The Far Left’s War on Direct Democracy
| More news stories on Anti-White Discrimination |
|---|
John Fund, Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2008
The initiative is a reform born out of the Progressive Era, when there was general agreement that powerful interests had too much influence over legislators. It was adopted by most states in the Midwest and West, including Ohio and California. It was largely rejected by Eastern states, which were dominated by political machines, and in the South, where Jim Crow legislators feared giving more power to ordinary people.
But more power to ordinary people remains unpopular in some quarters, and nothing illustrates the war on the initiative more than the reaction to Ward Connerly’s measures to ban racial quotas and preferences. The former University of California regent has convinced three liberal states—California, Washington and Michigan—to approve race-neutral government policies in public hiring, contracting and university admissions. He also prodded Florida lawmakers into passing such a law. This year his American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) aimed to make the ballot in five more states. But thanks to strong-arm tactics, the initiative has only made the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.
“The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place,” says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). “That’s the only way we’re going to win.” Her group’s name certainly describes the tactics that are being used to thwart Mr. Connerly.
Aggressive legal challenges have bordered on the absurd, going so far as to claim that a blank line on one petition was a “duplicate” of another blank line on another petition and thus evidence of fraud. In Missouri, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan completely rewrote the initiative’s ballot summary to portray it in a negative light. By the time courts ruled she had overstepped her authority, there wasn’t enough time to collect sufficient signatures.
Those who did circulate petitions faced bizarre obstacles. In Kansas City, a petitioner was arrested for collecting signatures outside of a public library. Officials finally allowed petitioners a table inside the library but forbade them to talk. In Nebraska, a group in favor of racial preferences ran a radio ad that warned that those who signed the “deceptive” petition “could be at risk for identity theft, robbery, and much worse.”
{snip}
The police had to be called when BAMN blocked the entrance of a Phoenix office where circulators had to deliver their petitions. {snip}
But BAMN proudly posts videos on its success in scaring away voters, or convincing circulators to hand over their petitions to its shock troops. “If you give me your signatures, we’ll leave you alone,” says a BAMN volunteer on one tape to someone who’s earning money by circulating several different petitions.
{snip}
The war against citizen initiatives has other fronts. This year in Michigan, taxpayer groups tried to recall House Speaker Andy Dillon after he pushed through a 12% increase in the state income tax. But petitioners collecting the necessary 8,724 signatures in his suburban Detroit district were set upon. In Redford, police union members held a rally backing Mr. Dillon and would alert blockers to the location of recall petitioners. Outsiders would then surround petitioners and potential signers, using threatening language.
{snip}
Some judges think the “blocking” of signature gatherers has gone too far. In 2006, Nevada Judge Sally Loehrers decreed a “civility zone” that barred opposing sides from coming within arms’ length of each other at petition signing sites. “The blockers were off the streets within two days,” says Paul Jacob, the head of Citizens in Charge, which promotes the initiative process.
{snip}
(Posted on July 28, 2008)
Comments
Since when has the WSJ been interested in the will of the majority? The majority of Americans want immigration reform without amnesty, illegals given the boot, and no path to citizenship.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 8:47 PM on July 28
The left doesn’t want referendums on homosexual marriage either. Or on partial birth abortion. And certainly not on giving tax payer funded benefits to illegal aliens. The left has long learned to stop worrying and love judicial tyranny.
Posted by Heteronormatively Privileged White Male Oppressor at 9:03 PM on July 28
The far Left is but a bunch of arrogant hypocrites.
They potray themselves as soooooooo principled. What they forget to mention, though, is that they have two set of standards: one for themselves and one for the others.
When they feel that their cause has popular support (usually, due to heavy indoctrination in public schools and media/press propaganda) then the majority vote is the ultimate authority, even if the U.S. Constitution states to the contrary.
But as soon as they smell that the general public doesn’t buy their Leftist agenda, then - all of the sudden - the majority vote becomes irrelevant or even harmful to the country.
It was arount the time when I graduated from the high school when I saw through Leftists’ deceitful tricks and false promisses. Many Liberals, though, are unable (or unwilling) to see the truth for their entire lives. How disappointing.
Posted by A Reason at 9:17 PM on July 28
““The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place,” says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). “That’s the only way we’re going to win.””
In other words…
If you suspect your proposal doesn’t have enough support of the people to pass by legit means, then DON’T let the people choose.
THAT tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about this BAMN organization.
How ‘bout yourself?
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 9:19 PM on July 28
Democracy and free speech are fine, as long as people vote and speak the way that liberals want. When people have different ideas, then there should be neither democracy nor free speech. Only the ideas presented by liberals should be allowed to be spoken.
Posted by at 10:49 PM on July 28
The WSJ is the only mainstream newspaper in the country that could get away with printing this article. In fact, I’ve been noticing a lot of very reasonable articles being printed by the WSJ, and republished in Amren, on race issues such as preferences, crime, affirmative action, etc…
My working hypothesis is this: preferences and quotas are inefficient and economically atrophic. Thus, the WSJ, as guardian of business interests, champions economic and financial causes over that of race. Corporate America needs a pool of intelligent, hard-working recruits. Affirmative Action programs and quotas contaminate this pool. Big business is forced to hire underqualified employees so as to maintain a semblance of diversity. This is costly and cuts in to profit margins on various levels.
In business, it is the survival of the fittest. Being forced to take on a polluted crop of employees makes the company less competitive in the domestic and international arena. Hence, another major contributing factor to America’s overall decline in power, stature and prestige.
Therefore, the WSJ, in its own way, becomes the avant-garde of race realism by means of a purely logical and theoretical stance on race. The WSJ measures social issues such as race relations quantitatively. It only allows for so much or so little diversity as the market can withstand.
Jordan NYC
Posted by Jordan NYC at 11:47 PM on July 28
I had actually copied the same quote The Incredible Shrinking White Man Posted. As far as I’m concerned, that does say everything about this BAMN group. It says just about everything about every far-left group. People don’t buy into their lunacy, so they have to find ways to get around democracy. They know that the majority of Americans would vote to end those preferences, so they try to keep the majority of Americans from voting. When the same-sex marriage ban passed in Kentucky, one of my left-wing associates quipped “why are those religious nuts even allowed to vote?”
We need to nip that mentality in the bud before it gets out of hand.
Posted by Karl Alfred at 10:10 AM on July 29
People on the left like to fashion themselves as the “Populist” party and that people on the right are the wealthy minority or the “elites”. When is comes to immigration the exact opposite is ture. The vast majority wants fewer immigrants not more. Since that does not fit neatly into the basic leftist propaganda what we end up with is a vicious smear. There is an attempt to blur what the public really wants to support the ethnic interests that make up the core of the Democratic party and the left in this country.
Posted by Hugo at 12:50 PM on July 29
Look at the history of the 1996 California Civil Rights Iniatitive, the first anti affirmative action law put on the ballot.
It has never been enforced, it had no enforcement provisions built in, there was never the slightest attempt to enforce it and there are fewer white government workers than there were back in the 1990’s.
The universities just laughed in the face of the law and began admitting not by race, but by the “poor, poor pitiful me” essays written by the non whites.
Posted by margaret at 1:31 PM on July 29
When you deal with a Liberal, you’re dealing with someone who is emotionally dedicated to being immoral on behalf of their cause.
Laws, tradition, culture, majority opinion, or even a decent instinct to respectfully acknowledge other points of view, are all routinely recinded by the Liberal pursuing politics.
If you expect fairness from a Liberal - he’s already won.
Posted by Gary at 2:38 PM on July 29
Please, please, please, In a Democracy MAJORITY RULES, this is not the case in America. In a Republic those elected to serve the desires of those who elcted them create what is known as a REPUBLIC, this is not the case in America either. They do whatever they please and spit on those who put them in office. (UNLESS OF COURSE THEY DONATED MEGA-BUCKS TO THE CAUSE)
Posted by at 3:38 PM on July 29
Hi, Im from Australia.
What (and who) exactly is the “far left”?
Posted by Sue at 10:38 PM on July 29
I’d like to expand on Jordan NYC’s post. When the economy is booming, businesses can afford to hire unqualified incompetent minorities. But when recession hits as it has now, suddenly those minority deadbeats are a major drag on the bottom line. In extreme cases, they can force a company out of business altogether. Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to fire them regardless of their incompetence. That’s why the WSJ has “seen the light” on affirmative action.
Posted by Strider at 10:32 PM on July 30
Jordan NYC, the WSJ has always been opposed to AA, but has also always favored replacing the white population the USA with non-white immigrants. The WSJ is bitterly hostile to any kind white racial consciounes.
“Race-realism” by itself is useless anyway. One can be a “race-realist” and be hostile to white people. Most of the people who call themselves “race realists” are Asiatics who live in White countries.
Posted by ATBOTL at 11:49 PM on July 30