Shame On Attorney General Eric Holder For Racial Antagonism
Stirring up racial resentment. Creating false narratives about race and politics. Dividing us racially for political purposes. No, I’m not talking about Al Sharpton. I am talking about our Attorney General, head of the the Justice Department, Eric Holder.
Mr. Holder said Wednesday in a speech to the Council of Black Churches. Voter ID laws and white discrimination, he added, mean that “some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”
That’s right. The two most powerful men in America are black, two of the last three Secretaries of State were black, numerous corporate CEOs and other executives are black, and minorities of many races now win state-wide elections in states that belonged to the Confederacy, but the AG implies that Jim Crow is on the cusp of a comeback.
Holder knows this isn’t true. He is well aware of the fact that Black voter turnout increased in Georgia and Indiana after voter ID laws passed. But that doesn’t stop him from continuing this false narrative of voter suppression to the Council of Black Churches. Where do you think they will hear the truth? They won’t. They will listen to our Attorney General, and believe him. How does Eric Holder sleep at night, knowing he is comparing voter integrity, the simple act of showing your ID to prove who you are before you vote, to the ugly suppression and terror that Blacks had to suffer through during the civil right’s movement? It is beyond shameful. He should be fired for this alone.
Americans, so far, aren’t buying his lies.
As for public opinion, an April 2012 Fox News survey found that a majority of Democrats (52%), Republicans (87%) and independents (72%) support voter ID laws. This is no doubt because Americans understand intuitively that ballot integrity is as important as ballot access to democratic credibility. Everyone’s franchise is devalued if an election turns on the votes of the quick and the dead.
But we know how the drum beat of lies creates belief. And Eric Holder holds a powerful position. Thomas Sowell puts it this way:
This is truly world-class chutzpah, by an Attorney General who stopped attorneys in his own Department of Justice from completing the prosecution of black thugs who stationed themselves outside a Philadelphia voting site to harass and intimidate white voters.
That’s right. Men holding black batons and wearing uniform like clothes does not intimidate voters, but asking for their driver’s license does? Truly mind boggling. Not to mention that Holder’s insistence that requiring photo ID for voting is pretext for discriminating against blacks and other minorities is completely insulting to blacks. He implies that they cannot figure out how to get an ID.
Americans realize that we have to show ID for almost everything in this country. There is everything right, and nothing wrong, with showing ID for our most sacred right to vote.
The last line at the WSJ article says it all:
It’s worse than a shame that America’s first black Attorney General is using his considerable power to inflame racial antagonism.
-
Share This
Related Posts
-
Germans React to the Colorado Massacre (Multiple Newspapers)
Posted on Jul 25, 2012
-
Breaking: House Panel Votes to Hold Attorney General in Contempt (UPDATED)
Posted on Jun 27, 2012
-
Breaking Update — ‘Disappointed’ Issa May Move to Hold Holder in Contempt (UPDATED)
Posted on Jun 20, 2012
-
Guantanamo is Incompatible with President Obama’s Principles (El Pais, Spain)
Posted on Apr 28, 2011
Hmmm…if the GOP would like to stear clear of being accused of reviving Jim Crow, maybe they shouldn’t be on a crusade to keep minorities from the polls. I guess you could ignore the draconian, ugly, blatant voter suppression efforts that the GOP and their buddies the Koch brothers are using to rig the game in November, but don’t get all huffy and high and mighty when the rest of us notice and call it as it is.
Gee, what aspect was different between the 2004 and 2008 elections that could have possibly had an effect on black voter turnout? (Hint: George Bush and John Kerry are both white.)
It’s true: Georgia’s black voter turnout increased 7.5% between 2004 and 2008, and also Georgia enacted a voter ID requirement between 2004 and 2008. But it’s also true that, for instance, Mississippi, which did NOT enact such a requirement, and saw an 8% increase in black voter turnout. That’s a lone data point, but if you examine the whole trend, it’s clear:
Georgia’s turnout increased DESPITE the voter ID requirement, not BECAUSE of it. Without it, it would certainly have increased more.
To my eye, the push for these (ALEC-supplied) laws is, as Holder suggests, a poorly-concealed ploy to counteract the increased turnout seen in 2008. (Not just among blacks, but also students, and the elderly poor; all of whom, and I’m sure this is just a coincidence, lean Democratic.) Because heaven for-fend that the people actually USE the franchise allowed to them!
The truth is, voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US today. One vote in one hundred thousand might be fraudulent; many estimates put the number even lower. But the number of voters potentially disenfranchised because of these laws is much, much greater; some estimates put it at one in ten in some districts, but even if it were 100 times LESS than that, it would still be 100 times MORE than the number of fraudulent votes cast.
You cannot completely prevent any sort of crime; you must find an appropriate balance between false-negatives (crimes that are not stopped) and false-positives (legitimate actions that are stopped) based on severity and the base rates of activities. And in my mind, it is better that 1 fraudulent vote be cast than that 10 legitimate voters be disenfranchised. These laws fail to meet that mark by several orders of magnitude.
And furthermore, these laws and proposed-laws don’t even help, at all, to prevent the most common kinds of fraud! False absentee ballots cannot be caught by this. Insider fraud by election workers and election officials (by far the greatest cause of voter fraud) cannot be caught by this. Each of these situations alone is a greater cause of fraudulent votes than could possibly be stopped by these laws.
Yes, voters do support these misguided efforts, but it is because the do not know, or do not care, about the numbers involved.
Kathleen – Your post made me furious. To imply that everything is okay with voter ID procedures is ridiculous. Here in NJ, I have personally seen how difficult it is for some people to get an ID. I work with a group in Morristown, NJ – a heavily black and hispanic urban community. In particular, minority women have most of their documents in their husband’s or boyfriend’s name – rent, car, mail etc. These people find it almost impossible to meet the ID requirements without an enormous amount of extra work and assistance.
I’ve seen clerks at the DMV and county clerks office berate these women viciously for their “stupidity”. They offer no assistance. However, I’ve also seen them take care of white middle class women by giving extra help like having them open their purse to see if there was any piece of paper that might put them over the top in ID requirements.
I’m sure as a white woman you have no problem with these requirements. However, until you experience minority difficulties first hand (you can always join a group that does this like I have)you are in NO position to make judgements.
I am astounded that you feel all descrimination against minorities in the US has been eliminated.
Voter IDs can be used to prevent people from voting (witness many activities during Jim Crow in the South). OTOH, lax voter identification can also be use for fraud (witness the dead voting in Chicago). As usual each partisan side concentrated only those thing that protect their own side. Voters being asked to show who they are is unreasonable, but means of identification should be cheap and not onerous to obtain.
Sorry, but I don’t think its “Shame on Eric Holder”, I think it is “Shame on You” for distorting the facts and for supporting solutions to a non-existant problem that makes it more difficult for the least represented (that’s not you and I) to excercise their voting rights.
curthibbs says:
“Sorry, but I don’t think its “Shame on Eric Holder”, I think it is “Shame on You” for distorting the facts and for supporting solutions to a non-existant problem that makes it more difficult for the least represented (that’s not you and I) to excercise their voting rights.”
“Non-existing problem” is the key here, just as yesterday’s shameful shenanigan by Republicans in the House to throw red meat at their base by attempting to contrive legislation to address another largely non-existing problem, sex-selective abortions, while at the same time rejecting equal pay for women, attempting to cut programs that benefit women an children, etc.
Gotta agree with Dorian on this one. Every word– these ARE both non-existing problems that are brought up either as wedge issues or to water down hard won voting rights for poor minority voters.
The House vote was based on about 64 cases of women wanting sex-selective abortions– hardly a national emergency. Voter fraud has likewise not been proven to be a real issue-but shaving off 1% of black voters who have trouble getting ID can turn elections in the GOP’s favor in tight races.
Fuggit about voting. Here in Arizona you can be detained…as in go to jail…if you don’t have ID and have the misfortune of looking or sounding like a furiner. Folks in Georgia got it easy.
Nope. No remnants of racism left in America. Cringe.
At first I couldn’t believe the Wall Street Journal would be a party to such a distortion of what is actually going on; then I remembered that Rupert bought WSJ (and said he’d have no input on editorial decisions). This is indeed printed in the June 1, 2012 WSJ – a day that will live in infamy (though there will be many more to come, I’m afraid).
So, Ms McKinley, I suggest you look at the voter suppression activities that are going on in many states and you will see that more whites are being purged from state voting rolls than blacks (whites who are elderly, poor, college students, homeless veterans). And understand that the AJ is responsible for invetigating all reports of illegal acts under the Voting Rights Act and is ordering Florida to comply with the Acts’ stipulations – whether those being kept from voting are Black, White, or Polka Dot.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/justice_department_demands_florida_stop_purging_voter_rolls.php
It’s been proven over and over that the true amount of fraud is so miniscule that any suggestion of widespread fraud is a result of ignorance or outright calumny.
Why does the advertising on the right always
cut off comments on the most interesting
threads? It’s uncanny!
“OTOH, lax voter identification can also be use for fraud (witness the dead voting in Chicago).”
I would like to take this chance to reiterate:
This is an example of fraud by election workers, which is a type of fraud which cannot be stopped by requiring voters to present ID.
So yes, lax voter ID laws can allow for fraud, but the dead voting in Chicago is NOT an example of such a case.
Before you jump all over me, I think this article exaggerates, but so did Holder in his remarks, unless they are taken out of context.
BTW: did the OP mention that there is NO discrimination and unfairness?
Yes, I have to show a voter’s registration card and sign next to my prior signature when I vote.
We all do in NY and I haven’t heard any complaints, although JD cites some problems which I hope are bureaucratic/clerical in nature. (I’m surprised there aren’t shootings at the Motor Vehicle Dept.)
dd
Here’s the speech. You can decide if Holder or this author, or either exaggerated.
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2011/ag-speech-111213.html
“Yes, I have to show a voter’s registration card and sign next to my prior signature when I vote.
We all do in NY and I haven’t heard any complaints”
The requirements of the laws under discussion are much more strict that you have experience with in NY. You have to shower a voter registration card, not a non-expired government-issued photo ID. Which, as Viviette Applewhite learned, can be harder to get then you think:
http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-03/news/31539365_1_voter-id-bill-carol-aichele-pennsylvania-elections
The laws in NY though are strict _enough_, and these _stricter_ laws are, and will be, counter productive.
Thanks, Ohio. I think I’m sticking with my prior opinion.
dd
You read that in 6 minutes? You are GOOD!
“You read that in 6 minutes? You are GOOD!”
I would also ask DD which parts of Holder’s speech he thinks were exaggerations.
That speech is from 2011, The_Ohioan.
Ohio, please, of course I skimmed. You can get the tone which was set up in The initial paragraphs recalling the dark past and going on from there.
There is nothing to disagree with, it is like describing people selling apples (true)during the depression and then discussing the current recession (true), oops recovery.
I say he was playing to the audience and of course there is a basis since there is still discrimination.
The author exaggerates, since she should realize that he is also exaggerating. But hey then there isn’t much of an article.
Everyone knows racism is dead, especially on the right. Shame on anyone who dares suggest otherwise!
Thanks DG I thought that looked familiar. I can’t find the text, but here is the c-span location if anyone wants to see what the brouhaha is ab out. On the right is a list including Holder’s keynote address – it’s about 4 minutes in.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congressional-Black-Caucus-Holds-Faith-Leaders-Summit-on-Voting-Rights/10737431083-3/
If you find AG Holder is “Stirring up racial resentment. Creating false narratives about race and politics. Dividing us racially for political purposes.” please let Ms. McKinley know otherwise she may not want to post here again.
I have to agree with dduck as I think both McKinley and Holder go overboard. If there is disenfranchisement it’s on the basis of age, disability and economic class, and race is secondary. While minorities might be affected disproportionately, to compare it to the civil rights movement is playing the race card and hyperbolic.
The level of indignation on McKinley’s part seems forced and her speech is hyperbolic as well. Ultimately both sides are doing what they usually do – support the position that most benefits their own party.
Goat
Except– the disenfranchisement is a political tactic which the GOP KNOWS affects blacks disproportionately. That is the desired effect since blacks vote mostly for democrats. In that sense they are targeted.
“As for public opinion, an April 2012 Fox News survey found that a majority of Democrats (52%), Republicans (87%) and independents (72%) support voter ID laws.”
I didn’t realize there was a problem with voter fraud to begin with. Where are the cases of voter fraud which threaten the integrity of the ballot box?
If there is no voter fraud, then why mess with a system that works? Unless, of course, there is an ulterior motive by some group that supports laws which would keep their opponents from receiving votes….
Perfect timing…. I just read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/blow-darkness-in-the-sunshine-state.html?_r=1&hp
DG
You don’t find it strange that the
Wall Street Journal, one of the top
major media outlets, is comparing
a United States Attorney General to
a Birther kook? I do.
The WSJ seems to think that because the
AG and President are black, the AG is
race baiting by informing blacks of the
new voter ID laws which will affect them,
as a group, the most.
WSJ Race-baiting? Yep.
The piece said the AG blamed whites, which would be race baiting if he had done so, but nothing I’ve been able to find about the speech (it would be nice to find a text) indicates he was blaming it on
whites, but rather stating a fact about
a process which affects US citizens regardless of race.
Race-baiting? Yep.
Perhaps you aren’t shocked, but I certainly
am.
We all know who is behind this process
and it has nothing to do with race
but is driven by voter suppression of
anyone who is likely to vote against them.
The fact that the people that are being
affected are largely black or hispanic
or young or poor should be the clue to the
perpetrators.
TO I agree with you that Holder should not be compared to Trump, but if anything that supports my feeling that both sides are a little over the top on this. I do think Holder is playing the race card since instead of framing this as a threat to the disabled, elderly and poor, he frames it as a racial issue. I don’t say this because Holder is black but because he has gone to the Council of Black Churches and framed the problem in that way.
There are good arguments on both sides of voter ID. On the one hand we want every person that is eligible to vote to be able to do so. On the other we want no one that ISN’T eligible to vote to do so illegally. Personally I think asking for picture ID is a pretty minimal requirement and it looks like most Americans agree with that. That requirement has to be balanced by making sure picture IDs are easily available to legitimate voters, and that availability should be based on helping the disabled, poor and elderly get IDs.
Several people have made the argument the net effect of Voter ID would be to strengthen the GOP by disproportionately reducing Democratic voters. That is true and that is a reason to look skeptically at their motives. Conversely Democrats benefit from looser voting restrictions, and that is a reason to look at them skeptically as well. Like I said in my first post, both sides are acting in their best political interests.
Read more about “rampant voter fraud” in the state of “Bush v. Gore infamy,” here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/opinion/blow-darkness-in-the-sunshine-state.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20120602&adxnnlx=1338642016-5Kgwi/IxtI5KQvqHKjTN/A
Oops, just noticed StockBoy beat me to it.
Oh well, it is worth reading twice
DDW, Florida again. Whoosh, they sure do know how to keep their name in the news.
DG
No, he was asked to speak to a group concerned about voter suppression.
The group happened to be black.
The AG happened to be black.
He did, if you read the NYT linked twice,
talk about all the groups in peril of
being disenfranchised, not just blacks.
He did not blame whites, which
would be race-baiting.
If he had been asked to speak to a
Hispanic group about voter suppression
tactics, it would be the same thing.
And the WSJ wouldn’t have tried to
make it a race issue – maybe.
The WSJ article is racebaiting when
it says he blamed whites or just
because the group was black and
he was black. Or so I see it.
It’s not just voter ID which is
a problem until efforts are made
to furnish ID to every voter
(and then there will be an uproar
because “THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO
MAKE US ALL HAVE ID’S SO THEY
CAN KEEP TRACK OF US” nonsense).
Until everyone is furnished an
ID, if that ever happens, there
is a problem of disenfranchisement
for some people. The bigger problem
is all the things I mentioned in
another thread. And it is a big
problem, and it’s not about illegal
voting, it’s about voter suppression.
I never thought I’d see the day when
people would be kept from voting, again,
before I died. It’s a sad, sad, situation.
In Florida, the local election officials
are simply not following the Governor’s
orders – Republicans and Democrats.
They know it’s wrong.
A couple of points.
No one should be fooled into thinking that the Wall Street Journal editorials are intended to be responsible social and political commentary. Their editorials have been so completely ignored due to their partisan nature and complete disconnect with any factual basis that they have become a place for the right to try out lines of attack against the reality based world and to float trial balloons of mostly really bad conservative and pro 1% policies. This is where the idea was first floated that to convince the poor and middle class that the income tax is evil incarnate we should raise their income taxes, for example, that Romney has included as a somewhat less prominent part of his agenda to pay for more tax cuts for the rich
I dislike Holder, his refusal to investigate and prosecute the frauds committed by the Wall Street elite that triggered the Great Financial crisis guarantees the nation a repeat of it or even worse. But this is a hit piece. Holder didn’t even single out voter ID laws. His speech was primarily about enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which after all is his job. I can’t imagine that the Wall Street Journal would prefer Holder drop the VRA investigations and jump on the investigations of the frauds leading up to the Great Financial Crisis. These crimes cost us more money in three years than all of the common crime has cost us over the last century.
It is telling that the Wall Street Journal thought that his speech was racially based about the Voter ID laws and not about a broad range of attacks against voter’s rights, including Hispanics and the elderly. It proves that they believe that the purpose of the ID laws is to suppress Afro-American’s votes.
“No one should be fooled into thinking that the Wall Street Journal editorials are intended to be responsible social and political commentary.”
Thank goodness for the NYT, they are wonderfully unbiased and many TMVers admire their work accept when they, the NYT, criticizes Obama.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/opinion/too-much-power-for-a-president.html
Then it’s the Silence of The lambs.
BTW: I have to read the WSJ and the NYT to get any sense of balance. Same with O’Reily and Rachel.
Merkin
Though the WSJ was always slanted toward Wall Street – and why not -
it’s their audience. I never thought
to see race baiting at that level of
our national media.
I never expect to see it even in major conservative magazines. We have
unfortunately, if not accepted, at least come to expect it on cable channels.
They are pay to view and not held to the
same standards as other broadcasts.
We would not, or should not, accept it from national broadcasting networks or major
news outlets. That this author sees
it as race baiting is not surprising – but she isn’t a national news contributor – I hope.
I never heard of her until here at TMV.
dd
If you think that article should be up for discussion, we would all be happy to chime
in with our thoughts. Tell Joe G. to write an article. Or we can hijack another thread
if you can find one that noone is using. Just let us know.
dduck that is an interesting topic and I too wondered why it hadn’t come up here. I was also surprised the poor jobs numbers yesterday haven’t been mentioned. But hey it’s not my website.
Back to the issue at hand yes the WSJ editorial page is slanted to the right, just as Holder is slanted to the left. Hopefully nobody had any illusions about that.
It’s unfortunate we don’t have the transcript of Holder’s speech to get better context but the way I read what little quotes we have he was referring to minority civil rights being threatened, not generic voting rights.
“I was also surprised the poor jobs numbers yesterday haven’t been mentioned. But hey it’s not my website.”:
Bad U.S. Economic News: Job Growth Stalls While Unemployment Rises
POSTED BY JOE GANDELMAN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
JUN 1ST, 2012 | 2 COMMENTS
Sorry my bad. Thanks DDW.
Nothing to be sorry about, DG. We all skip articles and comments.
DG
Full text of speech:
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-120530.html
Thanks The_Ohioan. I read the entire speech and my opinion hasn’t changed much. When he talks about Martin Luther King and says “we have not yet reached the promised land”, it makes the tenor of the speech pretty obvious.
He does touch on other groups that might be touched on by changes in voting laws, and he does speak of redistricting and other possible threats to voting as well as voter ID. He pretty obviously plays the race card, although I think the level of indignation from the WSJ is overdone and smacks of the faux outrage so common in political discussion.
DG
I don’t see it, but I respect your efforts
to stay in the moderate lane. We seem to
agree more often than not.