Hack a Mere Smoke Screen by Democrats for Power Grab
This is simply another attempt by the left to expand national authority. It's up to the American people to stop it.
By KEN BLACKWELL Published on September 6, 2016 •
The Democrats are now playing the
Russia card. As Donald Trump rises in the polls against an increasingly
unpopular Hillary Clinton, Democrats are raising the specter of the nefarious
Vladimir Putin. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s famous Russian
relations reset was a bust, but we are supposed to trust her to handle Putin in
the future. More important, the Democrats are sowing grounds to challenge the
election, relying on their unnatural ability to squeeze, as if by magic, extra
votes from the courtroom.
There may be an even more insidious
objective, Outgoing Nevada Sen. Harry Reid — never a fan of election fair play —
warned of Russian tampering and called for an FBI investigation. This followed
warnings by Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, of
potential cyber-attacks come November. He indicated he was considering
designating the election system “critical infrastructure.”
Why is that significant? This would
be followed by a Washington campaign to “assist” and “protect” balloting, which
inevitably would turn into control. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky
warned that Johnson’s action “may be a way for the administration to get Justice
Department lawyers, the FBI and DHS staff into polling places they would
otherwise have no legal right to access, which would enable them to interfere
with election administration procedures around the country.” That would
dramatically, and permanently, transform the constitutional balance between the
national and state governments.
Despite scare-mongering by Reid and
Johnson, there is no evidence of any impending cyber-attack on the American
electoral system. Even Johnson apparently admitted that he could point to no
indications of such a threat. A far greater danger to the integrity of U.S.
democracy is voter fraud, yet the courts seem determined to block any effort to
even require identification to cast a ballot. This undermines the great strength
of America’s elections, state control.
As von Spakovsky pointed out, “we
have the most decentralized election system of any Western democracy.” This
approach protects America from having Russia (or China or anyone else)
manipulate electoral outcomes. Nationalizing the process actually would make
U.S. elections far more vulnerable to outside attack.
Which demonstrates the continuing
wisdom of the nation’s Founders in creating a system that kept most important
public policies and activities at the state level. The national government was
established to deal with national problems, not to elevate to the national level
controversies which belonged closer to the people.
The Founders’ idea, called
“federalism,” naturally grew out of Americans’ commitment to self-government.
The people, not a king or emperor, were sovereign. They were to solve their own
problems and chart their own futures. That required decision-makers to be close
to each other and the challenges facing them.
In this way federalism had a lot in
common with the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity. Whenever possible, higher,
more distant institutions should leave undisturbed authorities below. Each
government had a specific role and should not encroach upon the responsibilities
of others.
Early Americans well understood the
meaning of federalism: creating two distinct levels (local authorities being
subsumed within states) of government with separate and defined duties.
Unfortunately, however, the founding generations allowed ambiguity to creep in
by calling the national government the “federal” government.
The very concept of federalism
requires protecting the vibrancy of state (and local) institutions. The federal
system meant dual authority rather than the unitary system prevalent in Europe,
including in Great Britain. Although the Civil War established the ultimate
supremacy of the national government, the conflict did not wipe out state
sovereignty. The so-called federal government remained small, without much
day-to-day impact on most people’s lives. Even enthusiastic nationalists at the
time could not have imagined the wholesale federal takeover of education, health
care, and welfare.
Of course, to speak of “federal”
action now means to nationalize an issue. Thus, supporting the founding
principle of “federalism” risks communicating the opposite of the truth to
people, suggesting that the Constitution turned most problems over to the
“federal,” that is, national government. And that continuing islands of state
authority, such as running elections, are anomalies which should be wiped
out.
Federalism in the original sense of
the word always set American democracy apart from that of other nations. Power
was separated and balanced; responsibility was accorded to institutions best
able to confront problems. The people retained ultimate sovereignty and remained
close enough to their officials to hold the latter accountable.
Unfortunately, these principles are
under sustained attack. Attempts to tie Trump to Russia are just another attempt
to expand federal, as in national, authority. With so many of their leaders
AWOL, only the American people are left to stand up for their country’s founding
principles. Only We the People.
