The title of this blog is a genuinely idiotic question.
The reason I put it up there, however, is that it is the premise of an article – not a satire, but an actual article, written by someone named Noah Berlatsky, that you are supposed to take seriously.
And which wackadoo website published this idiotic artcle? Uh……er…….nbcnews.com. As in NBC.
Doubt me (and, if you do, I don’t blame you a bit)? Well, here is how it begins:
If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, regularly retweeting white supremacists and at least initially balking at repudiating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Trump made it clear in his campaign that “Make America Great Again” meant that America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent.
Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.
This sounds radical. But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated.
Don’t you love how this keeper of the racial flame starts out his attack on racism by making a racial generalization about the motives of “large numbers of White people”? And then claims Trump called Mexicans, in general, rapists and criminals (a lie- he specifically distinguished rapists and criminals from other Mexicans), and then going on from there?
And that’s just at the beginning of the first paragraph. Before Berlansky tries to sell the premise that, if you have the wrong motives for voting, your vote should be unconstitutional.
If you have the stomach to continue, feel free to use the link I’ve provided and read every word. Have a ball.
If, on the other hand, you question the sanity of whomever approved this mung heap for publication in what is supposed to be a credible news organization’s website? Let it be another reminder of where this allegedly neutral venue really stands (or maybe squats is the right word).