[Marxism] Wall Street Journal warns of attempts to block Black voting

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In my opinion, this Wall Street Journal article -- despite the bizarre
attempt to equate Democrats trying to persuade Bush's base not to vote
for him with Republican attempts to block and intimidate Blacks from
voting in Ohio and Florida (so far) -- is aimed, very politely,  against
the Republican campaign against the threat of increased Black votes in
this election.

It is a warning to Bush not to disgrace the entire system -- at a time
when Washington is killing Iraqis and trying to create economic
desperation in Cuba in the name of democracy -- before the entire
watching world. This would be much more ruinous for the capitalist
rulers this time than in 2000, and I am convinced that even some
pro-Bush sections of the rulers are convinced that a Bush victory is not
worth that price.

Of course, we can be sure that both parties are pulling out the stops on
the routine forms of fakery.  The dead will be pouring out of the
cemeteries to vote for the party in control of various areas, as they do
every four years.  (There may be fewer nonvoters among the dead this
year than among the living.)

But, as in 2000 when we were not on our guard, the attacks on the Black
vote in particuar and on the right to vote more broadly are direct
attacks on the democratic rights of working won in costly struggles. We
have to resist strongly, regardless of the effect on the outcome.
Fred Feldman





October 27, 2004
PAGE ONE

Block the Vote
As a Final Gambit, Parties
Are Trying to Damp Turnout

Attack Ads, Fliers Encourage
Opposition to Stay Home;
Focus on Christians, Blacks
'Dirty Little Secret' of Politics
By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 27, 2004; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Democratic politicians normally have little
use for Pat Robertson. But when the conservative
televangelist got into a rare public spat with the White
House last week, John Kerry's campaign quickly spoke up for
him.

Mr. Robertson had quoted from a private conversation with
George W. Bush in which he said the president predicted
there would be no casualties from an Iraq war. As the White
House disputed that, Kerry strategists jumped in asking for
clarification. "Was Pat Robertson telling the truth?" asked
spokesman Mike McCurry, "or is Pat Robertson lying?"

With Mr. Bush more dependent than ever on his political
base, fellow Democrats hoped that amplifying conflict
between the White House and a religious right leader might
produce a salutary result: diminished zeal among
conservative Christians to turn out on Nov. 2.

"That was brilliant," says Bob Mulholland, a top Democratic
operative in California. "You try to discourage the
opponent's base with bad news."

Gambits like this mark the flip side of the massive
mobilization efforts of both presidential campaigns to turn
out their bases on Election Day. Both camps are doing what
they can, in ways both overt and subtle, to convince the
other side's supporters that they shouldn't bother voting
in the first place.

Given Americans' high interest in this seemingly dead-heat
contest, overall turnout could be sharply higher than the
106 million who voted four years ago. But exactly who shows
up and who stays home could make the difference in the 10
or so battleground states that both sides are so fiercely
contesting.

Voter suppression is "a dirty little secret," says Shanto
Iyengar, a Stanford political scientist who believes that
negative campaign information damps turnout. "Both
campaigns' rhetoric is being tailored to peel off the weak
layers of would-be opponents. It's much easier to get those
voters not to turn out than to switch over to your guy."

Democrats say they see suppression efforts in Republicans'
well-advertised plans to vigorously check the registrations
of those who show up to vote. In their eyes, such efforts
are designed to convince voters that trying to cast a
ballot will be too much of a hassle. "They're trying to
scare decided voters away from going to the polls," former
President Bill Clinton declared this week.

Democrats also are bracing for a barrage of missives
attempting to lessen enthusiasm for Mr. Kerry among
blue-collar social conservatives who otherwise might lean
toward him on economic policy. In West Virginia, a recent
Republican National Committee flier warned that under Mr.
Kerry, the Bible would be "BANNED" while gay marriage would
be "ALLOWED."

There's sometimes little distinction between a traditional
negative ad and one designed to discourage voting. But
politicians suspect suppression when a rival spreads
negative information among a core constituency that usually
votes for one side or stays home -- such as conservative
Christian Republicans or black Democrats.

Republicans see suppression efforts in Democrats' attempts
to sow doubts about Mr. Bush's character and his fealty to
social conservatives. They believe Democrats will use the
Internet to spread fresh rumors about Mr. Bush's youthful
behavior among conservative Christians. Bush strategists
saw a similar effort when both John Edwards and John Kerry
went out of their way in the recent debate series to
mention the fact that Mary Cheney, the vice president's
daughter, is gay.

Republican-friendly groups have sought to damp enthusiasm
for Democrats among African-Americans by placing ads on
black radio stations critical of Mr. Kerry and his party.
One ad financed by America's PAC, a group led by
conservative activist Richard Nadler, blasts Democrats for
backing "liberal abortions laws that are decimating our
people."

Mr. Nadler says his group's $1 million ad spending isn't
meant to specifically depress the African-American turnout.
"Our ads ... are reducing the Democratic vote and
increasing the Republican vote," he says. "Which part of
that equation am I supposed to dislike?"

This game can be seen clearly in the crucial battleground
state of Florida. To sow doubts about the president, a
liberal anti-Bush group called the Media Fund has spent
advertising dollars in the Bush-leaning Florida Panhandle
attacking the president for being too close to the Saudi
royal family. In the Democratic stronghold of Palm Beach
County, the Bush campaign is airing its new "Wolves" ad,
which talks about how Mr. Kerry supported cuts in U.S.
intelligence over an image of wolves walking menacingly
toward the camera.

