Anti-Democratic Body Slam May Save Democracy in USA

Body slamming a reporter is a reprehensible anti-democratic act, even if in reaction to a reprehensible provocation, but it may save democracy in the United States if it finally motivates “liberals” to slam and eliminate – or at least cut back – early voting. There is a sense that the people who voted prior to Election Day in Montana made the difference in electing the candidate in Montana who body-slammed a reporter. As a result, enough people in America may finally be motivated to eliminate or cut back early voting, even if for the wrong reason. Early voting – especially weeks in advance -- is anti-democratic for a few reasons.

1. It increases the chances of voter fraud;
2. it increases the chances a person may vote more than once;
3. it increases the chances a person may vote in more than one jurisdiction;
4. it increases the chances a person may forge his/her name before voting;
5. it furthers the chances of voter fraud in the absence of requiring voters to identify themselves before voting;
6. it unlevels the “playing field”;
7. it enables voters to vote on essentially two differently perceived candidates,
8. it allows people to vote on a candidate before he or she changes his/her position on any number of issues; and, perhaps above all,
9. it encourages people to vote on a person without having the most complete understanding of the candidate that is possible on Election Day.

---

All of these considerations should be obvious to fair-minded people, but “liberals” of the “left” don’t seem to realize that simply increasing the number of voting machines available on Election Day is the best way to improve democracy and encourage one vote per person. Ironically, African-Americans were once discriminated against in America because they didn’t have one vote per person, but now the system facilitates more than one vote per person. It is not good to correct one inequity against a minority by providing another inequity to a majority. It should also be obvious to fair-minded people that requiring a person to provide identification before voting is supported by common sense and fairness. A person needs to provide identification before receiving welfare benefits or before getting onto an airplane. Shouldn’t a person be required to provide ID before helping to determine who will navigate the ship of state? The argument that requiring ID is racist is outdated at best, and absurd in fact, now that jurisdictions are offering to provide photo ID for free to anyone who doesn’t already have it. One more point. The election of Donald Trump proved that Americans in most jurisdictions believe that how a person thinks and votes is more important than how a person behaves or speaks. The Pope may have the purest of thoughts and the best of intentions, and maybe I would vote for him for pope, were I given the opportunity, in a utopian world, but the Pope would not necessarily get the vote of the masses in the political arena from people who believe that a person whose Vatican in a good neighborhood is surrounded by a wall should not condemn a person who seeks to protect his country from illegal aliens, including known drug dealers, by building a wall, and a person who is known to bridge opposing interests as the master of the Art of the Deal and who supported Republicans and Democrats in office and even invited the Clintons to his wedding should not be condemned as a person who opposes building bridges.

---

---

Actually, people who refuse to vote for a highly qualified judge for Supreme Court after voting for him as an appellate judge may be the ones who oppose building bridges more than any other people. Voltaire is widely misquoted to have said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I will defend to the death the right of people to attribute such an eloquent and principled line to a person who never said it, although I will correct them and hope they will support the facts in the process of supporting democracy. Americans should learn to be guided by such sentiments once again, especially when it comes to President Donald Trump. We may also disapprove of reporters who report “fake news” on one side, and boorish behavior like a body slam of a reporter, but we must also be guided more by the principled positions a politician takes than by the very rare errors in judgment the politician may occasionally make, especially spontaneously or in a fit of anger, and especially when followed by an apology.

---