Best of the Web Today - January 2, 2008
By JAMES TARANTO
Voter Motor
Our Monday item about the Indiana voter-ID case pending before the Supreme Court prompted a reader to email us a FoxNews.com column by Democratic former congressman Martin Frost, making the case against voter ID:
This law in fact discriminates against people who do not drive and do not otherwise need a state-issued photo ID. Who are we talking about? Elderly, disabled, poor and minority voters, to be specific. Most of these coincidentally are Democrats.
According to the brief submitted to the Supreme Court by the individuals challenging the constitutionality of this Indiana law, the statute clearly is aimed straight at these groups. The brief notes that "About 12% of voting-age Americans lack a driver's license. And about 11% of voting-age United States citizens--more than 21 million individuals--lack any form of current government-issued photo ID. That 11% figure grows to 15% for voting-age citizens earning less than $35,000 per year, 18% for citizens at least 65 years old, and 25% for African-American voting-age citizens." This is what is called in the law a "disparate effect." . . .
Many middle class and wealthy white people can't understand why someone would not have a current photo ID. These are the same people who didn't understand why poor blacks and the elderly weren't able to get out of New Orleans before Katrina hit. It was because many of these unfortunate victims of the storm didn't have a car and, of course, also didn't need a driver's license with a photo ID.
The trouble with this argument is that it is circular: Requiring photo ID discriminates against people who don't have photo ID (or, more precisely, against groups that are overrepresented among the ID-less). Isn't this just as true of any photo ID requirement? If a bank refuses to open an account unless the prospective customer produces photo ID, is that a violation of civil rights? Is it unconstitutional for the federal government to require that employers check the identity of newly hired workers? Yet somehow demands for identification are a civil rights issue only when it comes to the ballot box.
For that matter, if minorities have a lesser propensity to get driver's licenses, doesn't that mean the "motor voter" law, championed by Democrats, is discriminatory because it disproportionately gives opportunities for white (and younger, and higher-income) people to register to vote?
This is a matter on which both parties assert high-minded concerns--Republicans in preventing fraud, Democrats in making it as easy as possible to vote legitimately--that happen to dovetail nicely with partisan self-interest. But there is another way of looking at the question that gives both parties an opportunity to show their good faith.
The figures Frost cites for the proportion of adults without photo ID are shocking if true. Voting and driving aside, the lack of a photo ID makes many functions of ordinary life more difficult or expensive to conduct--or at least to conduct legitimately: getting a job, conducting routine financial transactions, traveling between cities, negotiating encounters with policemen. People without IDs are marginalized in important ways, and if their numbers are as great as Frost claims, this is a serious social problem.
Why not, then, couple the photo ID requirement with a program allowing would-be voters to obtain or renew such IDs on the spot on Election Day--a sort of "motor voter" in reverse? This could be combined with other efforts to get ID to those who lack it. This would help the poor while discouraging voter fraud, thereby furthering both parties' professed goals. And it would do far more to benefit black and poor Americans than merely getting them to the polls.
Running to Liz's Left
A year ago, Saddam Hussein had just been executed, but post-Saddam Iraq looked like a disaster, and Democrats, poised to assume a congressional majority, were making noises about a quick surrender. How things have changed: Although Saddam Hussein is still dead, things are looking up in Iraq, and the Democrats are not talking so loudly about cutting and running. With one exception, as the New York Times reports from Sioux City, Iowa:
John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.
Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.
"To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq," he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
Edwards--originally a strong supporter of Iraq's liberation--is so far out on a limb, however, that he's even running to the left of his better half:
Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country.
The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow, and polls show that Edwards is competitive with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If he finishes first or second, it may be a sign that a substantial number of Democratic voters are so opposed to the Iraq mission that they are eager to bring about America's failure, not just to cut its losses.
An Auld Acquaintance That Should Be Forgot
The Fresno Bee reports on an unwelcome visitor at yesterday's Tournament of Roses Parade:
Dozens of anti-war protesters led by "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan staked out spots across from television cameras, hoisting signs reading "Impeachment is Patriotic."
After the procession's last float inched out to start along the parade's 5 1/2-mile route, a group of more than 100 anti-war protesters marched behind it, including Sheehan. Parade watchers sitting in the grandstand booed and yelled at the protesters.
