Give Rich Lowry a Prize for Chutzpah

 

Maybe I should start giving out prizes for chutzpah, because Rich Lowry's column certainly deserves one. Granted, it is routine practice on the right to be outraged by Democrats' voting rights law, to declare state control over voting law the foundation of freedom, to denounce any federal role in voting law as tyranny, and to dismiss massive Republican changes in election as minor and quite defensible.  It isn't too far out of line to denounce Biden's support for federal voting rights law as "demagogic."  And it is positively boilerplate to be outraged by Democrat Stacey Abrams' ten day delay in conceding defeat in the election for Georgia governor in 2018.*

But the mind boggles when Lowry says, "If Democrats lose in 2022 or 2024, his [Biden's] speech will provide warrant for Democrats to embrace a corrosive excuse -- GOP foul play."

I suppose maybe we should consider it a victory that Lowry acknowledges that it is "corrosive" for partisans to blame defeat on foul play, and that Presidents should not make speeches encouraging such beliefs.  

Certainly he is right that such beliefs, especially when encouraged by presidents, are extremely dangerous to democracy.  Who knows where such beliefs could lead?  Why, they could lead to 60 or more lawsuits to overturn an election, none with any merit.  Or to members of Congress and state Attorney Generals bringing suit to overturn the results in the Supreme Court.  Or to politicians illegally pressuring secretaries of state to overturn results they don't like.  Or to pressure on election boards not to certify if their party loses.  Or to state legislatures overturning popular results.  Or to cyber ninjas scrutinizing ballots for bamboo fibers and threatening to knock on voters' doors to confirm their votes.  Or to pressure on Congress not to certify the results of the Electoral College.  Or even to violent insurrections.

Needless to say, none of this comes up in Lowry's column.

Presumably, like most Republicans, he would dismiss all that as ancient history.  What relevance could events that took place over six months ago possibly have to voting laws today?  Why won't Democrats forget the whole thing and just move on?

Well, for starters, the Republicans currently in the process of rewriting voting laws are the same ones who did or supported all those months-old attempts to overturn the last election.**  This makes it really hard for Democrats to accept that their actions are taken in good faith.  

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that Republican are not dismissing the past as irrelevant and moving on.  The Michigan Republican who voted to certify a Biden victory has been removed from the board.  Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is facing a primary challenge for certifying Biden as winner.  So is Georgia Governor Brian Kemp for signing off on Raffensperger's certification, even though by law he had no choice.  Cyber ninjas are looking for some reason, however implausible, to cast doubt on the Arizona vote, and other swing states won by Biden are following suit.  Arizona has also taken the responsibility for defending elections in court from the Democratic Secretary of State to the Republican Attorney General -- to last only for the duration of their terms in office.  Georgia election law gives the (Republican) state legislature power to choose the chair of the election board.  The Texas legislature proposed to make it easier for lawsuits to overturn elections. And so forth.

So maybe we should ask Rich Lowry point blank whether it is "corrosive" for any party to blame defeat on foul play and whether it is "demagogic" for any President to encourage such beliefs?  Or do these rules only apply to Democrats?

_____________________________________________________

*By way of background, Abrams' opponent, Brian Kemp was secretary of state, which put him in charge of counting the votes.  Kemp removed some 700,000 voters from the voting rolls without notice, some 300,000 of whom still lived where they were registered.  He also delayed some 53,000 voter applications, 75% of them minorities, and falsely accused the Democrats of attempting to hack the elections board when the alleged "hack" was actually a security test that his staff has signed off on months earlier.  Abrams considered suing to challenge the results, but decided against it.  Ten days after the election, she conceded Kemp's de facto victory, but not its legitimacy.

**Minus the insurrection, of course.  But the current Republican line is to dismiss the January 6 insurrection as a mere protest, or even a tourist visit.