![]() |
|
The GOP strategy of surrounding vote-counting sites in Florida’s Miami-Dade and Fort Lauderdale Counties this week with angry crowds of Republican demonstrators, is a risky one. Flown into Miami from all over the country and bused into the area at party expense, the vociferous and aggressive Bush advocates have left an image on the national retina of civil disturbance and, for some, mob rule. The GOP has characterized their actions as “voicing outrage” and “venting frustration” at the unfair process unfolding in the limited recount of Florida’s presidential votes. Their deployment seems particularly questionable at a time when the Bush organization is riding a crest of recent court victories, and the looming certification deadline set by the Florida Supreme Court has Gore supporters backed against a wall. What then, is to be gained by shouting, chanting, and banging on doors and walls outside where the votes are being counted? It is perhaps a measure of the Republicans’ grim determination to win this election at all costs. The costs, in the end, could be high. Protesters have denied their "mission" is to intimidate the vote counters, though it is difficult to imagine not being intimidated by a throng of people-- mostly white males of fairly menacing size-- intent on “venting outrage” at you for doing your job. Apparently the Republicans see displays of anger and psychological terror as somehow more fair than letting the canvassing personnel do their work in peace. They’re doubtless encouraged by Wednesday’s folding of the Miami-Dade recount and the acquiescence of counters in precincts where irate protests netted them Bush votes in the absentee tally. The message is clear: the more pressure you apply, the fewer votes will be counted for Gore. The intent is not to voice opinions but to influence, and if possible stop, the recount. These are curious tactics for a Bush campaign that promised to unite us. GOP operatives compare them, however, to the Democratic rallies held in the disputed counties by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. There is a monumental difference. Jackson and his followers never yelled or chanted at election officials while they were doing their duty or tried to crash the door at the counting site-- one presumes, to loom over the process physically, or even to intervene. Bodily. Yet the GOP insists no intimidation is intended. Strong-arm methods are inherently antidemocratic and are sure to further diminish the legitimacy of a Bush presidency should he win the vote. The Florida protesters so far have stopped just short of being a mob, and they are farther still from being street fighters of the kind that roamed Germany’s major cities in 1933 beating up opponents. In other respects, however, the analogy to the demise of the Weimar Republic is more exact. Now, as then, party rhetoric is the force that drives the demonstrators. Party officials are organizing them and orchestrating their actions in the streets. Some of them have reported Secretary of State James Baker himself is running the show, but this has been denied. Just as Nazi party officials inflamed the passions of their followers with charges that communists were taking over the country and that the institutions of Weimar democracy were rotten, Republican officials, all the way up to Gov. Bush himself, are urging people to believe the Democrats are stealing the election, that the courts are usurping the powers of the state, and that officials performing the recount are enemies of the American way of life. This vilification of the recount and its participants, a process considered reliable all across the country in the past, implies that only Republicans are fair-minded enough to oversee close elections, that in the absence or inadequacy of machine counts, no fair assessment of the results is possible, that human beings (or Democrats, at least) are inherently too dishonest and opportunistic to conduct a reliable vote count, whereas a blind, obsolete machine is impartial and fair, even when grossly inaccurate. This causes one to wonder how democracy ever came into existence without voting machines. Apparently individuals can be trusted to vote, but not to count votes. This poses a curious dilemma for democracy in general. Most unfortunate of all, the defamation of the court-ordered recount gives the less thoughtful and perhaps unstable among us all the excuse they need to act; for passion rarely finds a suitable outlet in mere debate. In taking us down this road James Baker and George Bush are playing with fire. As we witnessed in Dallas in 1963 and at Kent State in 1970-- as we have seen over and over at abortion clinics around the country-- our rhetoric can have consequences that are regrettable and entirely unforeseen. |
|
Letter to the editor by Terrence W. Kirk, Appeals Attny. |
|
The Republicans are, of course, on a Holy War footing here and are in danger of going over the edge with their goon squads, but no one is going to remember their strong-arm tactics, especially because the media allows absurd comparisons to Jesse Jackson in the interest of "objectivity." I personally fervently wish for a constitutional crisis, to bring all this to a head, and we will have one if Miami-Dade is forced to count, given the time to do it, and adopts the Broward County standard. The Republicans will never allow Gore to win Florida outright. Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris will refuse to certify any Gore victory, and the Florida legislature will do whatever it can, up to and including defying the Florida Supreme Court. Make no mistake: we are up against brownshirts here and, on the whole, the Democrats lack the moral outrage to fight back. (Where were the Democratic protesters when Miami-Dade gave up? ). In another irony, however, it may be the lawyers and a Republican Supreme Court who save the Democrats. If Gore doesn't give up, and if he ever pulls ahead, the case will end up in the Supreme Court, and I don't believe the Court will say that the Florida legislature can choose the electors in flagrant contravention of the vote-- if they can, why even have an election? Similarly, although it is less clear legally, I do not think they will say that a Republican Congress can ignore Democratic electors chosen in accordance with the decision of Florida's highest court. Ruling that way would portend their own end, establishing a precedent that the Legislature trumps the Judiciary. Even though the Justices are Republicans, they care more about their own power than they do about a Bush presidency. If I'm wrong, however, so much the better. Perhaps the only thing that would galvanize the people would be a naked power grab that would demonstrate openly that voting doesn't matter. The difference between a pig and a hog is that the pig gets fat, but the hog gets slaughtered. Republican ruthlessness could do them in. On the other hand, the Democratic nightmare is that Gore will lose even after all the votes are counted, and Bush will say the rule of law has prevailed. No one will think about the butterfly ballot, or about the approximately 4,700 probably illegal absentee ballots where Republican operatives violated state law by filling in blank parts of the applications that had to be completed by the voters themselves. Since we do not allow political parties to walk into the voting booths on election day to help with the voting, I do not see how Republicans can legally insinuate themselves into the absentee voting process, either. This is an issue not given much press and one that I hope the Gore team raises in court. In any event, Democrats will abide by what the Florida Supreme Court says on this, unlike some conservatives like George Will, who've said they wouldn't if the decision went against the Republicans. But it seems unlikely the Florida Court will have the courage to throw out those absentee ballots legal or not. Finally, I believe a citizen can condemn a court as being cowardly or biased, but the citizen may not refuse to accept the court's decision, unless he admits he is engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. Speaking of which, I wonder how a Republican mob would react to police dogs and firehoses? That would be worth seeing. |
|
Crisis of Closure by Malcom Mordred Oh no, not again! whine the hoarse talking heads, |
|
Untitled Sometimes when i say certain words, |