Last Thursday, former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee/voting rights activist/Wonder Woman analog Stacey Abrams endorsed West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s proposed revision of the For the People voting rights bill. Manchin’s proposal is a solid start: Among its provisions, it requires states to set aside fifteen consecutive days of early voting, bans partisan gerrymandering, establishes national voter ID standards (including unspecified “allowable” alternatives such as utility bills) and makes Election Day a national holiday. Abrams called Manchin’s proposal a “first and important step to preserving our democracy,” and it probably would go a decent way toward establishing some basic national election principles.
Mitch McConnell, however, who has never met a principle he couldn’t disregard, unsurprisingly came out opposed to Manchin’s proposal, which means it’s almost certainly dead in the Senate unless Manchin decides to nuke the filibuster. That would be an interesting development, since Republicans may prefer Manchin’s proposal (its voter ID standards seem designed to lure GOP support) to the bill Democrats may advance in its place if they don’t need Republican votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate.
Manchin’s proposal, however, does not require states to adopt no-excuse absentee voting or add extra polling sites in heavily populated areas to shorten wait times, the latter of which should be a national priority (metro Atlanta precincts have experienced wait times measured in hours in recent last elections). It also has nothing to say about efforts by current state legislatures to seize control of election administration from state and local election boards. This last one is a development that makes previous efforts to disenfranchise voters look petty by comparison. For years, Democrats have focused their energy on trying to prevent Republicans from infringing on voting rights with onerous voter ID laws or purges of voter rolls; now they’ve got to worry about right-wing state legislatures potentially nullifying electoral outcomes they don’t like. Democrats (no need to single out Manchin here; it’s a party priority) need to get on top of this before it’s too late not just for the party but for democracy in general.
Republican state legislative efforts to undermine the integrity of elections is all in response to Donald Trump’s Big Lie, which he’s been building up since he first ran for president in 2016. The Big Lie is premised on the belief that it is impossible for Trump to lose an election due to his self-evident popularity with the American people (many of whom silently support him to avoid public backlash.) The only way he could lose an election is if it was rigged, which is what he claims happened to him in 2020 when states loosened voting restrictions in the midst of the pandemic and certain municipalities—namely Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Phoenix, all in his view of the world mismanaged urban areas heavily populated by criminals and people of color—engaged in widespread voter fraud (you know, dead people voting, voting more than once, double counting votes, etc.)
Never mind that Trump overperformed the polls on Election Day and that few examples of voter fraud have surfaced from the 2020 election and that Trump has been setting this scenario up for years now because his fragile ego can’t handle the humiliation of defeat. The Big Lie is what the MAGA crowd needs to believe in order to justify their power grab. It’s what spurred on the rioters on 1/6. It’s what motivated Republican state legislatures to pass laws allowing them to meddle in election administration. And it’s what prompted the audit in Arizona of the state’s election results, a wild goose chase undertaken with no concern for election integrity or election security. Its purpose is not to find proof but to raise doubt. Its end result will either be a patently ridiculous and unsupportable claim that the election was indeed stolen from Trump or an assertion that there isn’t any evidence the election wasn’t rigged and that it is therefore not unreasonable to assume it was. And for the record, there also is no evidence that I’m not Batman, so hey, you never know…
There are some on the right who genuinely believe the Big Lie, some who use it just to troll the libs, and some who hope to exploit it in pursuit of their own political interests just as they hoped to ride Trump to power and then rein in his worst tendencies (not a great plan, by the way.) In many ways, the Big Lie doesn’t deserve to be dignified with a rebuttal, but it is dangerous how this form of grievance politics has taken on a life of its own. It’s already resulted in a man dressed as a Viking occupying the floor of the Senate; who knows where else it may lead if it is allowed to fester. The concern here isn’t only about the potential for more political violence, though. My worry is that the average American will come to regard all this hooey as either plausible enough for their reasonable consideration or just another partisan issue of which both sides have merit. A whole new tranche of voting restrictions becomes imaginable once the Big Lie gains that sort of legitimacy.
One can respond to the Big Lie by demanding proof of fraud or pointing out how Trump has been setting up this line of argument for years. You might even remind someone that Trump was the guy who suggested people inject themselves with bleach to protect themselves from COVID and that anyone who falls for his BS must be a real chump. Or, if the person you’re talking with is somewhat reasonable, you might try explaining to them just how dumb it would be for someone to commit voter fraud in the first place.
