Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Why is playing by the rules intimidating?

If one follows politics at all, one knows there are real concerns about voter registration fraud. However, those on the left have been quick to attack simple things like verifying a new registrants address or asking for a form of identification at the polls as "intimidating."

Those liberal pundits contend that certain voters, who often vote for Democratic candidates, can be deterred from casting their votes if they are asked to play by the rules. It is insulting to the voters in question and to the election system.

Competition at any level, be it sports, business or politics, can be fierce. A civilized society agrees upon rules to compete by. The rules prevent chaos and even violence.

As illustrated by my various postings, I am a big fan of football, basketball, and more recently, marching band competitions. In those endeavors, competitors compete by the rules agreed upon. While a coach might argue a call by an official here or there, there is never any call for throwing the rules aside for one competitor. if we can apply such standards to sporting events, why can't we apply them to elections?

Since it is football season, I will offer a football analogy. Suppose Obama and McCain were names of two football teams about to square off. The Obama team, backed by a booster club war chest ten times that of McCain, would have its coaches call for a suspension of some rules for its players because some the Obama players just were not used to playing football by the rules. It would be unfair and intimidating to the Obama players to be made to play by the rules. A couple of Obama's players would make a press appearance stating that they would just not show up to play if they could not hold or block in the back. The Obama coaches would demand that the McCain team be held accountable for every penalty.

When the McCain team's coaches respond by speaking about protecting the integrity of the game, sports writers would be quick to label the McCain staff as insensitive or racist. The sports writers would bemoan how those poor Obama players were not used to rules and how unfair it would be make them play by the rules.

What would result, as any sports fan knows. is chaos and ill will. If the officials decided to make both teams play by the rules, win or lose the Obama team's fans would be irate. If the rules were suspended for some Obama players, the McCain team would be irate. Regardless who won the game, by however many points, there would be be a contingent of fans who claimed the winner cheated. The achievement on the field would be tainted. That punishes everyone involved.

If such a football game occurred in the above circumstances, even at the small time level, there would be calls to investigate for the integrity of the game. It is ironic that we as a people demand more integrity from our sporting events than we do the elections that shape our lives for years to come.

There have been times when breaking the rules caught up with a candidate. Richard Nixon is the most well known example. His landslide victory in 1972 had been tainted by a hint of rules breaking with the Watergate scandal. Less than two years later, Nixon, at one time one of the most popular Presidents of the United States in history, was forced to resign.

However, Nixon is the exception that proves the rule in modern American politics. Candidates on both sides skirt fund raising laws, push election laws to the brink of breaking and then wonder why so many people are turned off by politics. Add to that the nonsense on the Left this year that it is intimidating for people to vote by the rules, and you quickly see why the world views democracy in America with such a skeptical eye, regardless who wins at the polls.

1 comment:

  1. Anderson taxpayerOctober 29, 2008

    Damn RINO, who cares what you think?