Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Photo ID at Blockbuster: An Undue Burden Similar to the Voting Booth?
Guest Column | By Gabriel Garnica | April 30, 2008
The recently announced Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board rejecting a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s
law requiring voters to show photo ID has been met with
predictably overblown and dramatic panic in liberal circles. Liberals
everywhere are crying that this decision is politicized, partisan and,
apparently, slightly below cancer as a scourge to society.
However,
if truth be told, their response reveals more about the Left’s skewed
hypocrisy and twisted logic all designed to maintain its bitter grasp
on power.
The Wolves Who Cried Wolf
Given
their typical positions on many issues, I often wonder if some liberals
abuse some substance, be it glue, cocaine, mustard or baby powder.
Their reaction to this voter ID decision is an indication of such
possible abuse.
Here we have liberal pundits wailing that the Crawford decision
reads like a conservative assault on free elections right before the
2008 presidential election. There we have liberal bloggers arguing that
the Left must unite against this flagrant attempt to steal yet another
election.
The
liberal tactic regarding voting has always been to convince anyone with
a heartbeat that liberalism represents the voiceless, the poor, the
minority, the victimized, the martyred, the rejected, the short, the
tall, the overweight, the thin and every other category they can
conjure. Next, they claim to be fighting an evil opponent determined to
ignore the (fill in the blank).
Third,
they paint any legislation, court decision or political effort
detrimental to their political or social agenda as detrimental to the
interests of their victim coalition. Finally, they portray themselves
as the champions of said voiceless victims, ready and eager to slay the
dragon of tyranny facing American society known as the Right.
Make It a Blockbuster Right
Anyone
who has signed up at a video store knows that you must provide proper
identification to rent out videos and games. I have not seen public
protests declaring such procedures and requirements an affront to
humanity. It seems that most thinking people have decided that it is
not a disgrace upon Democracy to ask those wishing to rent movies to
provide adequate proof of their identity. Apparently, the exchange of
identification in return for the right to see Alvin and The Chipmunks does not outrage too many people, including liberals.
Require
similar identification for the right to vote, however, and liberals
nearly have a coronary. On a rational, sincere level, this makes no
sense. Is not voting a much more important and meaningful activity than
renting movies? Is voting much more central to the heart of a
self-proclaimed bastion of Democracy than renting video games? One
would think so and, thus, one would imagine that protecting the
integrity of the voting process is much more important than protecting
the integrity of renting videos. That is, of course, if one is a
rational, sincere and patriotic American. However, this is all based on that rational, sincere level we have been assuming that liberals also inhabit. In reality, liberals operate on a much more hypocritical and cunning level.
The Real Distinction Between Videos and Votes
If
liberals are half as smart as they keep reminding us that they are,
they know full well that voting is far more important than renting
videos and games. Likewise, they know full well that it is not an
outrage to humanity to require anyone wishing to rent videos to provide
adequate identification.
They
realize that providing photo ID is a requirement for everything from
taking standardized tests to signing up for a local gym. This is why
they do not take to the streets like civil rights protestors over these
increasingly common procedures.
When
it comes to voting, however, the rules change for liberals, and that is
because the stakes change as well. Liberals realize that, if their ploy
of painting themselves as the noble champions of the underclass is to
reap dividends, they must get that underclass to vote.
Much
has been written of how liberals relish the role of enablers who
patronize, manipulate and hypnotize those naïve or willing enough to be
classified as victims of the month. Whether it is the poor, the
homeless, the sick or the next minority in line, these victims are
taught to sit back and let the friendly neighborhood liberals fight
their battles, argue their rights and speak their pain.
Instead
of teaching people to stand up for themselves and speak on their own
behalf, liberals love to instill deeper and deeper dependence,
victimization and feeble-minded submission in those they profess to
protect and defend. We all know the saying that if we catch a fish for
someone he will eat for a day, but if we teach him how to fish he will
eat for a lifetime. Conservatives care about the person, so they prefer
to teach that person to fish, no matter how difficult or inconvenient
the lessons may be. It is called tough love. Liberals, on the other
hand, only care about themselves, so they prefer to conveniently and
eternally provide the fish so as to keep the recipients ignorant and
grateful.
Liberals
know that practically every illegal immigrant and most criminals will
gratefully vote for them since they tend to defend and rationalize
everything that benefits them, from amnesty to open borders to softer
sentencing. Such people tend to disfavor photo IDs for obvious reasons,
so it behooves liberals to disfavor them as well. In typically
hypocritical fashion, however, liberals will tell us that the poor,
sick and minorities are unfairly burdened by such requirements, and
that their right to vote will be unfairly hindered.
That
such absurd arguments are made should not shock anyone, however, since
they are the same ones who think that requiring people actually to
learn English or to have a drop of respect for the American flag is an
outrageous demand. At the end of the day, there is no political
advantage to making video rentals easier, but keeping the mobs of
grateful victims voting for you is another kettle of fish.
What is an Undue Burden?
A careful analysis of the Crawford decision
reveals three distinct views. Three Justices said that the challenge
did not prove its point of unconstitutionality. Three Justices stated
that the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters.
Finally, three Justices dissented, arguing that this law did, in fact,
represent an undue, pervasive and unjustified burden on voters. The
real issue here is found in the arguments of the second and third
groups. Simply put, is it a minimal and justified burden to ask voters
to provide photo ID before voting? If so, must there be an actual
record or history of voter fraud to justify such laws?
In
a society where everything from renting videos to accessing workplaces
requires photo ID, where the threat of terrorism demands increased
vigilance and with a vast array of opportunities and options for
obtaining such ID exist, one has to wonder who would be unduly burdened
by this requirement. After all, people from all economic levels and
classes participate, to some degree, in the benefits of this society.
While much work is needed to provide better access to the fruits of a
free Democracy to all people, everyone benefits in some ways from the
privileges and advantages offered by this great nation. The
request that each person obtain and carry suitable photo ID is a small
price to ask for such benefits, opportunities and freedoms. To retreat
from such a request on the grounds that it might be inconvenient for
some is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy, given the fact that
everyone at all levels willingly undertakes daily inconveniences for
far lesser benefits and privileges.
If
this burden is therefore relatively minimal, one might wonder if it is
justified. Certainly, no person can argue that voting is one of the
most important activities in a free and Democratic society. This
privilege carries benefits and responsibilities, and its accurate and
orderly exercise is critical to the integrity of both Democracy and the
nation itself. Given all of these points, then, there should be no
doubt that requiring a photo ID to vote is a relatively minimal burden
whose justification far outweighs any possible inconvenience or
drawbacks.
Many critics argue that the Crawford case failed to provide adequate evidence of Indiana
voter fraud, as if the justification for an action depends solely on a
past history of harm. We do not wait until a burglary to occur to lock
our doors, nor do we wait for our children to be abducted to instruct
them in personal safety. We do not wait for food poisoning to set in to
learn how to properly cook food, nor do we need to be hit by a car to
avoid jay walking. Only a fool would pretend that there has never been
voter fraud of some kind attempted in this country’s history, and only
that same fool would propose that we cannot increase our defenses
against such fraud until it is inflicted upon our local communities.
Clearly,
then, liberals see such requirements as an undue burden on nothing
other than their own political and social interests and agenda. In
typical fashion, however, they hypocritically paint this protest as an
affront on the very poor, voiceless and minorities which they
manipulate and abuse on a daily basis for their own gain.
Conclusion
To read and listen to liberals, one would think that the Supreme Court’s Crawford decision
is the greatest threat to mankind since reality shows. In truth, this
decision is merely one of the most rational, sensible and decent things
the Court has done in years. If America
is what we believe it to be, then its voting process is a sacred
process whose integrity deserves all the respect we can provide. If
that integrity and respect mean anything at all, then a simple photo ID
requirement is a small exchange for the privilege and right to
participate in the government of the greatest nation on earth. If
common sense dictates and demonstrates that such photo ID requirements
have become as common as buying bread, then we have the right to expect
anyone who wants to vote to obtain such identification.
The Supreme Court’s Crawford decision
scores a point for a rational, sensible and common sense defense of the
integrity of the American voting process. It reminds us that sincere,
patriotic and sensible Americans truly want to keep this great nation
the repose of those willing to accept responsibility and some burdens
for their freedom.
The
liberal response to this decision, however, merely reminds us that the
Left wants to turn this land of the free and home of the brave into the
land of the free ride and home of the excuse.
