During the past few days, a
recording of a 2001 Obama radio interview has come to light. In it, Obama never uses the terms "socialism" or "Marxism," but leaves no doubt in listeners' minds that he believes in those discredited economic systems.
No doubt, many voters who previously favored Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin had second or third thoughts when they heard his words and considered their meaning. The majority of Americans are implacably opposed to socialism and Marxism, and would never dream of voting for a candidate who espouses either of them regardless of how attractive he otherwise might be.
Unfortunately, a large number of those voters have already cast their ballots for Obama, and cannot change their minds on the basis of this new information. A few of them have voted by absentee ballot, but most have used the Early Voting mechanism, by which any otherwise qualified citizen can cast a ballot prior to Election Day without having to give a reason.
What a monumentally stupid idea!
In any election, there will be some voters who have a legitimate reason for being unable to present themselves personally at their local polling place on Election Day and vote in the normal manner. Since the Lincoln administration, those voters have been able to participate through Absentee Ballots.
I've been in that situation myself a few times – back in the '60's, when I was serving in the Navy for three years, then living away from home on a dairy farm for a year, and finally spending four years attending veterinary school at Cornell. More recently, there was the year I spent in hospitals and nursing homes unable to walk as a result of MRSA sepsis. Other than that, I have always voted at my local polling place on Election Day, and intend to continue to do so as long as I am physically able.
Ever since I have been old enough to vote, I have never missed an election, either primary or general, in which I was eligible to participate. I'm not claiming any particular credit for doing so, either – there are many other people with similar voting records years longer than mine.
Was it always convenient to vote? Good Lord, no! For 36 years, i ran a solo veterinary practice, and had many demands on my time. It would have been easy to make excuses about being too busy, not having enough time, not knowing enough about the candidates, not caring which one wins because "it really makes no difference" – I'm sure you're heard 'em all. I've always considered participation in elections to be a sacred duty, though, and therefore a top priority.
Early Voting, along with such other "reforms" as so-called Motor Voter, and even, in some states, registration and voting at the same time, were introduced as well-intentioned measures to improve voter participation. As is so often the case, though, there was insufficient consideration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
It was obvious that the widespread adoption of these measures intended to make registration and voting easier would also make it easier to perpetrate fraud. Equally obvious was the fact that those citizens who couldn’t be bothered to register and vote under the old system because it was too much trouble were likely to be the same ones who wouldn't make an effort to inform themselves about the candidates and issues on the ballot. Proponents insisted that the new procedures would include sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud, and argued that the right to vote did not include any corresponding obligation to become an informed citizen. Gradually, their views prevailed and their ideas were adopted.
Another obvious objection to Early Voting was the hypothetical situation in which important new information became known late in a campaign, after significant numbers of citizens had already voted. Early Voting proponents argued that such situations would be very rare – that in the modern Information Age, it would be impossible to keep significant information hidden from the electorate for very long.
Well, now we have been hit by the proverbial perfect storm. We have a charismatic candidate with a messianic complex, a mysterious background, and some problematic associations. He has attracted a huge cult-like following of entranced supporters whose enthusiasm knows no bounds. Among his followers are virtually all of the members of the mainstream media upon whom we depend for so much of our news and analysis. On top of that, we have an unprecedented global financial meltdown directly traceable, in large part, to the actions of a few corrupt, unscrupulous leaders of that candidate's party.
Under these circumstances, hordes of the candidate's mesmerized followers have been crowding into the Early Voting stations to cast their ballots for their new Messiah.
Suddenly, in the last few days before Election Day, comes this jarring dose of reality. Their Messiah turns out to be an old-fashioned '60's radical Marxist who believes in redistribution of private property by government fiat. That's not exactly news to those of us who have been paying attention, but this time, it's different. He came right out and frankly admitted his radical ideology to the radio interviewer, as well as to a caller. This time, he cannot deny or dissemble – the evidence is there for all to hear in his own words and his own voice.
How many of those who have already cast their votes for Obama might not have done so if they had been aware of this new information? We'll never know. We have no way of knowing. And even if we did know, it would do no good, for there is no way to recall those ballots once cast.
If, instead of voting, those citizens had participated in some sort of business transaction under similar circumstances, they would have some sort of recourse. For instance, if someone buys a new air conditioning system with the understanding that it is capable of properly cooling his house, then later learns that the system is incapable of performing the task for which it was purchased, he has recourse. Ultimately, if he is unsuccessful in working out the problem with the installer, he can take him to court, sue for rescission, and win. The entire transaction is nullified – the installer takes back his system, and the buyer gets his purchase price back.
On the other hand, when a citizen votes early on the basis of incomplete or deliberately withheld information, no such relief is available. What's done is done. In a very close election, just a handful of votes may well be enough to tip the outcome one way or another.
Is this how we really want to elect a president? It's time to reconsider this whole matter of Early Voting. Even though it may have been adopted with the best of intentions, it has proven to be a monumentally bad idea.
