Today Americans are struggling with strengthening the right of suffrage, albeit in opposing ways. Republicans and allied conservatives are working hard passing legislation state by state to impose stricter identification requirements for voter registration. This is seen by Democrats and allied liberals as voter suppression because people of color and other minorities, which comprise its base, are more likely not to have those ID’s. These are Americans who comprise the lower economic classes, many of whom are not permanent employees with social security numbers.
They are mostly in the service sector, self-employed or small entrepreneurs. But a significant number of them are illegal or undocumented immigrants who don’t necessarily report their economic activities, even though they pay taxes like everyone else, especially indirect and pass-on or value-added taxes.
Some other legislations, all on Conservative initiative, limit voting exercise, putting in place more stringent procedures on absentee- and voting through mailed-in ballots. They cannot eliminate these modes of voting, of course, but by tightening their deadlines both for filing and counting they can reduce their volume and how they affect the voting results.
Again this is seen by Democrats as suppression of a valuable liberal demographic because hardworking lower economic classes are more likely to avail of these modes that allow them to cast their votes without going out of their way, interrupting their work.
Conservative America—the so-called “red states”—is statistically predominantly “WASP” (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant). Arguably, they consider themselves “native” Americans because they are descendants of the first colonists who arrived on the Mayflower. Either that or they have descended through many generations from the time their grandparents came to North America from English-speaking United Kingdom and Europe—many Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc.
Liberal America—the so-called “blue states”—is statistically predominantly immigrant, both the voluntary and involuntary kind. Many African-Americans—blacks—are descendants of slaves who arrived in America on slave trading ships. It took a civil war and, ironically, a Republican president Abraham Lincoln, to free them. But it took a modern hero from a much later time, Dr. Martin Luther King, to secure their full political equality with WASPian America, at least in terms of voting rights.
Technically, the only true “native Americans” are the ethnic redskins with names like “Sitting Bull” or “Flying Eagle” and such. They are not “Indians,” they are just thought of as such because Christopher Columbus was looking for India in the east when he stumbled upon the western hemisphere instead. Everyone else, without exception, are really immigrants. America was founded as an immigrant nation—a fact which they keep forgetting.
White Conservatives, who are not increasing in number anymore, feel threatened by the unstemmed tide of present day immigration, especially from Latin American states further south of Mexico—Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, and throw in Cuba and the Carribbeans, too.
Their classic rant is these immigrants “take our jobs and our women” (I don’t know who coined that combination!) and would one day “run us out of our own country.” So their effort is concentrated on sealing the borders or sending immigrants back to the “hell-hole” places where they came from—but, at any rate, just don’t let them vote.
Currently, all you have to do to vote in America is prove that you are a citizen of voting age. How can that be a threat to any political party?
Well, unlike here in the Philippines where we vote our instant convenient persuasion, American voters are loyal to their native interest. With the possible exception of Kanye West, it’s practically impossible to convince a black American to see politics from the eyes of a Donald Trump. In general, you know which way certain demographics are voting before they even cast one ballot. So if one demographic is historically opposed to your party ideology, you didn’t try to proselytize among their ranks, you just sought to eliminate them from the picture altogether. That’s the long and short of voting suppression: make it difficult for your antagonists to vote.
I said this was opposite to the Philippine situation because here, we don’t try to limit or even reduce the number of voters, we try to expand it—confident that the more voters there are for the getting, the more votes there can be gotten for a song. We don’t fear immigration, we invite it. We’re not scared that immigrants might vote and influence who our elected government officials would be, they don’t have to. They can transact with ANYBODY that gets elected and can basically get what they want from, it’s just a matter of “if the price is right.” Immigrants--even those that have obtained Philippine citizenship--have little or no interest in trying to vote.
Suffrage mentality in the Philippines is also diametrically opposite to the American mindset. Here, the government through COMELEC practically has to beg for Filipinos of voting age to please register, and barely manage to get a few hundred thousands of them struggling, kicking and screaming to enlist. The numbers do not improve even when we extend the deadline for registration several times. Extend the registration for American voters? Unthinkable.
The thinking among political camps seems to be, it doesn’t matter how many voters there are in total, it only matters how many of them you can get to vote for you. The objective of political campaigns in America is to drive up voter turnout. The objective of campaigns here is to secure partisan support.
People rant about “vote-buying.” Let me be blunt: every single vote in the Philippines is for sale—I don’t care whether you agree or not. My vote is for sale. My price is very high. If I like you based on a number of non-ideological factors—are you “approachable,” are you “para sa mahirap”, are you a veteran or so-called “tried-and-tested” incumbent or are you the new, innocent yet-unspoiled newbie to bring about the “change” I’ve been praying for, do you belong to a political dynasty, has my family historically voted for your family?
If you tick enough of these boxes for me, then you just bought my vote. Others have other boxes in their minds, or just an open palm on the end of an outstretched arm. That’s buying too, on cheaper terms. The point is I don’t have a political affiliation and I also use beng an “independent” as an excuse to not waste any effort investigating what political parties truly stand for. There’s nothing to investigate. Philippine political parties do not stand for anything. Their platforms are campaign promises put together by ad agencies.
The truer this description is of anyone, the harder they protest and say they are a party of principles and moral tenets. Why should high principles be a party matter? Shouldn’t it be the universal trait? And if it is for anyone, why should that be admirable? Why should I admire you because you are honest? Shouldn’t you BE honest? Shouldn’t we all?
The problem with MY line of reasoning is that it makes everyone a free agent. Who is to say WHAT is honesty? And this is why in the Philippines, a campaign is a season of reintroduction every single time.
There are no permanent congenital interest. Labor will vote for an oppressive oligarch. They do it all the time. Intellectuals will support a despot’s son and even render their skillset to aid in historical revisionism. They can justify themselves, and I give them the benefit of all my doubt, as I give everyone else. To them, that is their congenital interest—but I doubt if it is permanent. It all depends on who is running in the NEXT election.
Now you see my point.***
(Read more articles like this in theunheardside.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment