I Hate Federal Commissions, But Americans Need One To Look Into The 2020 Election – JONATHAN TURLEY

I Hate Federal Commissions, But Americans Need One To Look Into The 2020 Election – JONATHAN TURLEY

One of the people I follow is Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. I first heard about Turley when he testified during the Trump impeachment hearings. Although Turley is a Republican he stated during the hearing that he did not vote for Trump in 2016. He also has frequently criticized Trump in his blog. From reading his blog posts I've concluded that he tries to be objective.

In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 Trump rally in which some of his supporters stormed the Capitol Turley posted his call for a federal commission to look into the 2020 election. I've extracted several key quotes below.

I hate federal commissions. I have always hated federal commissions. Federal commissions are Washington’s way of managing scandals. They work like placebos for political fevers, convincing voters that answers and change are on the way. That is why it is so difficult for me to utter these words: We need a federal election commission. Not the one proposed by some Senate Republicans. And not like past placebo commissions. An honest-to-God, no-holds-barred federal commission to look into the 2020 presidential election.

          ... 

There are three reasons why the need for a real commission is needed:

►First, and most important, this was an unprecedented election in the reliance of mail-in voting and the use of new voting systems and procedures. We need to review how that worked down to the smallest precincts and hamlets.

►Second, possibly tens of millions of voters believe that this election was rigged and stolen. I am not one of them. However, the integrity of our elections depends on the faith of the electorate.

Roughly 40% of that electorate have lingering doubts about whether their votes actually matter. Most of the cases challenging the election were not decided on the merits. Indeed, it seems they haven’t even been allowed for discovery. Instead, they were largely dismissed on jurisdictional or standing groups or under the “laches” doctrine that they were brought too late. Those allegations need to be conclusively proven or disproven in the interests of the country.

►Third, there were problems. There was not proof of systemic fraud or irregularities, but there were problems of uncounted votes, loss of key custodial information and key differences in the rules governing voting and tabulations.

We have spent billions to achieve greater security and reliability after prior election controversies. Indeed, we had a prior election commission that failed to achieve those fundamental goals.

...

The stakes are too high to allow even a dust particle to tip the difference on the ultimate findings. The dust-free option requires a dependent, not independent, commission. Otherwise, the public will be the loser.

So, let’s have a commission, but let’s make it a real one.

Turley admits that if a commission is appointed (which I find highly unlikely) it will take years to complete its work. Therefore it won't satisfy those who question the validity of the 2020 election. I agree with Turley's reasons for investigating the current voting procedures, especially the mail-in ballots and the Dominion voting machines. If we, the voting public, are to trust that our vote truly counts we need to believe that our vote is being counted.

How “Silence is Violence” Can Become Compelled Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY

How “Silence is Violence” Can Became Compelled Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY

Jonathan Turley’s essay identifies a trend that is surfacing: “failing to utter certain words, prayers or pledges is deemed a confession of complicity or guilt.” He cites this an example.

This week, a mob surrounded diners (https://www.businessinsider.com/white-protesters-confront-dinersduring-black-lives-matter-protest-2020-8) outside several Washington restaurants, shouting “White silence is violence!” and demanding that diners raise a fist to support Black Lives Matter. Various diners dutifully complied as protesters screamed inches from their faces. One did not — Lauren Victor, who later said she has marched in protests for weeks but refused to be bullied. The mob surrounded her, and Washington Post reporter Fredrick Kunkle identified a freelance journalist (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/08/25/dc-protesters-blmdiner-confrontation/) as one of the people yelling at Victor and demanding: “What was in you, you couldn’t do this?”

Later Turley says:

The transition from speech codes to commands is based on the same notion of “speech as harm.” Just as speech is deemed harmful (and thus subject to regulation), silence is now deemed harmful.

Turley doesn’t talk about where the idea of speech as harm arose but Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt do in their The Coddling of the American Mind. They refer to a 2017 The New York Times essay by Lisa Feldman Barrett, professor of psychology and emotion researcher at Northeastern University, in which Barrett claims: “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech – at least certain types of speech – can be a form of violence.” Turley’s example above shows that now it’s not enough to avoid politically incorrect language or even “micro-aggressions” where you can be taken to task even for unintentionally using the wrong words. Now even silence can be wrong. As he says, “the appetite for collective suppression will become a demand for collective expression.”

Turley’s use of the word “collective” twice in the same sentence reveals an issue I have with the constant drive to police expression: the drive to suppress individual thought. One side believes they have a monopoly on moral rectitude. So disagreement automatically means you’re immoral. You’re expected to purge your mind of “bad thoughts.”

I recall when I was going to Catholic Church in my youth we were taught that bad thoughts were as sinful as bad actions. (If I may take a slight and somewhat crude detour, George Carlin had a great skit on this where he says just thinking about “feeling up Ellen” consisted of multiple sins. It was a sin for you to want to feel up Ellen. It was a sin for you to plan to feel up Ellen. It was a sin for you to figure out a place to feel up Ellen. It was a sin to take Ellen to the place to feel her up. It was a sin to try to feel her up and it was a sin to feel her up. There were six sins in one feel!)

I have a reason for bringing up George Carlin and religion. As a former Roman Catholic, I was raised to believe humans are born with Original Sin, that we are all sinful by nature

My point is that we are expected to all think and speak alike. No diversity of opinion of allowed. It’s almost like we’re expected to plug into the Borg collective where not only is resistance futile, so is disagreement. (If you’re not familiar with my reference to the Borg collective the Borg was a cybernetic life form in Star Trek Next Generation that conquered other species then absorbed them into the Borg collective where each member became a drone with no individual free will. This link explains in more detail. When confronting the Star Trek crew, the Borg drones would say, “Resistance is futile.”) 

A kernel of truth lies under the concern of using language that can make people feel diminished, abused or oppressed. Pushing the idea that there is no such thing as an innocent misuse of language washes out the validity of this concern. Instead, ALL language that doesn’t meet these speech codes (as Turley calls them) means the person who uttered them is sinful, regardless of intent. Ultimately, it’s a no-win situation. The ultimate result squelches individual thought.

If you don’t agree that silence is violence then these people feel it’s OK to use violence, the physical kind, to silence you. Ultimately speech control boils down to thought control.