Monday, August 02, 2004
Slow Acting Poison
The Times-Standard has repeatedly made the false accusation that the No Confidence Movement is discouraging voting. The paper has also avoided two main points of emphasis: the broader myth of democracy; and the very specific question, is there or is there not a BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of US federal elections? I wonder if there is a final straw that would lead Times-Standard editors to call an election illegitimate? If not, gullibility has new meaning. If so, how can it not be among myriad problems already revealed around the country?
The Times-Standard reported that Humboldt County Elections Manager Lindsey McWilliams said there are always problems in any election cycle, and that the integrity of an election shouldn't rely on technology ("Crisis of Confidence...", 7/25/04). Since US elections do rely on technology, and always have problems, McWilliams has made the No Confidence argument. The system is rigged. What sensible strategy for change allows this charade to continue?
The Times-Standard called the No Confidence Movement "slow acting poison." This term really describes a country run by corporations, addicted to war, and perpetuating the myth of democracy. Calling for change without any direct effort to enact it is a placebo, not an antidote. As John Kerry recently said, it is optimistic to say we can do better. If the debate is about defining “better” it can begin with a better understanding of the problem, recognizing we must first create a BASIS for confidence before there is anything upon which to build.