FamilySecurityMatters.org contributing editor Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is a college professor and licensed attorney whose regular commentary also appears on New MediaJournal.us, The Daley Times-Post, and Michnews. He holds a law degree from New York University and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from St. John’s University in New York.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
8 Comments | Post a Comment
Ivy--
Liberals love to whinge about “disenfranchisement” of voters. Would you feel even slightly “disenfranchised” if you showed up at the polls, only to find that someone else had already used your identity to vote? I certainy would.
To bring the business of WalMart and guns into the discussion seems a bit histrionic. But since you asked, the federal government has enacted more than one law forbidding its own agencies to compile databases of firearms owners, although most of us “gun nuts” suspect that such databases exist in secrecy. What genuine “good” do you suppose WalMart’s self-imposed requirement does?
Histrionic? Seriously? The column is overflowing with histrionic, trite caricatures of crazy, evil liberals, and you defend it, but when I suggest there’s an inconsistency on BOTH sides and present it in a straightforward, respectful way, that strikes you as “histrionic?”
If you reread the author’s arguments about Blockbuster, but substitute Walmart, you’ll see his arguments apply equally to guns as videos. Both are consumer goods being offered for sale or rent by a private company; both companies have the right to make sales contingent on reasonable security measures. If you don’t want to comply with a store’s policy, don’t patronize it.
The Second Amendment and subsequent laws don’t say gun dealers can’t keep sales records. You defend security measures for innocuous items like videos, but see no possible “good” in tracking guns used in crimes back to their purchasers? If you don’t see it on your own, I doubt explaining it to you would help.
The Second Amendment didn’t save any lives at Waco or Ruby Ridge. If the govt wants to take our guns, they will, and it’s quite the romantic fantasy that we would be able to stop them with whatever little “militias” we could muster. Or does Walmart sell smart bombs now?
Yes--histrionics. I am only surprised that you have the good manners to have turned off your caps lock key.
Sorry, but arguing with you appears to be a waste of time.
Liberalism is an all-consuming disease that infiltrates and consumes every particle of commonsense and true rationality its victims have. Here is the true victimology of the diseased heart and mind...and it spreads throughout the thought andfeeling systems with deadly consequences. Just think how moronic it is that an issue as simple and commonsensical as expecting any citizen of any socioeconomic level to present a verifiable photo ID to be allowed to vote would spark a verminous plague of horror in the twisted minds of the leftest politically correct crowd. They howl like a pack of wolves about the terrible inconvenience it causes the underprivileged to be “forced” to go to a county office to get such an ID. Yet those same UP citizens go there to pay their ad valorum taxes, file their wills, etc. Horrors! What a facist country, to expect “every” citizen to sacrifice so much of their “valuable” time and energy [Think of all the wasted “nap and lost tv time,” not to mention the interruption of
those precious telephone gossip sessions.] Shameon America! Where is its compassion? Ah, that isnot the real question. It is, “When will Americathe land of liberty and equality really begin holding “all of its citizens, who enjoy more freedoms than in all other countries, to the single standard of equality in the matter of citizen responsibilities, rather than makingexcuses for those who really want to game the system and violate the rule of law? Doesn’t “equality” refer to both rights and
responsibilites of citizens? I thought it did.
Thank God for at least one step in the right direction of restoring some common sense equality in the enforcement of the laws of our land I trust this is “one small step to curb voter fraud and one giant step for Common Sense over Liberal Non-sense.”
@Jerry - there are very few instances in which I favor giving more power to the governments, but the matter of requiring positive identification of voters is one.
Ivy Shoots, like most statists, quickly attempts to shift the point of the argument to something else. In fact, the entire issue of whether or not Garcia’s use of video rental is an appropriate example is moot.
To paraphrase Jerry Frady:
Just think how moronic it is that an issue as simple and commonsensical as expecting any citizen of any socioeconomic level to present a verifiable photo ID to be allowed to make a purchase at Walmart would spark a verminous plague of horror in the twisted minds of the rightwing politically incorrect crowd.
May 2 at 12:49 pm | #1 | Link
Please explain why your above assessment is not inconsistent with the “predictably overblown and dramatic panic in” right-wing “circles” over Walmart taking identical, routine security measures with its firearms purchases.
On their face, the Right’s positions on voting and Walmart seem as much at odds as “the Left’s skewed hypocrisy and twisted logic” on voting and Blockbuster.