Archive for May 17th, 2006

John at Blogenlust is dead on with his comments on President Bush’s proposal to use National Guard troops to patrol the US – Mexican border:

With the caveat that I know very little about the National Guard and its training, it would seem to me that rotating that many troops in and out of the area on such a short interval (however localized or spread out they may be) is something of a logistical headache for those in charge of making sure they’re doing whatever it is they’re supposed to be doing.And, that’s not even taking into consideration what would happen if/when there is a major national emergency (like another Katrina, for instance).

John also references a WaPo report that says historically there is no correlation between increased police presence on the border and a decrease in illegal immigration:

About 10,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border, and patrol hours climbed about 167 percent between 1997 and 2005. But there is no clear link between staffing and arrests, or between arrests and a reduction in the flow of illegal immigration, analysts say.

And never mind that deploying Guardsmen to the border further weakens our national security by stretching our military further and weakening our ability to respond to emergencies. And never mind that Guardsmen aren’t trained to do police work. And never mind that there aren’t enough jails to lock up the illegal aliens we do catch.

I must admit I’m also nervous that Bush is putting a small army on domestic territory, controlled by…who? Not the Pentagon. Then who? The NSA?

Meanwhile WaPo editorialist Robert J. Samuelson tries to whip up fear among Baby Boomers to the dangers of Mexican immigrants:

…we face a future of unnecessarily heightened political and economic conflict. On the one side will be older baby boomers demanding all their federal retirement benefits. On the other will be an expanding population of younger and poorer Hispanics — immigrants, their children and grandchildren — increasingly resentful of their rising taxes that subsidize often-wealthier and unrelated baby boomers.

Watch out, Boomers! The Mexicans are after your pension money! (Funny that, in this future, conservatives and the “Brown Peril” will have the same values. Why isn’t there a plan to deport Grover Norquist to Mexico?)

The Senate just passed an immigration bill that provides for a 370-miles of triple-layered fencing along the border, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. Also the bill offers illegals…guess what? A form of amnesty:

The bill…would…create a guest worker program and offer legal status — ultimately leading to U.S. citizenship — to many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country.

It’s also apparent that this thing doesn’t have a chance to do an end run around the paleo-conservatives in the House. Like Tom Tancredo, who once said illegal immigrants "need to be found before it is too late. They're coming here to kill you, and you, and me, and my grandchildren." He also sounds like he buys into right-wing fantasies of an impending “culture war”:

America is wrestling with an identity crisis. Part of it is a result of what I call the 'cult of multiculturalism.' The idea that there is nothing — nothing — of value in Western civilization, that we have nothing to offer the world, that we have nothing to offer as a viable society, that everything we have is bad and ugly…. If we are truly in a clash of civilizations… which I happen to believe, then it is important for us to understand who we are.

Do you need me to explain why this guy is nuts?

Anyhow, as a liberal I’m going to enjoy watching the Republican party reveal its racist underbelly when the the Senate bill hits the House floor.

Neomadison at “What’s Right in Montana!” complains because his union pits money against ballot initiative CI-97, the infamous “Stop Overspending” bill. Of course he could get involved in his union and help direct money to political battles he feels would benefit the union. Instead he would dismantle the union. Never mind that defeating CI-97 might save him more money in the long run than what he pays in dues. (I assume he’s a teacher.)

Perhaps he should be more concerned with who’s bankrolling the initiative. According the Gazette report, no one knows.

A trio of Montana ballot-measure proposals, including one to limit state spending, has been bankrolled so far by a group that won't reveal its donors, campaign-finance records show.[snip]

Montanans in Action is what's known as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, which does not have to publicly divulge its financial backers, said its executive director, Winifred rancher and political activist Trevis Butcher.

"It's an educational group," Butcher said. "It's working on all sorts of issues along these lines, especially private property rights."

[snip]

Butcher said he and others formed Montanans in Action early this year. Its financial supporters are people and organizations "who believe in responsible government and want to see citizens directly involved in the process," he said.

Butcher said they don't wish to be known publicly, and that the law doesn't require their disclosure.

