White guy wins after leading
voters to believe he’s black
HOUSTON -- Dave
Wilson chuckles as he talks about his unorthodox political campaign.
"I'd always
said it was a long shot," Wilson says. "No, I didn't expect to
win."
Still, he figured
he'd have fun running, because he was fed up with what he called "all the
shenanigans" at the Houston Community College System. As a conservative
white Republican running in a district whose voters are overwhelmingly black
Democrats, the odds seemed overwhelmingly against him.
Then he came up with
an idea, an advertising strategy that his opponent found
"disgusting." If a white guy didn't have a chance in a mostly
African-American district, Wilson would lead voters to think he's black.
And it apparently
worked. In one of the biggest political upsets in Houston politics this
election season, Wilson -- an anti-gay activist and former fringe candidate for
mayor -- emerged as the surprise winner over 24-year incumbent Bruce Austin.
His razor thin margin of victory, only 26 votes, was almost certainly
influenced by his racially tinged campaign.
(Read
the whole thing.) I am a little
skeptical at the margins. In all the
repetitions of this story, has anyone actually checked with the voters or do we
take it as a given that the voters were a little racist? I suppose with a margin of victory of only
twenty six votes, it might seem like a safe assumption that at least twenty seven
people were motivated by race, but I just don’t like assuming things about
people that way.
But regardless of what objective
reality is, certainly Wilson subjectively believed he was pulling a fast one on
the people. It is utterly despicable.
And utterly legal.
First, why is it despicable? Because it is fraud, duh. Or at least
attempted fraud. If a person tells a
material lie when trying to sell a product, that is a criminal act and will
land that person in jail.
So, was it material? Well, certainly Wilson thought so. Now, we might rightfully think it is
disgusting in any case to vote for a person based on what race you think that
person belongs to. But in our system, we
don’t make any attempt to regulate why a person votes for this person or
that. They can vote for a person because
they think s/he is the most qualified for the job, has the best proposals… or
because s/he is attractive, because s/he is charming, or even because they are
the right race to you. However sublime
or stupid one’s reason is for voting for a person, it is up to you. We can encourage, by gentle persuasion, people
to vote for people for good reasons and I think the vast majority of Americans
do vote for substantive reasons—even if I don’t always agree with those substantive
reasons. But we do not attempt to
regulate why a person votes.
And I think it isn’t because we
necessarily want people to vote based on appearance (whether it is
attractiveness or racism), or any other stupid reason to vote for or against a
candidate, but rather the alternative—requiring people to justify their vote
and requiring other government officials to approve or disapprove of their
reasoning—is just too noxious to contemplate.
We do not have a Mullaharchy like they do in Iran and for good reason.
So he plainly attempted to
defraud those people in that election and the only question is whether he
actually did convince at least twenty seven people to vote for him who wouldn’t
have if they knew the truth.
And certainly Wilson, if he had
any sense of honor, would immediately resign.
But of course the same article contains this self-justification: "Every
time a politician talks, he's out there deceiving voters.”
This is no justification for him
behaving equally deceitfully. The answer
to deceit in the election is to call it out and hold it against your opponent.
And what makes it despicable is
that the entire idea behind democracy (including our system of representative
democracy) is that the people are supposed to decide these things. In this case it was who will get a position
in a local community college and it was the people who were supposed to make
that decision. When you win a vote by
lying or deceit, you disrespect their right to make that decision. You disrespect our representative democracy.
I mean only a true scumbag would
win election to office on false pretenses, right? Right?
Oh, you thought I was just
talking about Wilson? No, I am talking
about Barack Obama, too.
Obama over and over promised that
under Obamacare if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, all the while
conspiring to cause millions of American’s to see their insurance
canceled. Let’s be clear. The insurance companies want to keep selling
people their old plans for the most part.
And people want the option of being able to keep it. Maybe the Obamacare-approved plans will be a better value, but they would like to see the options before they change. But because some bureaucrat decided that the
plans are “not good enough” insurance companies are being forced to cancel it.
Now, you might say, “a promise is
not necessarily fraudulent if it doesn’t come true, if you sincerely intend to keep it.” And that is true, but does anyone think that
as of November 2012, Obama didn’t know his promise was about to be broken? He knew: he just didn't want to tell us.
And the insult to ordinary Americans
is in fact two fold. First, Obama doesn’t
trust you to tell the truth about what his law will do. Second, he evidently doesn’t trust you to
figure out what you yourself want in an insurance policy. And it is this double insult that is making
this situation so poisonous to Obama.
And unlike Wilson deceiving people
about his skin color, this was factor we think is rightfully important. It is normal, albeit wrong, to say to those
Wilson might have fooled “if you vote according to race, you get what you
deserve.” But if people “deserved” to be
fooled by Obama it is only by the Flounder
principle: you screwed up, you trusted him.
That is certainly what Wilson thought and I suspect Obama feels the same
way. These days too many people,
particularly on the left, believe they know what is best for the people better
than they do, and they will use any dirty trick they can to get their agenda
through.
But if you throw up your hands
and cynically say, “we cannot trust politicians and we should not expect them
to be trustworthy” then that’s the end of democracy, period, just as much as if
ballot boxes are stuffed with false votes.
What’s the point of letting us choose our leaders if we aren’t able to
make an informed one, knowing what they are really about, and what they really
stand for? People may have screwed up by
trusting Obama, but it should not have been a mistake to have done so.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the
harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get
us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten
years. I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims
using documentary and video evidence. If you would like to help in the
fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the
right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon
Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about
my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
I agree that it is dishonest despicable and it casts him and what his voters can expect from him in a bad light. The only purpose it serves is to point how how readily people will vote by skin color and perceived association with a name they know rather than being informed on the actual candidate's positions on things. It is illustrative of a fact of human behavior and has little redeeming value beyond that.
ReplyDeleteWhere does the aphorism "The people deserve the candidate they elected." come into this argument? Or more succinctly, Caveat Emptor.
ReplyDeleteHaving read the details of his advertising campaign, no fraud was committed. Period. Conscious decisions were made to shape advertising. For example: mailers covered with African American persons claimed "he's one of us." They're American, he's American. Perfectly fair, and at no point did he actually claim "I'm Black". For another example, he wrote that he was endorsed by his cousin. The disclaimer explicitly stated that the person in question was his cousin. Now, his cousin happened to share the name of a prominent African American politician, but at no point did he claim his cousin was that politician. Again, who-he-was-endorsed-by makes no false claim about his race. There is no fraud here, as at no point did he say "If you like having an African American representative, you can keep having an African American representative. Period." I have no sympathy for people who are fooled... not by the actual content of what they read... but by their own personal racist ignorance of what they read. People who flunk astronomy because they think "black hole" is an insult DESERVE what they get, and claiming the professor committed fraud is absurd.
ReplyDeleteSomething else to ponder... it used to be that blacks would "pass" as whites to circumvent the roadblocks instituted by a racist electorate and political institutions. Were they also "disgusting" "fraudsters", or were they pioneering heroes of civic rights?
ReplyDelete