Regulating voters, deregulating business

It's interesting.

Milwaukee's right wing insists we need massive reform of our voting laws -- enact Voter ID, ban same day registration -- because we're at risk of massive voter fraud. Even though there has been no evidence of such massive voter fraud.  Even though Milwaukee has no history of voter fraud (gotta love those good-government socialists). And even though the number of people who will be kept from the polls due to an ID requirement -- the elderly, urban working poor, etc. -- far exceed the number of unconnected fraudsters we actually see (guy votes from old address -- perhaps mistakenly -- or guy visiting the old home from Germany votes,etc).

Indeed, Milwaukee's right is so obsessed with the specter of nonexistent massive voter fraud  (undetected even though the scrutiny upon Milwaukee's rolls is more intense than any other city's seen in decades) that it painted Acorn as a villain -- for turning in to the authorities registrars who submitted fake registration cards. (As opposed to dumping them and paying the cheaters a bonus, as one would imagine a group of Roveniks would do.)

So in the right's view, nonexistent voter fraud problem = need for massive reform of voter laws.

Meanwhile, Milwaukee's right wing is so adamantly opposed to government regulation of the private sector that seemingly no market failure should invite government intervention. In their view, tighter scrutiny of any enterprise -- food processors, trucking companies, toy manufacturers, you name it -- would cause the U.S. economy to collapse.

A classic of this genre is an old Patrick McIlheran post I like to call "Tire Death demonstrates genius of the free market." In that piece, McIlheran took issue with Paul Soglin for suggesting that the death of a Milwaukee area doctor due to a tire flying off a truck argues for tighter scrutiny of the trucking industry. (Particularly given the company that contracted the trucker -- who was unaware he was missing a wheel --  had an egregious history of failing roadside inspections, etc.) Mclheran responded by making noises how this would throttle commerce and, anyway, the accident was caused by a government-mandated road ice-melting solvent that corrodes lug nuts. So it's government's fault! (Actually, the incident had nothing to do with such corrosion -- it was an issue with the axle, if I recall -- but I don't think McIlheran ever followed up on that.)

Rick Perlstein looked at the happy effects of reduced FDA inspections in this piece, E. Coli Conservatives.

But to conservatives, facts are stupid things. We can fully expect Sykes & Co. to feed fear of voter fraud to the herd for years to come and at the same time decry "intrusive" government regulation that actually, you know, help people.

The whole situation calls to mind the close of Thomas Frank's latest book, "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule":

We can now say of that philosophy, which regards good government as a laughable impossibility, which elevates bullies and gangsters and CEOs above other humans, which tells us to get wise and stop expecting anything good from Washington -- we can now say with finality that it has had its chance. Whenever there was a choice between markets and free people -- between money and the common good -- the conservatives chose money. It's time to make them answer for it.

Comments

[John Foust]

Means, motive and opportunity: if someone wants to commit the crime of altering an election, what's their motivation, what's the best ways to carry it out, and how could they do it?

Oh, yeah, let's first establish whether the crime happens, how it happens, and put a tape around the crime scene. We need to consider the consequences of any suggested preventative measure, and confirm whether those side-effects still conform to our higher goal of, say, insuring clean elections.

I think it would also be fair to consider whether requiring voter ID itself is a method of altering the outcomes of elections. Gosh, you don't think there's an ulterior motive here, do you?