A Modest Suggestion for the American Election
The corruption of electoral practice is now so deeply entrenched in American political usage, riveted in place by massive spending, systemic lying, media compliance, and the exercise of arbitrary power, that one despairs for the future of the country. This is especially the case with the Obama administration, which represents not the United States of America so much as the Democratic Party, its many dissident factions, radical groups, disaffected constituents, and its well-heeled backers. It is diligently engaged in subverting the electoral process to solidify its hold on national office, sparing no effort to bring about this problematic end. The following examples are only scattershot in what amounts to a veritable fusillade.
Florida is -- or was -- attempting to purge ineligible voters from the electoral rolls. The process has been halted for the present, but Secretary of State Ken Detzner claims the Department of Homeland Security has denied the state access to the federal immigration data base, thus impeding its efforts to identify instances of vote falsification. Florida governor Rick Scott has initiated a lawsuit against the DHS, and the Justice Department responded in kind. Indiana passed legislation in 2005 to counter voting irregularities, provoking the Democrats to file suit. Texas is determined to pass a new voter ID law, to which the DOJ has formally objected. Attorney General Eric Holder is also blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina. And so it goes.
Indeed, research conducted by the Pew Center shows that there are approximately two million dead voters listed on the registries, and that one in every eight voter records contains inaccuracies. It is also a well-known fact that up to three million voters can cast their ballots in several different states, facilitated by the Motor Voter bill introduced by the Clinton administration.
As Peter Ferrara, general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), urges in an article called “Stealing Our Elections” for The American Spectator, “Let’s be fully frank.” The obvious reason that Obama, Holder, and the Democratic Party oppose proof of citizenship and voter ID, he writes, is that “vote fraud is a central Democrat strategy for ‘winning’ elections.” The Democrats appear to be the party of the dead and the morally contaminated. Identification is anathema to them. And yet ID is required in almost every facet of official civic life -- driver’s licenses, club memberships, medicare consultations, and a host of other such categories, without which recognition is not forthcoming and access is denied. Even Eric Holder’s own Washington, D.C., office requires photo ID, and a sign posted by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law reads: “ALL VISTORS MUST SHOW ID.”
Why should the voting process be any different -- unless there are ulterior motives at work? What other conclusion can any reasonable person arrive at? As the Washington Times editorializes, “The Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the fundamental importance of an honest count only strengthens the growing notion that it seeks advantage, not justice.” It is plain that something must be done to avoid the scandal of a potentially rigged or manipulated election and to ensure, so far as possible, that dead voters be re-interred, multiple voters fractioned back to single balloting, mail-in fraudsters outed, forgers detected, noncitizens removed from the rolls, and illegal voter registration schemes investigated.
Here, then, is my modest suggestion. Determined to avoid a looming travesty, the Republican Party should insist that an international committee of legal experts and electoral watchdogs be invited to monitor the upcoming federal election. Reputable observers might be recruited from that rapidly diminishing assortment of countries that still retain a degree of respectability in the international arena: Canada (cf. Canada’s International Election Observation project), Australia, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Andorra perhaps. (Israel would make an ideal contributor to the procedure were it not the innocent victim of a worldwide campaign of slander and disinformation.) The United Nations, of course, should be avoided like the proverbial plague lest it assemble a squad of observers from Zimbabwe (recently appointed to head the UN World Tourism Organization), Iran (recently chosen as rapporteur for the UN Committee on Information), and other degenerate and autocratic stalwarts like Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and, naturally, the Palestinians.
The same goes for the Carter Center, which is sullied by a left wing and pro-Islamic agenda, and for the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which is, by any account, pretty well useless. But a cohort of impartial sentries hailing from countries generally acknowledged as more or less decent in their international relations might lead to “sober second thought” -- a phrase applied to the Canadian Senate -- in the minds of some politicians.
This would be one way of checking what the Washington Times described as “widespread opportunities for mischief.” The attorney general, who refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for polling booth intimidation, argues that widespread voter fraud “does not really exist” and that measures to strengthen election integrity are “unnecessary.” But as we all know, or should know, spurious voting practices are ubiquitous and it is Holder’s own party that stands to gain from such malfeasances. True, an international team of scrupulous observers would not have policing powers and the mainstream media would certainly not publicize its efforts and probable findings. Nonetheless, given the current political environment in the U.S., it might at least cause some embarrassment among less prominent office seekers not entirely devoid of conscience, prompting them to reconsider their allegiances.
As Foreign Affairs, the publishing arm of the Council on Foreign Relations, contends, “when governments do not play by the rules, observers can reduce fraud that would otherwise occur and condemn governments for election manipulation. ... At the same time, they pressure governments -- either through direct meetings or public condemnation -- to update voter registers, support domestic observers, ensure that ballot materials are delivered throughout the country, and adopt technologies that make blatant election fraud harder.” A pious hope, perhaps, but worth a try.
The journal also points out that “the international monitoring of elections has become so common that refusing to invite foreign observers is seen as a signal that a regime has something to hide.” The present administration and the Democratic Party definitely have something to hide and they are palpably not playing by the rules, thus compromising the legitimacy of the upcoming elections.
Time to call in the observers.
Note to the reader: When I first began writing this piece, I had intended to develop a somewhat facetious argument, a kind of satire on the hijinks of the Democratic Party. But as I progressed, I soon realized that my proposal to mobilize a team of election observers could justifiably be taken seriously. The American political scene oscillates between vaudeville and tragedy. The vaudeville inheres in the outrageous antics of the political left, as if we were witnessing something out of the Theater of the Absurd or the Commedia dell’Arte; the tragedy resides in the spectacle of a great democracy coming to resemble in its electoral affairs the modus operandi of a decadent, venal, and unprincipled third-world polity. As a result, I remain uncertain of my intentions. Am I joking, or am I in deadly earnest? Am I writing tongue in cheek or watching a tragedy unfold? Is inviting a group of international monitors to sentinel the election a mere caprice or is it actually validated by the circumstances?
One thing is undeniable: the Democratic thespians are putting on a risible but disgraceful and ultimately menacing performance. That the governing administration of a bellwether liberal nation should strenuously oppose fair voting practices and cry “racist” to intimidate those who advance a clear and sensible proposition is almost beyond belief. Perhaps in order to avert tragedy, we must acknowledge that caricature and burlesque have no place in the electoral life of a country. A properly conducted election furnishes the opportunity to hoot the farceurs off the stage.