December 3, 2005

“Gonzales defends remap” in the Press Democrat’s NewsWatch is another example of pro-neocon agenda: politicizing all government departments for Republican’s control. And being a faithful neocon, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had no compunction in supporting the Justice Department 2003 memo in a congressional redistricting map for Texas. That is, bolstering the Texas Republican establishment at the cost of the voting rights of blacks and Hispanics, and nullifying civil rights professionals who were instrumental in creating the Voting Rights Act. This is an example by the Pro-Bush Justice Department political appointees as they repeatedly pushed to advance a far right-wing ideological agenda at the expense of traditional and broadly-supported civil rights protections. This memo also indicates that Texas state officials were aware that it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory which were beyond the DOJ’s concern. Its main purpose for the map was to dilute the voting power of Hispanics and blacks; therefore eliminating a district representing great support from their constituents and replaced it with a district that had fewer. Thus entered Tom DeLay. A no brainer!

If “Tom Delay’s” congressional lines were purposely drawn to dilute the effective power of a racial group, then that is wrong and the lines have to be redrawn.

As you imply in your examples, rights have to be equal across all groups.

BG, I think I follow your drift, it’s just that I don’t agree 100% with the underlying premise.

In your latest post you use the example of “…an issue of specific interest to hispanics, like immigration…”. However, it seems to me that non-hispanics may also have a specific interest in the issue of immigration. Ranchers on the TX, NM, AZ border may feel one way about immigration, union workers at GM may have a different perspective and small business owners a third. Does this mean that ranchers, union workers and small business owners now have some inherent group rights? I reject that argument.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not so foolish as to believe that gerrymandering does not exist. In almost every state it is a sad reality that the party in power seeks to expand its power through “creative mischief” via redistricting. In my own state of Tennessee the legislature redrew the congressional districts a few years ago in such a way as to put two incumbents from the minority party in each district. That was a clear abuse of the process, much as the TX episode is reported to be.

My only dispute is the idea that rights adhere to groups rather than individuals. I have an indiviual right to vote. So do you. It is not a right I have because of my race, sex, religion, state of residence, education level, political party, right or left handedness or any other criteria. I enjoy that right solely because I am a unique individual.

That is the sole thrust of my arguments – that our heritage, our tradition and our Constitution guarantee individual rights and any argument to the contrary is simultaneously specious and divisive. One need only look at Iraq with the Sunni/Shia dispute, or the former Yugoslavia, the intertribal warfare in Africa or this nation’s own sad history to see the inevitable result of categorizing people by group identity and conferring rights and powers on that basis.

Gives the Alito nomination a bittersweet tang, eh?

I attempted to show (in a very simple scenario #55) how geremandering can dilute the votes of individuals and groups.

I realize that on a lot of issues, there will be a lot of crossover interests, ie NRA members and blue haired ladies having the same interest in the issue.

The problem is with issues that are of specific importance to the group, ie gun control and NRA members. In my scenario of comment #55, the NRA members would have 7 of the state’s 10 Representatives in Congress on their side.

Let’s say an issue of specific interest to hispanics, like immigration,came before Congress. The interests of the hispanics would only be represented by 1 of the state’s 10 Congressmen even though hispanics may comprise a lot more than 10% of the population.

I know that these are very simple examples, but are you following my drift?

BG, you make a good argument but it doesn’t hold up.

The first problem is that implicit in your argument is the assumption that the interests of blue-haired ladies are in conflict with those of NRA members. Perhaps this is so for some blue-haired ladies and some NRA members, but perhaps not so for others. To illustrate my point, do blue-haired ladies and NRA members agree or disagree on how prescription drug coverage should work? Keep in mind that some blue-haired ladies are NRA members.

The second logical fallacy in your argument is the assumption that each individual’s interests are determined by his membership in some larger group. Were this to be true then all NRA members or all blue-haired ladies would vote for the same presidential candidate. Common sense and historical evidence show us that this is not true.

I do not mean to imply that voting rights have been denied to people due to their ethnicity. I grew up in segregated Alabama and I know full well that this happened. However it was each black person’s individual right to vote that was being denied not the rights of black people as a group. The fact that the motive was due to their membership in a group does not confer a right on the group. It all boils down to whether one views each person as a unique individual or as just an interchangable member of a larger group. I heard plenty enough as a child about “the blacks” want this or “the blacks” do that from bigots. I don’t really care to hear any more “blacks” want this or “blacks” have a certain political philosophy. I know enough black people to know that all blacks don’t agree on everything. (Amazing, that they could be just like whites in that regard, isn’t it?)

Any honest reading of the Federalist Papers, the writings of the founding fathers and the Constitution itself, will show that the design and intent was to protect individual rights. Subordinating indivdual rights in favor of “group rights” is the first step towards a descent into tribalism and the loss of individual rights.

SO far, you have Evaded DETECTION on the NEO-CON Meter. Which door do you Pick?
Cheneyco?
Neo-Con College and the Nutty Perfessers?
I dont Recall?
I was OUT of the LOOP?
IS IS IS?

Does that about cover the “reality based” Herring Net of synthesized deniability? The word ‘Eminent’ has been clobbered.So has your argument of the Word ‘LIAR’

anyone can guess the next one.

Gonzales can’t bring himself to enforce the evil agenda in support of Ashcrofts screwing hispanics. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/02/gonzales-defense/#comments

Gambling is okay for Bennett. Pain killers are okay for Rush. Sexual harassment is okay for O’Reilly. Acting like a slut is okay for Coulter.

Republicans policies are so evil that they only want them to apply to others and exempt themselves in hypocritical fashion.

Edit to correct typo:

I say this because there is no ….

I say this not because there is no such thing as “black” or “hispanic” voting rights, just at there is no such thing as “left handed” or “blue haired” or “tall person” voting rights. There are voting rights, period; and these rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Now, if an individual has his rights curtailed because of ethnicity it is wrong, wrong, wrong and should not be tolerated. But it is just as wrong for an individual to have his voting rights curtailed due to fraud, or intimidation or any other reason. It is no less a travesty to have someone’s vote nullified by a fraudulent ballot than to have that same person not be allowed to cast a vote in the first place. This is because voting is an individual right. The right to vote does not belong to my ethnic group, my political party, my church or my family. It belongs to me and me alone. The same is true of every other citizen.