Here’s to the Purple Finger

Acts of fraud, violence, and intimidation in the American political process are widespread and pervasive. It is our dirtiest little secret, the “skeleton” in our closet. And in spite of what liberals and Democrats might claim, crimes of that nature are largely unique to the Democratic Party. 

Yes, there is occasional wrongdoing by Republicans (e.g. Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, the Watergate burglars, and others), but with one critical difference. Wrongdoing by Republicans is nearly always a matter of individual failings; wrongdoing by Democrats is most often systemic.

So how do we deal with systemic corruption that involves thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands, who apparently feel that “anything goes,” so long as their side wins? How can this happen in the most successful democracy on Earth? How did it all begin?

One might argue that it all began in the pre- and post-Civil War era of the 1850s and ’60s. As anti-slavery forces grew in power and influence and the Republican Party was born out of that movement, Democrats quickly found themselves on the wrong side of history…and inevitably, on the wrong side of the law.  When slavery, Black Codes, and Jim Crow laws were no longer available for the oppression of blacks, they turned to the gun, the lash, the torch, and the noose. And those elections that could not be won fairly and honestly at the ballot box were won through fraud, violence, and intimidation, much as they are today. 

As the renowned African American historian John Hope Franklin tells us, the atrocities committed against African Americans in regions controlled by Democrats and their Klan supporters “were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”

So what began as an angry reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, soon became institutionalized lawlessness, and it exists even today in the hearts of Democrats as a virulent hatred of conservatives and Republicans…and especially hatred of George W. Bush.

But now, after nearly 150 years of turning a blind eye to the dark underside of big city political machines and backwater county courthouses, we are finally seeing efforts at real reform. On Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, which requires that, beginning in 2010, those who cannot produce evidence of U.S. citizenship (birth certificate, passport, or proof of naturalization) will be denied the right to vote in federal elections. The bill passed on a straight party line vote, with 224 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “Aye” and 192 Democrats voting “Nay.”   
 
All across America, Republican lawmakers are advancing proposals that would require voters to show photo IDs before voting – the same photo IDs required when boarding an airplane or when cashing a $10 check at the local Wal-Mart. It is an idea that has the broad support of more than 80 percent of the American people, but in each instance they are met with bitter and unshakable opposition from Democrats and their allies on the political left. 

So what is it that Democrats find so objectionable about the idea of requiring voters to properly identify themselves? And what is it about efforts to insure that a voter casts no more than one ballot on Election Day that so disturbs Democrats? In spite of what they argue, which is that many elderly blacks do not possess photo IDs and cannot prove who they are, the photo ID requirement simply makes the stealing of elections much more difficult.

To demonstrate the magnitude of the problem, the number of votes cast in just one Chicago voting districts, the 27th Ward, dropped from 22,236 to 16,049 after Republicans announced plans to identify and prosecute those who cast fraudulent voters.

Now HR 4844 goes before the United States Senate where Democrats, led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, can be expected to do everything in their power to defeat it. But Republicans may wish to counter with a simple proposition. 

They may wish to ask, “If Republicans drop efforts to require voters to properly identify themselves before being allowed to vote, would Democrats agree to a proposal that would require voters to dip a finger into a small vial of indelible ink after voting?”   

Who can forget the news films from recent years in which millions of Afghanis, Iraqis, and Africans, men and women alike, proudly waved their purple ink-stained fingers in the air, demonstrating unrestrained joy at having participated in free elections for the first time? 

While Democrats would be sure to oppose the idea, I can think of no more fitting gesture than for a hundred million Americans to raise a purple finger, preferably the middle one, to Senator Reid and the Democrats on Election Day. So here’s to the purple finger.