Hm. So shadowy “people” and “organizations” are behind the ballot initiative. I wonder why they want to remain anonymous? Hm. Could it be that Grover Norquist group “Americans for Tax Reform” is in involved? Or “Americans for Limited Government,” who back similar measures in Oklahoma and Michigan? Because those groups seem to be working to destroy government’s ability to regulate and provide services like health care or education or emergency response?

But Neomadison blames the union for defending its employees from out-of-state ideologues hoping to cripple Montana’s government – which already operates within its mandated budget constraints, more than you can say of the Republican-controlled federal budget.

Hey! Here’s an idea! Blame the group that brought the fight to the state! They’re the ones forcing the union to pony up your cash to protect your job!

Links…

Incredibly creepy new development in women’s reproductive rights posted over at F-Words. The CDC is recommending that all doctors treat their female, child-bearing age patients as “pre-pregnant.” The action is in response to the news of the US high infant mortality rate. Instead of, say, fixing health care, the government wants to restrict women’s freedom.

Speaking of “creepy,” Wulfgar! found the lunatic ravings of a right-wing extremist urging conservatives to stockpile arms for the coming “culture war,” which exists only in the deluded minds of violent extremists…

Speaking of extremists, this guy says we can learn from the Nazis on how to deport America’s illegal Mexican immigrants.

SteveG hopes that Bush’s incompetence may discourage folks with totalitarian urges to back a Bush dictatorship. Incompetence best ally of democracy?

Is “idealism” the new “competency”?

The Carpetbagger Report scrutinizes Al Gore’s denials for affirmation of his 2008 presidential bid.

Verizon and BellSouth deny they handed over customer records to the NSA. Is the USA Today story wrong, or are these gigantic mega-corporations lying through their teeth? Hm…

How the media coverage of Washington corruption has twisted the facts. Voters overwhelmingly believe that both parties are involved in the major scandals.

Tom Friedman’s “next six months” for Iraqi democracy has stretched out three years. If at first you don’t succeed…

Sasha Abramsky is a freelance writer and a senior fellow at the Demos institute, a New York City think tank. His first book, "Hard Time Blues" was published by St. Martins Press in 2002. He is the author of the recently published "Conned" (The New Press, 2006).

Abramsky’s latest book, “Conned,” is a political travelogue around America, looking at how disenfranchisement is undermining the country's political institutions and democratic culture. (For more details see the book's website or Abramsky's website.) In it, Abramsky writes of his travels from the Pacific Northwest to Miami, talking with activists trying to fight felony disenfranchisement laws and those that would strengthen or extend them.

One state Abramsky visits is Montana, where felons can vote but often don’t, due to institutional misunderstanding and virtually no voting education for the state’s felons.

Here’s an excerpt from Abramsky’s chapter on Montana, “Sent to Prison for Cooking Sausages.” In the chapter, Abramsky had dinner with Kalispell felon disenfranchisement opponent, Norman DeForrest. During the meal, DeForrest, outlined who he thought should have the right to vote: people who spoke English, who knew the Constitution. Of felons, he said the majority are “liberals and Democrats,” and accused the Democratic Party of courting anyone who would vote for them, “including illegal immigrants.” He said the Democratic Party was in thrall to “eco-Nazis” who had “infiltrated” the Forest Service, and he railed against a school system that “…dare[d] to lump European civilization in the same category as African civilization. ‘The word Africa and civilization is an oxymoron to me.’” To sum up his feelings on the vote, DeForrest said, “’I don’t want people voting who don’t know anything about what’s happening.’” Abramsky:

It would be easy to dismiss [felon disenfranchisement supporter Norman] DeForrest as nothing more than a nasty misfit; and, after sitting through an hour and a half of his tirades while eating dinner on my dime at an overpriced and eminently mediocre restaurant, I was more than ready to do just that. I felt dirty and wanted to rush back to my motel room and take a long shower. But then I realized that, while DeForrest was an anachronism – his stated views anathema to the modern mindset, his explicity justifications for limiting the franchise deeply offensive to most modern theorists of democracy – his views were fairly much in tune with those of the Southern leaders and their Western sympathizers who had carefully crafted the disenfranchisement codes back in the post-Civil War years. De Tocqueville wrote that free societies always have, at their heart, a great divide between those who want to maximize popular power and those who seek to restrict it. “As one investigates more deeply the innermost thoughts of these parties,” he scribbled, “some are seen to be pursuing the restriction of public power, others to widen it.” De Forrest was clearly on the side of the restrictors, his views closely aligned with such illuminaries as the authors of Alabama’s 1901 state constitution. According to the historian Andrew Shapiro, and others, the felon codes from this period were specifically designed by postbellum Southern politicians to bar blacks from the ballot box. Indeed, in 1901, John Knox, the politician presiding over Alabama’s constitutional convention, publicly stated that the aim of such provisions was to help preserve white supremacy without directly challenging the constitution of the United States.

In a sense, dining with Norman DeForrest as he discussed voting rights was like getting a behind-the-scenes view of an elderly dowager as she prepared her wrinkled, sagging face for public display. DeForrest was inadvertently giving me a glimpse of the views that shaped the policies and priorities of a previous era, and his defense of disenfranchisement laws was, in fact, arguably the most honest, bare-bones rationale for the continued existence of such laws that could be made. For, in the end, once all the intellectual wriggling was over, how else could such laws be defended other than through a broad-based philosophical attack on the very principle of universal adult suffrage, on the very notion that all adults have, as a basic right, the right to participate in the political process that governs their lives?

Could you tell us a little about your new book, “Conned”? How did you go about writing the book? What’s the premise? Where does Montana fit in?

I interviewed hundreds of people – from politicians through to lawyers, from activists through to prisoners and ex-prisoners – about the topic.

It is, I believe, a powerful and little-understood problem: in essence, about five million adult citizens are now legally prohibited from voting – even if they live in the community as law-abiding citizens, pay taxes, have jobs etc. Most are from economically impoverished backgrounds; a huge proportion are also black or Latino. These are demographic groupings likely to lean more toward Democrats than Republicans. In a period of time in which national elections are determined by tiny margins and when most indicators suggest the country is split almost right down the middle on an array of policy choices, the removal of such a large percentage of the country’s potential voters cannot but have had an impact on elections ranging from the local up to the presidential.

That doesn’t mean, though, that this should be a partisan issue. At its heart, it’s about rights, and about the negation of political rights experienced by a large, and growing, number of people. For that reason, I’d hope that anyone interested in politics and ideas of democracy would be interested in this issue.

In terms of the Montana issue, the problem faced in the state, where individuals CAN vote once they leave prison, is largely one of misinformation – of officials either neglecting to inform ex-prisoners of their right to vote upon release, or of giving them the wrong information, and of a powerful swirl of street rumor that promotes the myth of permanent disenfranchisement statewide.

What got you interested in this subject? And where has it taken you? Personally, I'd imagine I'd be terrified of hanging out with a bunch of ex-cons to do the story, but I guess that's also part of the problem, this fear we have of people who have been convicted of crimes. Could you speak to culture of fear surrounding crime?

I got interested in the subject in 1999, when I started reading data on the numbers disenfranchised, and in particular on those disenfranchised in southern states, including closely fought ones such as Florida. Where has it taken me? Well, if you’re talking geographically, all over the country; the states are detailed in my book. Basically, I started in Washington and zigzagged my way east, ending in Florida. In terms of talking with ex-cons, or present prisoners, it depends on the person. Some, obviously, are less approachable than others. On the whole, though, the interviews are like most other interviews I do; a series of questions, a series of answers. The institutional setting, conducting interviews inside prisons, is frequently quite intimidating, but, with time and practice, you get somewhat used to it.

In recent elections, it was said that Republicans used felon lists to help disenfranchise potential Democrat-friendly voters. Did your research confirm this? is this a common tactic used by the Republican Party?

I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say Republicans are deliberately disenfranchising, wholesale, potential Democratic voters through use of the felon lists. This might well be the practical outcome, but I’ve not uncovered a grand conspiracy to deliberately target Democrats. The closest you could come to this would be in Florida, and there the disenfranchisement was certainly somewhat capricious – though it’s not quite as straightforward as a saying it was an out-and-out party political purge.

Could you describe what happened in Florida? What happened exactly? What was the reason behind it? Was it ideological or political? And more importantly, how can communities ensure that political parties in the future don't disenfranchise non-felons by putting them on the felons list?

