Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Not Jim Crow
The outrage from Democrats and Republicans (for different reasons) regarding the changes to Georgia’s voting laws is just plain pathetic. Although it’s tempting to ignore them, the arguments from both sides are misleading, incomplete, and dangerous. And more of these laws are being passed and proposed by other states to bring integrity and fairness to the voting laws.
The Federal government is doing everything in its power to wrest away the power to define elections that have been governed by the states, and Republicans have to stop making vague and general protests about the accusations, denying the incorrectness of the criticisms and, and state why the new laws will actually benefit all peoples, black, white, and other races.
We must overcome the hyperbolic language of the Left from dominating the conversation and educate the public. We also must acknowledge that we have allowed our schools to deprive our children of a legitimate education about the history of race, particularly in the areas of voting rights and elections; these are the people who will influence how we move forward into the elections of the future. I propose that we briefly review the origin of “Jim Crow Laws,” limit our discussion to their application to elections, and then identify how to enlighten the public about the efficacy and appropriateness of the election changes we anticipate.
The phrase was first seen in 1800s:
The phrase ‘Jim Crow Law’ can be found as early as 1892 in the title of a New York Times article about Louisiana requiring segregated railroad cars. The origin of the phrase ‘Jim Crow’ has often been attributed to ‘Jump Jim Crow,’ a song-and-dance caricature of black people performed by white actor Thomas D. Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1828 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson’s populist policies. As a result of Rice’s fame, ‘Jim Crow’ by 1838 had become a pejorative expression meaning “Negro. When southern legislatures passed laws of racial segregation directed against” black people at the end of the 19th century, these statutes became known as Jim Crow laws.
Although Jim Crow laws were ubiquitous in the South, it’s helpful to maintain a clear focus on the effect of those laws on voting rights for blacks. Multiple states made repeated efforts to disenfranchise black voters:
Democrats passed laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political participation by most black people and many poor white people began to decrease. Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disenfranchised most black people and tens of thousands of poor white people through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements.
Every southern State had its own specific requirements, and although the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed, it was largely ineffective. Finally, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “ended legally sanctioned barriers to voting for all federal, state and local elections. It also provided for federal oversight and monitoring of counties with historically low minority voter turnout.”
* * * * *
Given that history of elections, let’s look at the results of minorities registering to vote and voting in elections in 2020:
The number of Black Americans eligible to vote for president has reached a record 30 million in 2020, with more than one-third living in nine of the nation’s most competitive states– Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – a higher share than the 29% of all U.S. eligible voters who live in these states. Nationwide, Black eligible voters now make up 12.5% of the U.S. electorate, up from 11.5% in 2000.
Rather than protesting about lack of access to voting, blacks were voting in record numbers:
For this year’s [2020] upcoming presidential election, a recent Pew Research Center Survey found that 63% of Black registered voters are extremely motivated to vote. Furthermore, among those who support Joe Biden, over a third (35%) said that they plan on casting or have already cast their vote by absentee or mail-in ballot.
Their enthusiasm included support of voter ID as well, according to Jason Snead, the Executive Director of Honest Elections Project:
Contrary to the Democrat Party’s narrative, Snead’s memo reveals that the majority of voters, including the majority of black and Hispanic voters, support basic election integrity measures such as voter ID, which Democrats routinely describe as a form of voter suppression.
* * * * *
Let me simply list the “draconian restrictions” that the Democrats claim regarding the new voting law in Georgia:
Lie: You can’t give water to people standing in line to vote.
Truth: Water can be made available at the site or by poll voters; water distributed by political operatives might be given to unduly influence voters.
Lie: Voting access has been reduced.
Truth: Polling places still permit voting from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; if they are in line by 7 p.m., they can still vote.
Lie: Asking for ID will cause “voter suppression”
Truth: Multiple means of identification have been identified as acceptable and 35 states already require ID. As stated earlier, the majority of blacks favor voter ID. And Georgia voters can acquire a Georgia ID card.
* * * * *
So, when we are confronted by people of the Left about the legitimacy of the upcoming state election law revisions, keep in mind the information that I’ve shared here. Then I suggest we ask them for specific answers to the following in an open, non-confronting way:
- What elements of the new law reflect Jim Crow laws?
- How do you define voter suppression? Based on your definition, what restrictions are in the new law(s)?
- How do you explain blacks’ enthusiasm for voting in record numbers?
- How do you explain the majority of blacks supporting voter ID?
- What are the reasons you’re willing to sacrifice voter integrity for your political agenda?
- Are you aware that Federalism puts the management of elections in the states’ corners?
The tragedy in this electoral drama is that the Left is still treating blacks as they did back in the Jim Crow days: as ignorant, illiterate, and stupid.
If anyone is demonstrating Jim Crow practices, it’s the Left.
Published in Elections
In some cases maybe so, although much of it was not enacted by the state Legislatures as required by the Constitution. And in some cases there was other nonsense going on, such as in Georgia where “consent decrees” as I recall between the Secretary of State and the Stacey Abrams campaigns/etc violated state law/constitution.
Doesn’t gravitas mean pompousness, and and inflated sense of seriousness and self-importance?
Unfortunately, most RepubliCAN’T office holders are part of the rigged game, not truly fighting if it will cost them anything real. We are in the mess we are in today because of the nonfeasance or malfeasance of Republican officials in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and in the U.S. Congress January 2017-December 2018. I refuse to blame Democrats for doing what they can be expected to do. That does no good. Only hammering RepubliCAN’TS relentlessly until they quit or reform with real results has any hope of forcing real change.
I guess the question now – or one question, anyway – is if people like Kemp and Rafensperger have actually learned anything and now try to make things better. I think one part of the new Georgia law prohibits things like the “consent decrees” that allowed the Stacey Abrams team to overrule election laws.
Gravitas means something like dignity.
Yes, that is the common misperception. And yes, I’m being light-hearted.
In practice, gravitas is a rarely used and specific word meaning weighty or grave or as a characteristic of personal authority [and further implies credibility]. No one ever describes oneself with this characteristic. It is always attributed by others, and is a matter or personal perception or interpretation. And it is used selectively by the Press. And so, my first description of the word.
In practice, I have never heard gravitas used by anyone except by the Press, and only then as a matter of overall judgment about a personal characteristic of someone whom they want to either boost or denigrate; as either having it, or not; like an actor having it. If gravitas means anything, it is held by men like Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln; and, being seen mostly in retrospect, it is of no current use or validity.
Who in American politics today have you heard described as having gravitas? John Kerry? President 0bama? Hillary Clinton?
Name one conservative Republican in the last thirty years who has been described as having gravitas. I can’t think of any. Actually I would say that Trump ridiculing Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man” at a time of nuclear tensions, and warning that Kim had nowhere to run to to avoid retribution, as displaying gravitas. Would you agree?
Maybe grayvee.
Huh?