Let\u2019s be honest. There\u2019s too much rhetoric out there right now. In 21st Century America, every issue needs an enemy; the acquisition of a carefully crafted enemy expedites support. It builds public backing faster and in many cases, prompts the omission of detailed scrutiny which multifaceted issues necessitate. Hence, many exaggerate or inflame in order to stir up support. The desired end then justifies their oft mendacious means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The challenge then is discerning right and wrong from the rhetoric. Wise-thinking persons don\u2019t want to be talked into anything; we don\u2019t want our discernment skills to be determined by news activists with agendas, singular source bias, nor social media shaming. (For the record, social media shaming has the exact opposite effect.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n One issue that\u2019s been incredibly difficult to discern amidst this backdrop is the question of whether it\u2019s appropriate to require a photo ID to vote. Is such discriminatory? The Intramuralist is \u201casking for a friend,\u201d because we wish for no friend to be treated unfairly. I also believe most wise-thinking Americans have a desire to never discriminate. So let\u2019s extract the rhetoric and unpack the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many activities require a photo ID \u2014 purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, renting a car or hotel room, applying for welfare, for example. Granted, the Constitution doesn\u2019t provide Americans with the right<\/em> to any of the above. That\u2019s what makes voting different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue gets trickier when we acknowledge that a photo ID is required both in marriage and air travel. Our country has had many conversations about those perceived rights<\/em> \u2014 an individual\u2019s right<\/em> to marry whoever they want \u2014 and freedom of movement; the TSA requires a photo ID for everyone boarding a plane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Examining multiple surveys from a diverse cross section of sources, it appears that the percentage of American adults who do not have a photo ID is somewhere between 7-11%. While each state provides some sort of free photo ID to any resident who needs one \u2014 meaning affordability is not an issue \u2014 the debate by the ACLU and others is accessibility to government-issued sources. The question is how transportation to\/fro said sources affects the poor, disabled, and those living in more rural areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such made me wonder how a photo ID requirement affects turnout. My very unscientific research was interesting\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n The results are inconclusive. Especially if we only focus on a singular study.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I thus find myself in search of the bigger question. Eliminating the \u201cenemy rhetoric,\u201d knowing employers of such most likely hope we will omit the detailed scrutiny, the challenge in the voting debate is obvious\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n How do we manage the tension between fraud and participation? How do we simultaneously ensure the integrity of the vote and encourage broad, individual involvement? <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Which makes me ask\u2026 if one side or another is employing inflammatory rhetoric, which of the two sides of the tension are they prioritizing and why? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Are they only attempting to eliminate fraud?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Are they only encouraging increased participation?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n As the NBER study acknowledged, \u201cCombating such fraud is critical to build citizen confidence in election results and consolidate democratic regimes\u2026 However, rules pursuing those objectives can also weaken democracy if they keep eligible citizens away from the polling booth. Compounding the matter, legislators have an incentive to push for restrictions if citizens enfranchised by flexible rules will likely vote for rival parties \u2013 or oppose restrictions if that will widen their base.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our legislators, pundits, and politicians have incentive to push and oppose, exaggerate and inflame, prioritize and omit. Perhaps step one is acknowledging such \u2014 and not allowing any enemy to be crafted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s keep talking. Let\u2019s resist the rhetoric. Let\u2019s keep asking for a friend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR Let\u2019s be honest. There\u2019s too much rhetoric out there right now. In 21st Century America, every issue needs an enemy; the acquisition of a carefully crafted enemy expedites support. It builds public backing faster and in many cases, prompts the omission of detailed scrutiny which multifaceted issues necessitate. Hence, many exaggerate or inflame in order … <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"