What happened in Florida was a combination of incompetence and, I would argue, political opportunism. The state’s Republican leadership realized that existing disenfranchisement laws could tamp down the vote, especially the minority vote; and history has shown lower voter participation generally benefits the Republican party. At the same time, they realized that the existing laws weren’t being fully enforced – people were registering to vote despite felony convictions. They hired a series of companies to “scrub” the voter rolls of illegal voters; however, the databases used didn’t really produce accurate results. Consequently, thousands of people who, in reality, hadn’t been convicted of felonies were still sent letters saying they were being removed from the voter rolls.

Obviously it’s a far more complex story than this – and my book goes into the details in a more nuanced way. But this is the gist of what happened.

How can communities avoid this kind of situation in the future? First off, the laws themselves need to be re-examined; second, even if the disenfranchisement laws remain, states should use much more stringent matching criteria in determining whether or not registered voters are, in fact, felons. The burden of proof should rest with the state, not with voters who are told they have to suddenly prove their eligibility to continue voting.

In the chapter on Montana, you interviewed a conservative activist in Kalispell – Norman DeForrest – who wants the state to deny felons the right to vote. That was a fascinating scene; in it, you outlined beautifully a case for letting felons vote. Can you sum up why people don't think felons should vote, and why you think they should have that right?

Some people argue felons should be restricted, to varying degrees, in their voting rights because they’ve transgressed the social or legal code, and thus can’t be trusted to participate politically without “polluting” the integrity of the system. Others argue they should have to in some way prove that they are redeemed. Still others worry that felons might in some way group together and form a “felonist” bloc.

I would argue the costs of denying millions of Americans the vote outstrip any possible benefits that might accrue by having them disenfranchised. It undermines the culture of political participation and it weakens the institutions of democracy – which, in modern times, we take to mean, at least in part, “universal adult suffrage.”

What do you think the cause of the misinformation in Montana is all about? Is it institutional and malicious? Or do you think it's just a pervasive idea that can be countered?

I’d tend to think it’s mainly not malicious – while some correctional and parole and probation officials may well be only too happy to not have ex-cons participate politically, I think on the whole it’s just that this is an obscure part of the law and it’s one that hasn’t had the attention paid it that it so richly deserves. There’s also a large problem of street rumor, since many convicts either come from other states, or simply aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of Montana’s voting rules. Since so many states DO disenfranchise, it’s easy to see how rumors circulate that a felony conviction means banishment from the political process.

What effect does this misinformation have in Montana, do you think?

Given that Montana, like most other states, has seen a vast rise in incarceration and in the numbers accruing felony convictions as a result of the war on drugs, in particular, it’s certainly possible that close election results are skewed, one way or another, by disenfranchisement, or perceived disenfranchisement. More intangibly, I’d argue the very culture of political involvement, nationally, has been undermined by so many people either being genuinely disenfranchised or disenfranchised via rumor.

First…regarding your conversation with DeForrest, you said his views were an "anathema to the modern mind," insinuating that his views belong to a previous time. Based on my experience, it seems that there's a greater push to exclude people from the voting franchise. A number of conservative-leaning politicians and pundits oppose any legislation that would increase voter turnout — same-day registration, for example, or early voting. And in the wake of the recent immigration scuffle, I've seen people advocate disenfranchisement — or lengthy waiting periods — for naturalized citizens. Are these trends increasing? Or only becoming more transparent? How much does racism have to play in these efforts? I've read some interesting reports that claim racism is becoming mainstream political discourse again (most notably, again, in the immigration debate). What's your take on the felon disenfranchisement and racism?

I'd say that while racism has been by no means eliminated from our society, it's rare to hear a political figure espousing the kind of views de Forrest adheres to. In a sense, racism has gone underground, expressing itself through social policies that have an indirectly race-based impact. And, yes, while many political figures and their constituents are avowedly skeptical of the notion of restoring the vote to ex-felons, their arguments tend to be more subtle that de Forrest's; they talk about making ex-cons "prove" they've rehabilitated themselves, prove they're trustworthy to participate in political decision-making etc.




  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,891 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • May 2006
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories