or that African Americans, with disproportionate outcomes on everything from maternal health to housing, are cruising along. But division and victimhood are all Trump knows. He supports his followers’ views, all FBI evidence to the contrary, that discrimination and hate crimes against whites are bigger problems than discrimination and violence against African Americans.

Trump and Republicans have already succeeded in states across the country, outlawing the teaching of basic history like the facts at the top of this column, for fear the truth about hard-fought gains, often accompanied by bloody sacrifice, might hurt someone’s feelings or perhaps provoke empathy and understanding for the “other.”

Ignorance of history makes it much easier to sell the lie that the 2020 election was stolen and that byzantine rules and poll watchers are needed to prevent the same in 2024.

Trump’s antics in a Manhattan courtroom have drawn all the attention, understandable with headlines about adult film stars, tabloids and the like. Trump won, in part, in 2016 because he knew how to suck up all the oxygen in the room.

But it’s important to pay attention to the words and actions of those who only love an America that excludes rather than includes the voices and votes of all its citizens, those who look back and like the view.

We’ve seen that America — throughout history and as recently as January 2021. It wasn’t pretty.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World