ONLY THE MOB and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself; the masses have to be won by propaganda. Under conditions of constitutional government and freedom of opinion, totalitarian movements struggling for power can use terror to a limited extent only and share with other parties the necessity of winning adherents and of appearing plausible to a public which is not yet rigorously isolated from all other sources of information.Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harvest Book Book 244) (p. 341). HMH Books. Kindle Edition.
Providing an example of how this works, in the very next paragraph Arendt details how totalitarian regimes “get rid” of unemployment. First, they claim that their version of Socialism or Communism eliminates unemployment, then they eliminate all unemployment benefits from the government. Finally, they point to the fact that there are no applications filed for unemployment, supposedly prooving their first claim. In reality, unemployment and poverty soar under government-heavy economic structures. But, as long as they can fool enough people with the proverbial shell game, they can get away with the lie.
This kind of thing is happening more and more in our political culture. A prime example is HR 1 (now SB 1), the, “For The People Act”. The propaganda line is that our voting system is full of inequities and suppression and that only a sweeping Federal bill can make sure everyone has the right to vote. One egregious description of this bill came from my Senator, Senator Bennett (D, CO) in a canned email to voters. The bill, he says, lets “voters out of their cages.” In a crass attempt to liken voting integrity measures to “putting kids in cages” on the border, Bennett has become part of Arendt’s propagandistic regime. The question is, are you ready to see through the ruse?
HR 1 is a power grab, pure and simple. The kind of propaganda surrounding it ensures that those who only have one kind of source of information, or those who are even slightly sympathetic to its supporters, will not dig any deeper. This is the design of “appearing plausible”. But, as we have been saying here for a while, do not live by lies.
Here are some links to analysis for those who are interested.
Voter ID laws are not only supported by a majority of Americans but have no effect on minority turnout.
HR 1 would fundamentally change the way in which our federal, constitutional republic functions. That progressive activists desire this is one thing. It’s not like they ever have been entirely enamored of our constitutional system.
The bigger problem is with media outlets distorting what kind of changes are really on the table and how all-encompassing they would be.
Are Americans really uniformly in favor of effectively nullifying state voter ID laws, or handing over all power for overseeing elections to an increasingly partisan federal agency?
As studies have shown, voter ID laws don’t appear to affect minority voter turnout at all. So why is that election integrity measure considered voter suppression?Daily Signal
HR 1 overrides state legislatures and creates an unusual burden on free speech.
It would be an understatement to describe H.R. 1 as a radical assault on American democracy, federalism, and free speech. It is actually several radical left-wing wish lists stuffed into a single 791-page sausage casing. It would override hundreds of state laws governing the orderly conduct of elections, federalize control of voting and elections to a degree without precedent in American history, end two centuries of state power to draw congressional districts, turn the Federal Elections Commission into a partisan weapon, and massively burden political speech against the government while offering government handouts to congressional campaigns and campus activists. Merely to describe the bill is to damn it, and describing it is a Herculean task in itself.National Review
Despite all the ink spilled to “fact check” Mike Pence’s concerns of HR 1, Pence is right and the fact checkers are wrong.
To be more precise, Pence writes that he opposes empowering the federal government to:
- compel states to count mail-in votes that arrive up to ten days after Election Day.
- compel states to allow ballot harvesting.
- compel states to ban voter ID laws.
- compel states to allow bureaucrats to redraw congressional districts.
- compel states to allow felons to vote.
- compel states to undermine free-speech rights by imposing “onerous legal and administrative burdens on candidates, civic groups, unions, nonprofit organizations.”
HR 1 allows for voting outside of your home precinct. Do we really need to detail the fraud that comes with that?
Noah Weinrich, spokesman for Heritage Action, said ending third party involvement doesn’t have a clear benefit: “It would prevent watchdog groups from saying, ‘we found these people are ineligible to vote.’ That job would instead rest on state and local officials who are so often underfunded … which is the reason these voter rolls have gotten so messy in the first place.”
Weinrich said if H.R. 1 was enacted, states could see an uptick in examples of out-of-state voting.
“It would introduce even more vulnerabilities,” he said. “Like we saw in the last election, some fraud that does occur, frankly, is not malicious, but H.R. 1 would make it harder to prevent or fix those mistakes.”World Magazine
HR 1 makes “vote harvesting” legal and provides Federal funding for “approved” voter registration groups.
Several states have recognized the inherent risk of fraud in overdistribution of voting applications and forms and in allowing third parties to fill them out for others. In response, states enacted legislation to curb this behavior — both a constitutional right and duty of the state legislatures.
Yet, with a mere stroke of a pen, the Biden administration will presumably challenge these state laws or, more likely, simply ignore them. This order, dressed up in highly charged rhetoric claiming to address discrimination, is instead an effort by the Biden administration to bypass Congress and use federal agencies to carry out the Left’s election scheme. If the Left can’t pass a federal law to override state election laws, they will use the power and reach of federal agencies to do so.
Perhaps the most troubling directive in the order is its mandate that federal agencies provide financial and logistical assistance to “approved” nonpartisan third-party organizations engaging in get-out-the-vote efforts.American Spectator
HR 1 compells the release of private donor information to 501c4 organizations, making it easy to target and harrass speech (in the form of financial support) the ruling party does not like.
In fact, H.R. 1 would place invasive regulations on free speech, limiting the ability of Americans to discuss important policy issues with elected officials or the public. By expanding the definition of “political speech,” this bill would give government officials greater power to silence the speech with which they disagree.
H.R. 1 would also intrude into the private financial decisions of Americans. If passed, this legislation would force many nonprofit organizations to disclose the personal information of their supporters. And Americans will have to live in constant fear that they will be harassed, intimidated, or worse because of the causes they support.ADF Legal