So, some talking head or other was blathering on MSNBC, trying to pin down some Democratic congressperson on a simple yes/no answer on whether he believes that the Electoral College (the go-to election-stealing device) should be abolished.
Mealy-mouth’s answer: “Well, it’s a tough question, because there’s a reason why we have the Electoral college…”
- NOBODY is suggesting that the Electoral college was created at whim. There is always some kind of “reason” (or – more often — EXCUSE) underlying political policies and structures. The only legitimate question is: is it a GOOD reason?
- For example, there was a “reason” that the “Founding Fathers” babbled about “unalienable rights” (when they were trying to gin up support for insurrection against the British Empire)), and then proceeded to “own” slaves, afterward.
Anyone yip-yapping about how there was a “reason” why race-based chattel slavery was permitted, or “a reason” for the lack of female suffrage until 1919, or the “Several States” being effectively unconstrained by the “Bill of Rights” until 1925 — or a “reason” why “Jim Crow” segregation wasn’t clubbed out of existence until 1964 — well, you get the idea.
There is ALWAYS some sort of ‘reason” (IE: rationalization or cop-out) behind even the most egregious acts or policies. There were many “reasons” for what the Nazi’s did back during the Holocaust, too.
And quite frankly, there are a plethora of reasons to ensure that ANY politician who fails to support the neutering of the “Electoral College” NOT be re-elected.
EVERY mealy-mouthed “political” hack should be grilled on this question until they give a simple, unequivocal answer of “yes” or “no” — at which point, any politician stating “yes” (IE: advocating that this particular election-stealing tactic remain in place) should be voted out of office.
At any rate, no weasel-words permitted. There was undoubtedly a “reason” behind the Dredd Scott decision. That doesn’t make “Jim crow” segregation either EXCUSABLE or DEFENSIBLE.
Either rights are “unalienable” — or they’re not. Any nation-state yip-yapping about “unalienable rights”,while continuing to support and enable a RACIAL CASTE-SYSTEM (humans as “property”, then the descendants of those SAME humans as second-class citizens) — forfeits any claim to legitimacy, by doing so.
And that’s the problem: The “United States” spent the vast majority of its history demonstrating in virtually every way possible, that some folks’ rights were more “unalienable” than others A nation-state which spends centuries with its collective FINGERS CROSSED really has no grounds to complain when even its own subjects (rightly) lose respect for its institutions.
Because after all…there’s always “a reason”, isn’t there?