Tocqueville was born of French aristocracy. He was as curious as the nobles as to what drove the emotional morality of Americans to think that self-rule was even possible. His work has stood the test of time and is still referenced today. The answer sought to the great enigma was: can commoners really make decisions in their own best interests without the tutelage of the educated, privileged, elite? He, by traveling through America and observing first-hand the benefits of democracy to enrich the human spirit, came to the conclusion that the answer was yes.
The Premise
Tocqueville quantified what he believed to be the essentials for success of a constitutional republic: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire. These principles of freedom interact with each other and may even appear to be in conflict. They are not. For, the endeavor of each individual to seek his or her personal destiny requires that every emphasized essential is protected and interwoven into a national fabric of support.
The Problem
For democracy to function, the most important foundational axiom is the integrity of the actual election process. This appears to be the debate surrounding HR1 (the pending national voting rights act). Progressives are demanding its passage to assure, in their opinion, equal access for minority voting. Conservatives claim that the act will open a Pandora’s Box for potential fraud. Neither party is discussing the composition of the load-bearing column of democracy. The pillar that holds up the entire building of democracy representing Tocqueville’s five principles is the definition of the requirements and character of the system, and the commitment of each American to cast a ballot respecting fellow citizens.
The requirement of an election is that a voter must be a citizen of the United States. The character of an election is that the secret ballot must be held inviolate. The commitment of an election is that each American must have the moral countenance to respect others’, including their adversaries, right to pursuit of happiness. The problem is that voter rights are being discussed lugubriously from a viewpoint of identity politics without consideration of a national identity composite in Tocqueville’s definition of essential constitutional principles of purpose.
The COVID pandemic of 2020 necessitated one-time election procedures to facilitate the election process. Vote by mail ballots, extended voting periods, mobile voting units, ballot harvesting, same-day registration, no residency requirements, and voter facilitation were implemented to ensure every citizen had easy access to the ballot box. HR1 is an effort to codify these exceptional measures as the new voting protocol. Just as in war time rationing, COVID demanded extraordinary circumstances to accommodate a democratic election. Making such measures permanent can only be considered in balance with the requirements, character, and commitment of a sound national democratic moral purpose.
There is no federal law requiring a U.S. voter in federal elections to be a U.S. citizen. There is no federal law that prohibits a citizen from being registered in more than one place. They just cannot vote more than once per election. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld on July 1st of this year Arizona’s ban on ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct votes. The problem is that America is a very mobile society. Thirty percent of Americans move at least once every two years. Mailing out ballots without confirming an actual address results in ballots accumulating at apartment complexes, nursing homes, and other similar high-density housing locations. Ballots, prior to the Supreme Court ruling, could be collected (harvested) to organize and find voters to execute as an unofficial voting operation. For example, helping residents in a nursing home vote can threaten the secret ballot. HR1 is designed to remedy the Supreme Court ruling and any state legislature’s ability to pass counter laws imposing restrictions on ballot harvesting or confirmation of voter identification. The bottom line is that political parties are battling for favorable positions to impact the elections to their respective advantage in lieu of the moral commitment to defend the load-bearing column of democracy.
The Solution
Requiring a voter to be a U.S. citizen is critical to the commitment of the voter. Respecting another citizen’s personal decision in their pursuit of happiness necessitates an understanding of U.S. citizenship. Tocqueville’s five principles may be different in priority or definition to each citizen. Yet, liberty and freedom in the pursuit of happiness establishes a common bond. Non-citizens may not even stay in the country. Each election is too important to include passive, uncommitted, or unconnected voters.
Every voter deserves the privacy of casting a secret ballot. Otherwise, peer pressure, manipulation or outright coercion can occur. If ballots are to be collected in the nursing home, then only officials of an election board should facilitate their election process. After all questions from the constituents are answered, each resident must be given an opportunity to vote in private.
The commitment of a voter to consider the liberty of their fellow citizens is incumbent to the bonds of a national identity. A voter has every right to cast a ballot pursuant to their opinions and based upon their political ideology. But, we should never desire the destruction or the elimination of a fellow citizen’s determination for a moral pursuit of happiness.
Yesterday, President Biden called current attempts by certain state legislatures an effort to suppress or to subvert minority votes. He went so far as to call these laws “Jim Crow” legislation. This is unfair and unhelpful for the President to speak so invectively. If the President chooses to be partisan, he should at least direct his comments with regard to the load-bearing column of democracy. In so doing, he would reinforce the common bond of all citizens in their commitment to the American democratic process.
A national ID card would solve a majority of the problems. Technology would allow a person to vote at an accommodating ATM anywhere in the world and have their vote properly documented in the right precinct of the right state. This would meet all points of the criteria for a sound election process. Progressives are opposed to a national ID because they fear certain members of their constituency would be difficult to register. Conservatives are opposed to a national ID because they fear Big Brother government would control too much information. A further irony of political parties to the questions proposed by HR1 is that progressives, who advocate more government, want government to allocate authority to political parties for the conduction of certain aspects of the elections. And, conservatives, who decry big government, want total government control of the elections with less political party authority.
Tocqueville believed that materialism was the greatest threat to American democracy. He wondered when people realized that they could vote for a government that would give them material goods, would American society succumb to total government control. He actually used the term “become slaves of the government.”
Astonishingly, without the benefit of historical context from his native country or his upbringing, he came to the right conclusions. He believed that religion in America and the country’s spiritual commitment to God would balance the threat of obsession with materialism. This, in fact, was part of the conversation between John Wesley and Adam Smith that coined the term “free enterprise,” capitalism directed by Christian morality.
The load-bearing column of democracy is founded in the Christian humility of “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The whole of the competing forces of good and evil of mankind can be summarized in the great American experiment of self-government. Recognition of God and His moral imperatives, balanced against sinful man’s nature, creates the natural equilibrium of righteous self-government.
The original debate of the European intellects centering on the efficacy of self-government rages on yet today. China openly condemns the great American experiment as a failure. America stands with few sovereigns in the world, declaring liberty by law worth the pain and suffering to sustain freedom.
We are right. China is wrong. Keep the faith that the evident truth of unalienable rights, administered through righteous self-government, is eternal.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?