"This is not the occasion for this," Mary Feichtel, 63, of Florida, said of the protests.
Remember 2005 and all the media hype about Sheehan, falsely portrayed as a grieving everymom who was going to turn around the politics of Iraq? Now no one treats her as anything more than an irritant or an embarrassment. Not that she deserves better, but her son, Casey, who died in a noble cause, does. Can't she just let him rest in peace?
Femme Fatale
Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that being first lady was a dangerous "job," and not just because it entailed being Bill Clinton's wife. Newsday reports:
Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton's eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she's looked for an opening to strike back.
On Saturday night in Dubuque she pounced, arguing she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.
"I don't remember anyone offering me tea," she quipped.
One cheer to Mrs. Clinton for that subtle jab at creepy Joe Wilson. But this gives us pause:
It turns out that Clinton wasn't quite flying solo into harm's way that day.
She was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage that included baggy-pants funnyman Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography "Living History."
So Mrs. Clinton took her 15-year-old daughter on this death-defying junket? And now she wants to be our mother?
This Planet Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Us
In an extended letter to the editor of the Oregonian, Michael Niflis says he'd like to see fewer people:
Regarding the "bounty of babies" (Dec. 15), nothing could be more irresponsible--even disgusting--than superimposing a baby boom on top of our global warming crisis. That's more gasoline on the fire.
It's incredible that so few understand and are alarmed by the very high probability that humans will very soon be extinct if we don't greatly reduce the number of people depending on the planet's limited life-support systems.
The United Nations' conclusion that "only urgent global action will do" in dealing with climate change (Nov. 18) is sobering indeed. But since human activity is the primary cause, the solution is a right-in-our-face no-brainer: Reduce human activity! . . .
Life on Earth could be truly beautiful for all living things if there weren't so many humans competing for all the good things it has to offer.
He's on to something. There are just too many people, and we need fewer of them, so . . . well, you first, Niflis.
Phony Data--II
An item Monday brought many responses from "Trekkies" informing us that "Data" does not have pointy ears. This sort of misses the point. Not only does he not have pointy ears, he doesn't even exist!
Whose Woods These Are, I Think I Know
"Drunken Vandals Ransack Poet Frost's Summer Cabin"--headline, CBC.ca, Dec. 31
News of the Tautological
"Clock Running on Bush Presidency"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 31
Breaking News From 1971
"FBI Heats Up Search for Skyjacker D.B. Cooper"--headline, CNN.com, Jan. 1
News You Can Use
o "Exit Through Window if Car Is Under Water"--headline, Detroit News, Jan. 2
o "Dallas Police, Officials Discourage Random Gunfire"--headline, Dallas Morning News, Dec. 31
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Bush Won't Visit Yasser Arafat's Tomb"--headline, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1
o "Environmental Group Gets Political"--headline, Times Union (Albany, N.Y.), Jan. 1
o "Candidates Stumping in States Other Than Jersey"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 31
o "Jersey-Wearing Boy Attends Packers Game"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 31
o "Men's Belly Dancing Makes Comeback in Egypt, Defying Suppression"--headline, Bloomberg, Jan. 2
Party of Five
The Republican Party is in trouble. The Democratic Party is in dire straits. All of which would be good news for a third party, if America had one. Oh wait! Here's a press release we received the other day from the Libertarian Party:
While Republicans and Democrats struggled with members abandoning the party in pursuit of political alternatives, the Libertarian Party saw an increase in membership of 25 percent for the year. "The numbers show what everybody has been saying--people are not happy with the two-party system and are ready for a change," says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory.
"The two-party system has failed the American public," says Cory, "and people are looking for a viable alternative in hopes of returning America to the right path. Our numbers are a clear indication of the failure of Republicans and Democrats."
From Dec. 2006 to Dec. of this year, the Libertarian Party saw an increase of 25 percent in membership. Major issues for new Libertarian members include disapproval of the war in Iraq and the use of torture in the so-called "War on Terror," excessive spending by the President and Congress, as well as rampant civil liberties violations.
Let us be the first to congratulate the Libertarian Party on signing up its fifth member.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