A similar pattern is playing out in Wisconsin. The Media
Fund is airing its Saudi attack on radio stations in the
Republican-leaning Green Bay market, while the Bush
campaign is airing the Wolves ad in liberal Madison.

"The attack ads are aimed at shoring up your base, and
weakening the impulse to vote among weak partisans on the
other side and the undecided," says Curtis Gans, director
of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate,
a nonpartisan group. The Kerry campaign is counting on
those late-deciding voters to break toward the challenger.
The Bush campaign's plan for victory assumes that perhaps
half of them won't vote at all. "The lower the turnout the
better chance Bush has," says Mr. Gans.

Democrats have been unusually aggressive in accusing
Republicans of openly attempting to dissuade Kerry
supporters from showing up on Nov. 2. In Wisconsin,
Republicans have announced plans to initiate antifraud
"background checks" on newly registered voters. In Ohio,
Republicans plan to place recruits inside polling places to
challenge the credentials of voters they consider
suspicious. That could unduly discourage minority
first-time voters, Democrats say. African-Americans are
considered especially vulnerable because of their history
of official disenfranchisement.

Democrats even see nefarious intent behind the many
warnings from government officials about the possibility of
terrorist attacks in the lead-up to the election.

"Their legal, political and message strategies are
seamlessly connected to paint a picture of chaos and
discourage Democrats and swing voters," says Democratic
National Committee adviser Jenny Backus.

Republicans vehemently deny they're engaged in any attempt
to scare off voters. What Democrats call "intimidation,"
they say, is simply an effort to guard against 21st-century
efforts to stuff the ballot box for Mr. Kerry. National
Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie says the party is acting
to deter casting of ballots by phony registrants who have
surfaced in some pro-Kerry registration drives. "There's no
intimidation," says Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign
manager.

As evidence such claims are fabricated, Republicans cite a
recently disclosed Democratic National Committee manual
instructing party officials to make "pre-emptive" strikes
against alleged intimidation even before they find evidence
it took place. One risk for Democrats is that such warnings
may themselves damp turnout. "Perception becomes reality,"
observes Theresa LePore, Palm Beach County elections
supervisor. "If you keep telling people they're being
disenfranchised, they'll start believing it."

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot recently complained to
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney about acts of violence and
vandalism by union members against Republican campaign
offices in Florida and Ohio, which Mr. Racicot said were
designed to scare voters. Denise Mitchell, a spokeswoman
for Mr. Sweeney, says the letter mischaracterized peaceful
protests against overtime regulations that had nothing to
do with voting.

Campaigns don't like talking about efforts to depress
turnout because they seem at odds with democratic
principles. When Ronald Reagan's onetime campaign manager
Ed Rollins boasted publicly about having worked to suppress
black turnout in a 1993 Republican governor's race, it
spurred a political furor and Mr. Rollins later said he
fabricated the claim. A few months ago, a Republican state
legislator in Michigan was forced to resign his role in the
Bush campaign after saying, "If we do not suppress the
Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time."

Top strategists in the 2004 campaign play down the
effectiveness of such tactics. "I'm not sure it has that
much impact," says Mr. Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign
manager. Adds Jim Jordan, an official with the Media Fund:
"Those of us in politics are fascinated by the black arts,"
but "almost never do you get more bang for the buck" trying
to turn off the other side.

Voter-suppression efforts are often conducted off the radar
of national politics in leaflets, fliers and telephone
campaigns. There, "you can be much harsher than you can
ever be in a TV ad," notes Republican pollster Tony
Fabrizio, who advised the 1996 presidential bid of Bob
Dole. "If they're a Bush voter anyway, nothing lost. If it
gets [others] to stay home, that's just as good."

Mr. Bush doesn't need any convincing that negative
information can suppress turnout. His strategists think Mr.
Bush lost the popular vote against Al Gore -- and nearly
the entire election -- because of a late 2000 disclosure of
a past drunk-driving arrest that dulled enthusiasm among
conservative Christians.

Historically, some efforts to hold down turnout have been
surprisingly explicit. The former executive director of the
New Hampshire Republican Party recently pleaded guilty to
hiring a telemarketing company to jam Democrats'
get-out-the-vote telephone lines on Election Day 2002.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade County Supervisor
of Elections said the office has received "a number of
calls" from registered Democrats complaining of efforts to
dissuade them from voting. In an interview, Miami travel
agent Jason Miller says a caller identifying himself as a
Democratic official told him not to bother voting on the
grounds that his registration form wasn't properly filled
out. Mr. Miller says the elections office assured him his
registration was valid.

Candidates can help keep turnout down by reducing the ardor
of voters in the opposing camp. That's part of the logic
behind Mr. Kerry's goose-hunting trip last week, which
produced front-page pictures of the Democratic candidate
carrying a rifle. Such photo opportunities could blunt
opposition from gun owners, who flooded the polls to oppose
Mr. Gore four years ago and ousted the Democratic
Congressional majority in the 1990s.

According to National Rifle Association Executive Vice
President Wayne LaPierre, 42% of NRA members believe a
Kerry presidency would result in less gun control. If NRA
members truly believe that, less of them might be convinced
to show up for Mr. Bush.

By the same token, Mr. Bush has been assiduous in his
professions of faith to African-American audiences, which
may help him with a socially conservative constituency that
votes overwhelmingly Democratic. A recent poll from the
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think
tank, showed the Republican incumbent drawing 18% of the
black vote. Even if Mr. Bush ends up polling closer to the
8% share of the black vote he scored in 2000, he may have
curbed the desire of African-Americans to turn out for Mr.
Kerry.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism