Some thoughts on the idea that: "We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote..."

-
Donald Trump, a candidate for president of the United States, the other night promised his "beautiful Christian' supporters in attendance at a Turning Point Action event in Florida that if they voted for  him in 2024, "You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

It is remarkable to see a candidate promise that "you're not going to have to vote" any more if he wins in November. Democracies are fragile things; voting is one of the few ways that citizens can engage in holding elected officials accountable. There has never been a president thus far who has "fixed things" in ways that people no longer need to vote. In fact, as noted by Brian Klass in The Atlantic, "He’s telegraphing his authoritarian intentions in plain sight."

You would never know that, however, from the landing page of yesterday's New York Times that a presidential candidate told a roomful of potential voters two nights ago that if they vote for him in November, they will be done with the onerous work of voting:




The morning version of the NY Times' story focused on Trump's attacks on Harris, though there was brief mention of Trump's promise that his "beautiful Christians" would no longer need to vote if he won this year. Their frame for this statement was an assumption that he meant "if elected he would address their concerns sufficiently enough that they would no longer need to be politically active." This was their approach when they published the story at 8:31 a.m. yesterday. 



No where does Trump suggest anything about being "politically active." He expressly states that no Christians will need to vote ever again if he wins in November. NY Times coverage of this event evolved over the course of the day – this was published at 1:59 p.m. yesterday:


That story was published in the 7/28 print edition, two days after the event. Here are some of the graphs in that story: 


This version grabbed a comment from a Trump spox who claims that what Trump really meant by saying Christians would no longer need to vote if he wins in November is that "President Trump was talking about uniting this country...." 

Imposing a Christian-centric ideology on everyone in America is not a unifying concept; in fact, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to impose a particular religious ideology on American citizens. This seems an issue that is not recognized by the reporters and pundits at the NY Times however. 

NPR also framed the idea that Trump meant with his statement about not needing to vote any more that "Christian-related concerns will be "fixed" so much so that they would no longer need to be politically engaged."



Again, this is an interpretation of Trump's words, not an accurate summary of what he said. 

As Brian Klass notes in his The Atlantic story, "Trump’s remarks represent an extraordinary departure from democratic norms in the United States—rarely, if ever, has a major party’s presidential candidate directly stated his aim to make elections meaningless, a notorious hallmark of autocracy."

We cannot shrug off statements by a candidate for POTUS who makes the claim he will enact policies that will make it so that Christians no longer have to vote. It should not take several revisions for the paper of record to focus their story on the event that a presidential candidate is suggesting actions will be taken to ensure Christians do not need to vote any more. Claims that a president can "fix" things so people will no longer need to vote any more are a major concern, not something to gloss over. 

Some questions I wish national news media reporters would ask Trump:

1) What broken thing needs fixing so that the fixing of that thing will persuade Christians not to "politically engage" any more in the electoral process?2) How can a president fix anything that would make it so Christians would not feel compelled to vote any more? 3) What are the actions he will be taking to ensure this will happen for Christians? 4) Why is it okay for any presidential candidate to suggest that things can be fixed in ways that mean his "beautiful Christians" no longer need to vote?
A candidate for president claims he can "fix" things so that Christians will no longer need to vote. That is a remarkable statement, and since it comes from a man who incited violence at the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the last election he lost, it is a statement that deserves a much fuller investigation from the national news media. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The October Rose

-
Image
‘Tis the season to bring love and joy into the world – and here’s one of the loveliest stories of the year… It’s a story that begins in October 2008, when the economy is in a state of collapse; the culture is in crisis, and faith in humanity – at least, my faith in humanity – is at an all-time low. It is precisely at this time that my next-door neighbor, Annie Jennings, comes home from high school bearing an orange rose. She presents this flower to her mother, Ellen, with the announcement that she is one of the “Sweet 16,” a member of Libertyville High School’s Homecoming Court. Annie is not quite 18 years old, a high school senior with stick-straight, sandy blond hair, glasses and a big smile. We hire her to feed our cat whenever we head out of town and we leave knowing our cat is in very good hands. So when I learn of her selection as a member of the homecoming court, I am intrigued. This is the girl who watches my cat, after all. Ellen is curious about what it means to...
Read more

On the failure of "the invisible hand" to influence our financial sector

-
In Alan Greenspan's book, The Age of Turbulence , one of the issues he explores is the failure of economic populism in Latin America. Here are his thoughts: " The dictionary defines 'populism' as a political philosophy that supports the rights and power of the people, usually in opposition to a privileged elite. I see economic populism as a response by an impoverished populace to a failing society, one characterized by an economic elite who are perceived as oppressors. Under economic populism, the government accedes to the demands of the people, with little regard for either individual rights or the economic realities of how the wealth of a nation is increased or even sustained." So in Greenspan's view as a self-described Libertarian Republican, economic populism comes to life in "failing societies" that have significant income inequality and are dominated by an economic elite. And in Greenspan's mind, it is not the government that can make t...
Read more

"Good-bye to all that..."

-
Harry Patch died last week in England. It was the expected outcome for a man of 111. But it is a notable death because with Harry Patch goes the last living memory of trench warfare experienced nearly a century ago during The Great War - known now as World War 1. This story on CNN.com is a wonderful summary of Patch's life. He was a plumber before and after his stint in the trenches. He saw some of the worst warfare man has ever experienced: "He fought and was seriously wounded in Ypres, Belgium, in 1917 at the Battle of Passchendaele, in which 70,000 of his fellow soldiers died -- including three of his close friends." That's a placid little sentence to describe the slaughter of 70,000 men. A horror Patch refused to talk about until he turned 100 years old. Here's a YouTube video that shows some photos and film footage from the Battle of Passchendaele: You can hear the survivor's voice in this video shot at Passchendaele about two years ag...
Read more