Rules Are Not Made To Be Broken
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: One of the biggest disadvantages that conservatives face in the political realm is that we play by the rules, and we expect/hope others will do the same.
Of course, any reasonable person will look at a statement like that and immediately think that playing by the rules shouldn’t be a disadvantage. And they’d be right – it shouldn’t be. But the ongoing resistance offered to measures designed to ensure that everyone else also plays by the rules is evidence enough that it is.
This space has already taken notice of the resistance of Democrats in Georgia to a new law that would require photo identification be presented before a person be allowed to vote. Now I note that the battle over this issue has been joined in Indiana as well.
As noted at CNSNews.com, Democrats in the Hoosier state are upset over a recent ruling in federal court that upheld the state’s requirement that anyone who would vote show a government-issued photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Those who don’t have such an ID can obtain a free one – let me say that again, a free one – from Indiana’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. In addition to that, those who don’t have an ID on election day can cast a provisional ballot, and follow up with their county’s election board within 13 days to verify that it should be counted.
Nevertheless, in spite of all these efforts made to ensure that everyone who meets all other requirements can still vote on election day, the Democrats are up in arms, all the way up to the top of the Democrat National Committee. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has criticized the law as creating “unfair obstacles” to voting, and has pledged the DNC’s support to Indiana Democrats in an ongoing attempt “to make it easier for all Americans to exercise their right to vote.”
For now, I’ll leave aside all I want to say about the continual movement to make it easier to vote. At this time, I will simply ask the reader to note who it is that opposes virtually every rational attempt to increase the integrity and credibility of the electoral system in the United States, while still trying to be as inclusive as possible.
The Republican-controlled legislatures in Georgia and Indiana have not proposed any changes that would tilt the playing field in the favor of either party. They have merely sought measures to keep out of the elections within their states those people who have no right to take part. In other words, they have simply sought to see to it that the rules are enforced.
The problem, where the Democrats are concerned, is that it seems that “voters” who do not meet all eligibility requirements are the people who they have come to count on as vital components of their base. Rather than making serious attempts to realign their policies and positions that continually isolate them from the majority of voting Americans, they have chosen instead to seek ways to widen the voting universe to include people whom the law excludes.
What does it say about a party that views the rules as onerous things to be overcome? What does it suggest about the state of our electoral system when new laws have to be passed in order to ensure that existing ones are not flouted for political advantage?
It is true enough that the continual making of new laws is generally not an encouraging thing for conservatives: Within each new law there is always the, however small, increased threat to personal liberties. But when personal liberties come to be viewed as license to violate the rights of others, it is only reasonable to expect further such restrictions. Or as Paul Harvey has said numerous times, Self-Government won’t work without Self-Discipline. Tyranny waits just around the bend for a people who can no longer bring themselves to comply with the law voluntarily.
Of course, any reasonable person will look at a statement like that and immediately think that playing by the rules shouldn’t be a disadvantage. And they’d be right – it shouldn’t be. But the ongoing resistance offered to measures designed to ensure that everyone else also plays by the rules is evidence enough that it is.
This space has already taken notice of the resistance of Democrats in Georgia to a new law that would require photo identification be presented before a person be allowed to vote. Now I note that the battle over this issue has been joined in Indiana as well.
As noted at CNSNews.com, Democrats in the Hoosier state are upset over a recent ruling in federal court that upheld the state’s requirement that anyone who would vote show a government-issued photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Those who don’t have such an ID can obtain a free one – let me say that again, a free one – from Indiana’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. In addition to that, those who don’t have an ID on election day can cast a provisional ballot, and follow up with their county’s election board within 13 days to verify that it should be counted.
Nevertheless, in spite of all these efforts made to ensure that everyone who meets all other requirements can still vote on election day, the Democrats are up in arms, all the way up to the top of the Democrat National Committee. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has criticized the law as creating “unfair obstacles” to voting, and has pledged the DNC’s support to Indiana Democrats in an ongoing attempt “to make it easier for all Americans to exercise their right to vote.”
For now, I’ll leave aside all I want to say about the continual movement to make it easier to vote. At this time, I will simply ask the reader to note who it is that opposes virtually every rational attempt to increase the integrity and credibility of the electoral system in the United States, while still trying to be as inclusive as possible.
The Republican-controlled legislatures in Georgia and Indiana have not proposed any changes that would tilt the playing field in the favor of either party. They have merely sought measures to keep out of the elections within their states those people who have no right to take part. In other words, they have simply sought to see to it that the rules are enforced.
The problem, where the Democrats are concerned, is that it seems that “voters” who do not meet all eligibility requirements are the people who they have come to count on as vital components of their base. Rather than making serious attempts to realign their policies and positions that continually isolate them from the majority of voting Americans, they have chosen instead to seek ways to widen the voting universe to include people whom the law excludes.
What does it say about a party that views the rules as onerous things to be overcome? What does it suggest about the state of our electoral system when new laws have to be passed in order to ensure that existing ones are not flouted for political advantage?
It is true enough that the continual making of new laws is generally not an encouraging thing for conservatives: Within each new law there is always the, however small, increased threat to personal liberties. But when personal liberties come to be viewed as license to violate the rights of others, it is only reasonable to expect further such restrictions. Or as Paul Harvey has said numerous times, Self-Government won’t work without Self-Discipline. Tyranny waits just around the bend for a people who can no longer bring themselves to comply with the law voluntarily.
posted by JeffreyH | 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home