Global
Ohio 2004 Case Study
In March 2004, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman published the article Diebold, Electronic Voting, and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy on freepress.org and onmotherjones.compredicting that Ohio would be the new Florida in the 2004 presidential election because of the partisan connections of George W. Bush to the private owners of the electronic voting machines and vote tabulation software. The key source for the article, Athan Gibbs, was an African American entrepreneur who had invented a voting machine that gave each voter a verified voting receipt. Approximately one week after the article ran, Gibbs was killed when his car was hit by a truck on an interstate highway.
· Due in part to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), like most of the rest of the country, the majority of Ohio’s 2004 registration records were managed electronically, and votes were cast and counted electronically.
Florida 2000 Case Study
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore, the incumbent Vice President, won the nationwide presidential vote tally by more than 500,000 votes. But for the first time since 1876, a Constitutional crisis arose over the alignment of the Electoral College. The final decision was thrown to the state of Florida (which had also been “in play” in 1876).
The Bush campaign was coordinated by Karl Rove. The Florida election was officially controlled by Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who openly supported Bush as the co-chair of his election campaign.
The GOP campaign employed a wide range of tactics reminiscent of the Jim Crow era to cut into the turnout among tens of thousands blacks and Hispanics, who favored Gore by as much as 9:1. Among other things, state police and other law enforcement agencies physically intimidated potential voters in predominantly black areas of Orlando and elsewhere.
As most everyone knows, white supremacists descended upon my city of Charlottesville, VA, this past weekend, and chaos, violence and tragedy ensued. I’ve been thinking since then about the concept of supremacy and how odious it is–as if one race were purer and better than another, as if one color of skin were of a higher virtue than another.
But it has also crossed my mind that most Americans are American supremacists, thinking that their country is the greatest in the world, believing that America has the wisdom and the right to decide the fate of every other nation in the world, and that those decisions should be based on American interests alone.
The idea of American supremacy is as odious to me as the idea as white supremacy. As American supremacists, we don’t even negotiate with other nations anymore. We impose sanctions and call that diplomacy. Sanctions are a form of force.
As American supremacists, we don’t try to see another country’s point of view. Our message is: Do it in the way that best supports American interests, or else we will crush you economically and militarily.
1. Let’s start with the obvious. Charlottesville, Virginia, and Charlotte, North Carolina, are actually two completely different places in the world. The flood of concern and good wishes for those of us here in Charlottesville is wonderful and much appreciated. That people can watch TV news about Charlottesville, remember that I live in Charlottesville, and send me their kind greetings addressed to the people of Charlotte is an indication of how common the confusion is. It’s not badly taken; I have nothing against Charlotte. It’s just a different place, seventeen times the size. Charlottesville is a small town with the University of Virginia, a pedestrian downtown street, and very few monuments. The three located right downtown are for Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the Confederacy. Neither Lee nor Jackson had anything to do with Charlottesville, and their statues were put up in whites-only parks in the 1920s.
Campaigning for the presidency, Donald Trump argued that blacks and other people of color should vote for him.
Nine months after losing the presidency, the Democratic Party is in dire need of a course correction. Grass-roots enthusiasm for the party is far from robust. Despite incessant funding appeals and widespread revulsion for the Trump administration, the Democratic National Committee’s fundraising is notably weak. And the latest DNC chair, Tom Perez, sounds no more inspiring than his recent predecessors. When Perez speaks next to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, it’s a stark contrast between establishment cliches and progressive populism.
While a united front against the Trump regime would be ideal, mere unity behind timeworn Democratic leadership would hardly be auspicious. Breaking the Republican stranglehold at election time will require mobilizing the Democratic Party’s base on behalf of authentic populism. But the power structure of the DNC has other priorities.
The Will Geer’s Theatricum Botanicum production of Alice Childress’ Trouble in Mind came to me as a theatrical revelation. It is a classic “the worm turns” tale: Manners (Mark Lewis) is a big shot white liberal Hollywood producer who is making his Broadway stage debut in order to make “serious art” with a play-within-the-play (likewise written by a Caucasian). Manners sincerely believes it’s a powerful, searing social statement about and indictment of racism. Trouble, which is set in the 1950s, also hints that Manners may have fled Tinseltown to escape what is euphemistically called “the investigation”: the Hollywood Blacklist and House Un-American Activities Committees’ purging of so-called subversives (like WGTB founder Will Geer, who was blacklisted).
Willetta (the venerable Earnestine Phillips) plays an African American actress who, in scene one, Act I, seems to pooh-pooh the notion of theater as high art with a mission, as advocated by enthusiastic Broadway newcomer John (Max Lawrence who also does a superlative job portraying the workaholic steed Boxer in WGTB’s Animal Farm).
Donald Trump stands cluelessly at the edge of history, exemplifying everything wrong with the past, oh, 10,000 years or so.
The necessity for fundamental change in humanity’s global organization is not only profound, but urgent.
Trump’s latest outburst about North Korea’s nukes — threatening that country “with fire, fury, and frankly power the likes of which the world has never seen before” — creates a comic book Armageddon scenario in the media, except, of course, his power to launch a nuclear war on impulse is real.