- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Several writers - including Mr. Manjoo himself – mentioned a variety of “Straw Men.” But the real straw man here is the one Mr. Manjoo sets up when he states:
“[T]o prove Blackwell stole the state for Bush, Kennedy's got to do more than show instances of Blackwell's mischief.”
Mr. Kennedy never claimed to have proved Blackwell stole Ohio; what he does arrive at is this:
“Given the scope of the GOP machinations, we simply cannot be certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office -- which means, in effect, that we have been deprived of our faith in democracy itself.”
The rhetorical device of reframing an opponent’s position and then rebutting the reframed position rather than the original one is a familiar rhetorical device, albeit one I associate more with the likes of Rush Limbaugh than Salon. But an direct rebuttal of Kennedy’s conclusion would require Mr. Manjoo to declare that he himself can be, and indeed is certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office, and that those of us (myself included) whose faith in democracy has been shaken by machinations of Blackwell con sui have no reasonable basis for that lamentable state.
Mr. Majoo states that “Blackwell issued a series of arbitrary and capricious voting and registration rules that could well have disenfranchised many people in the state;” and he acknowledges that many of the problems in Ohio Kennedy enumerates are accurate. His argument concerns the number of (non) votes that can be attributed to these legitimate problems. Most of these are inherently speculative, and reasonable minds will disagree on the most probable impact of any one problem, let alone the combination thereof. But by any count, they are substantial. Much as I would want to believe Kerry did (or should have) won the vote in Ohio and thus the nation, I cannot be sure of that. But is Mr. Manjoo really certain that Bush legitimately won Ohio, or is it enough for him that Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Conyers and others who have examined and expounded on the 2004 election have been unable to conclusively prove the contrary?
The way Mr. Manjoo approaches the issue suggests Mr. Blackwell’s critics have the burden of proving he changed what otherwise would have been the outcome. Does that mean that Mr. Blackwell may freely oversee an election in a partisan, arbitrary and capricious manner, just so as long he does not succeed in tipping the balance? Surly that is not the standard we should expect of election officials who are, in a very real sense, custodians of a vital part of our democracy. Whether or not anyone can conclusively prove that Blackwell, or Katharine Harris before him, was the proximate cause for Bush sitting in the oval office is really beside the point here. There is no reasonable doubt that they have corrupted the democratic process, and deserve our scorn and opprobrium. That is why an article like Mr. Manjoo’s which subtlety shifts the focus from this indiputable outrage to a sterile, legalistic analysis is so frustrating to read. Mr. Kennedy is right to point that we have to be able to trust the electoral process, and that anyone – Republican, Democrat, or other – who undermines that trust, must be held to account.
