By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
If you have ever had a conversation with a Democrat
friend about election fraud, you know how it goes:
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “There isn’t any election fraud.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“Of course there is. A Philadelphia judge of elections just went to jail for rigging
an election in exchange for a bribe of $300, which isn’t very much money, even
in Philadelphia.”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “I never said there wasn’t any election
fraud.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“. . .”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “But it isn’t widespread.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“Well, it fits the most common definition of ‘widespread,’ inasmuch as it has
happened in a lot of elections in a lot of different jurisdictions. We’ve had
convictions from Maine to Hawaii — more than 1,000 of them, in fact. And that’s
just the ones that result in criminal convictions. So, I think ‘widespread’ is
fair.”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “I never said it wasn’t widespread.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“. . .”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “But it hasn’t actually changed the results of any
elections.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“I assume that those Philadelphia Democrats were bribing the judge of elections
to stuff ballot boxes because they wanted to change outcomes,
rather than simply inflate their margins. And we’ve seen cases where fraud has
unquestionably changed outcomes. We’ve seen elections thrown out by courts
because of fraud. Al Franken probably won his first Senate election on the
strength of illicit votes.”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “I never said it hasn’t changed the results of any elections.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“. . .”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “It hasn’t changed the results of a presidential
race.”
Scrooge McJudgy:
“Probably not. Maybe in 1960, but, probably not. Still, wouldn’t you feel
better if there were more reliable oversight in place?”
Caitlyn
Moonbeam-D’Vegan: “Sedition! Sedition! Sedition!”
Etc.
Students of rhetorical stratagems and logical fallacies
know all about these kinds of conversations: question-begging, moving the
goalposts, motivated reasoning — all the stuff that makes street-level
democracy so dreadfully stupid.
You can dramatize the intellectual dishonesty by changing
the subject from election fraud to gun control. When a horrible crime
like the one perpetrated in Boulder on Tuesday — and in Atlanta
only a week before — occurs, the story is always the same.
“This wouldn’t happen if we had universal background
checks.”
“The guy in Boulder could have passed background checks
all day and apparently did — he had no felony convictions or other
disqualifying factors. The killer in Atlanta passed a background check — he
bought his gun from a federally licensed dealer; i.e. in one of the most
heavily regulated commercial transactions most Americans ever encounter.”
“Nobody should have these weapons of war. There’s no
legitimate use for them.”
“Neither the Boulder killer nor the one in Atlanta used a
‘weapon of war’ in the sense of something exotic not commonly owned by
civilians. They used common weapons that Americans commonly use for common
things, from home defense to pest control. One used a 9mm handgun, one of the
most common firearms around, and the other used an extremely not-unusual
5.56mm semiautomatic rifle; i.e., literally the most common rifle sold in the
United States. Interestingly, in spite of their being so common, these so-called
assault rifles are, statistically speaking, vanishingly rare when it comes to
murders, as indeed are all rifles and shotguns generally.”
“Still, if it saves one life!”
“How about if something prevents one instance of voting
fraud?”
“Sedition!”
Etc.
Our kooky friends on the radio notwithstanding, the
Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump —
but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t election fraud and that it isn’t a
problem. If they had half a brain, Democrats would understand that even
low-level electoral fraud like those apple-stealing shenanigans in Philadelphia
is mother’s milk to demagogues like Donald Trump and pure oxygen for the worse
demagogues who may yet follow in his footsteps, undermining faith in the
ordinary procedures of democratic self-government and inviting tit-for-tat
norm-breaking that leads inevitably in a dangerous authoritarian direction. In
a sensible country, electoral fraud would be taken far more seriously than,
say, illicit commerce in marijuana. Kamala Harris racked up about 2,000
marijuana convictions in California, and . . . rather fewer election-fraud
cases.
By the same token, there are things we can and should be
doing to reduce violence in the United States and to keep firearms out of the
hands of malefactors. Unfortunately, two factors work together to prevent that
from happening.
The first and arguably more important factor is that
prosecutors and police do a poor job — indeed, a culpably negligent one — when
it comes to going after straw-buyers and other low-level traffickers in illicit
firearms, and, in most jurisdictions, of prosecuting simple firearms-possession
cases. That kind of police and prosecutorial work is very labor-intensive, very
unpopular, and generally thankless — careers don’t get made by putting away
some habitual criminal’s idiot nephew or terrified girlfriend on a straw-buying
charge. But that’s how you actually keep criminals from obtaining firearms.
The second factor: On top of the lack of law-enforcement
incentives, progressives treat gun control as a pure Kulturkampf issue,
which is why Democrats turn their noses up at prosecuting career criminals in
Chicago while obsessing over new ways to inconvenience and restrict federally
licensed, highly regulated firearms dealers and the people who do business with
them, a population that is pretty much by definition generally law-abiding.
That’s not to say that people who acquire guns legally never commit crimes —
they do, as the past week attests — but they do so relatively rarely, and it is
very difficult to imagine a constitutionally permissible set of prior
restraints that would keep somebody with no criminal record or other ordinary
disqualification from acquiring a firearm that he might — might —
later use in a crime.
This is one of those sharks-and-bumblebees things.
Progressives like to present themselves as data-driven pragmatists, but they
are fixated on scary-looking black rifles that are as a matter of easily
verifiable fact rarely used in homicides. They do this for the
same reason that people worry about shark attacks when they are more likely to
be killed by a bee or a cow or a moose. The stereotypical NRA member of
the left-wing imagination (middle-aged, white, suburban or rural, conservative,
bigoted, egg-bound) isn’t a public danger — he’s a cultural enemy, one who
presses all sorts of aesthetic and social-status buttons.
He probably worries a lot about election fraud, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment