Fraud as a Way of Life

We all saw the electoral fraud perpetrated in south Florida.  It did not succeed in altering the results, but gave a lot of us heartburn.  When I say us, I mean conservatives because liberals were not perturbed.  They were hoping that their shenanigans would work.

When I spoke to a liberal friend about these events, she shrugged and wanted to move on.  When I further suggested that huge numbers of registered voters in California later avoided jury duty by indicating that they were not citizens, she expressed disbelief.

Whether or not this allegation is true, Americans who believe in democracy ought to be seeking answers.  Instead of dismissing fraud as impossible, we should want to get to the bottom of these matters.  Only this can give us confidence that our votes determine who our leaders will be.

Nonetheless, those on the left have long endorsed dishonesty as a way to gain political control.  Boss Tweed, of New York’s Tammany Hall, used to pay voters to go to the polls. Meanwhile, contemporary Californians pay vagrants to register to vote.  Clearly, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

This reminded me of my own attitude when John Kennedy won a squeaker over Richard Nixon.  Back then it was widely reported that the Daly machine in Chicago provided the margin of victory.  Apparently many of the dead made it to the polls, while large numbers of the living did so several times.

I did not realize it at the time, but electoral games were also being played in south Texas.  Lyndon Johnson was able to make sure that some counties produced more Democratic votes than the number of adults residing within their borders.

In any event, I, as a progressive adolescent, was happy with the results.  Nixon could not be allowed to win.  As every good liberal knew, he was worse the Joseph McCarthy.  A victory for this shady partisan would have set the nation back by a century.  So what if it took a little “honest corruption” to protect our future.

In those days, I was a confirmed socialist.  I believed that cooperation, as opposed to competition, would benefit us all.  If we helped one another, rather than fought each other, life to be kinder and fairer. This was common sense.

The problem was that too many Americans did not see it that way. They were dedicated to capitalism and therefore to partiality.  These folks had to be resisted for their own good.  If it took a little hanky-panky at the polls, this was essential to make democracy work.

Liberals have always believed that they knew best.  They have likewise always regarded democracy with suspicion.  For all their talk about respecting the wisdom of the people, they have assumed the voters frequently need an assist to come to the correct conclusions.

As a teenager, I too thought this way.  Having recently read Plato’s Republic, I was infatuated by the idea of the philosopher king.  Some people were undoubtedly smarter and more public spirited than others.  Naturally it made sense that they should rule the community.

Just as naturally, I regarded myself as philosopher king material. Wasn’t I an extremely good student? Didn’t I want the best for my country? Why then shouldn’t I, and those like me, have more of a say about public policy than every yahoo who was eligible to vote?

Liberals continue to think this way.  Don’t they make it plain at every turn that they consider themselves superior human beings?  Aren’t they supposedly more intelligent and compassionate than those “deplorables” who reside in the nation’s heartland?

Recently I heard an entertainer opining on television that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are more flexible.  They learn from experience and therefore make better decisions.

If my own history holds any lessons, this is decidedly untrue.  I am always amazed by how closely the tactics and beliefs of contemporary liberals parallel those of my student days.  Leftists brag about being progressive, but they are remarkably backward looking.

Because liberal arrogance knows no boundaries, liberal fraud knows none either.  Theirs is a way of life that feeds its own mistakes by assuming it can make none.  What is a little deception if it enables their heroes, namely themselves, to come out on top.  Don’t they deserve it? 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University