Just think about it: The act of voting itself is already highly irrational. If you asked someone to describe to you the perfectly rational voter, they would probably tell you that person would be someone who listed, ranked, and researched their political concerns; researched the positions of the candidates running for office; selected the candidate who best addressed those concerns; and then made sure to vote, which might include registering to vote, traveling to a polling place, waiting in line, or filling out an absentee ballot request. In actuality, the perfectly rational voter wouldn’t vote: They would realize the effort they put into the voting process was a highly inefficient use of their time and energy since it is extremely unlikely their one measly vote will determine the outcome of an election. Knowing the results of an election are likely to remain unchanged whether they voted or not, the perfectly reasonable voter would conclude they would be better off pursuing more productive endeavors, such as running an errand, working late, catching up on a TV show, playing with a child, going for a run, or visiting a friend. All those activities have a greater anticipated pay-off than voting in an election ultimately decided by 500,000 or 50,000 or 5,000 or 500 or 50 or even 5 votes.
We vote out of a sense of civic duty, in order to affiliate ourselves (even if only privately) with our fellow political tribe members, or to be able to claim we are actively engaged citizens. It’s not a rational act. But if it is already rather irrational to vote, just consider how irrational it would be for an individual to commit voter fraud, a crime that can be punished with fines and imprisonment. Why would someone dare to vote twice if the act undetected is unlikely to change the outcome but detected could result in jail time? Someone might argue it is already irrational to vote, meaning doing something irrational like voting twice wouldn’t be unexpected. The problem with that argument is that while people don’t see much of a downside to voting (in most cases, voting doesn’t take that much time or effort, is mostly harmless, and is kind of fun) there is a clear and high risk involved with committing voter fraud along with very little reward. Someone may respond that there would be greater reward if more people did it and knew they could get away with it, but if that were the case—that is, if there was a conspiracy involving enough people to swing an election—that would probably be a terribly kept secret that would draw the attention of authorities and whistleblowers, let alone the concern of down-ballot candidates whose much slimmer margins would suddenly be called into question.
Finally, someone might counter that election fraud doesn’t occur at the voter level but at the administrative level where officials can add thousands of fictional people to the rolls to cast thousands of fictional ballots for the officials’ preferred candidates. But all those fictional people need names and addresses and ballots that can be cross-referenced with actual names and addresses and ballots, all of which can be checked. To pull this off successfully—and one definitely wouldn’t do this unless they could guarantee a positive outcome, which would mean the involvement of thousands if not tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people—would require massive participation and an unattainable level of discipline over an extended period of time.
Unfortunately, rational arguments are unlikely to persuade those predisposed to conspiratorial fantasies, which remain seductive because they offer all-encompassing explanations for things we find inexplicable in terms even more reductive than basic logic or plain fact. Reason at this point won’t win over the MAGA crowd; at best, it can be used to keep the MAGA curious from drinking the Kool-Aid.
Reason—at least reason of this variety—also isn’t going to win over ten Republican senators to Joe Manchin’s voting rights proposal. Many continue their flirtation with the Big Lie knowing just how dangerous it is for American democracy. They’ve simply reasoned they can’t hang on to power without it and that entertaining it is a way to thrust themselves into a permanent majority. That’s Mitch McConnell’s cold reasoning at work. A rational Democrat would respond in kind and pass a voting rights bill into law with or without Republicans. Don’t be dissuaded when Lindsey Graham calls it a “power grab.” Yes, a new voting rights bill may make it easier for Democrats to vote by rolling back efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters. But it would also be the right thing to do, the smart thing to do, the honorable thing to do, and one of the best things we could do for democracy in this perilous time.
Photo credit: Dean Terry
—-
Column of the Day
“I’m a Conservative Who Believes Systemic Racism is Real” by Michael Gerson (Washington Post, June 21, 2021)
—-
Garbage Time
(Garbage Time theme song here)
The NBA playoffs this year have been interesting, if not exactly exciting. While some teams have played well, most have struggled, including some of the remaining squads. The Eastern Conference Quarterfinals in particular featured a lot of bewildering basketball: Star players who feared shooting, big blown leads, two-dimensional coaching. The Brooklyn-Milwaukee series seemed at the start like it could have been an NBA Finals match-up; by the 7th game, we were watching two struggling and exhausted teams hoping to ward off collapse.
With only four teams left, most of the regular season juggernauts—Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Utah, Denver—are out, while teams who could have made a deep run—notably the Lakers and the Nets—were hobbled by injuries. Last year’s finalists, the Lakers and the Heat, are long gone. With one exception that proves the point (more on that later) the past decade’s regular NBA Finals cast—LeBron James, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant—are nowhere to be found, as are all-stars like Luka Doncic, Joel Embiid, Damian Lillard, and NBA MVP Nikola Jokic.
What we have instead are four teams in largely uncharted NBA playoffs territory: The Milwaukee Bucks, the Atlanta Hawks, the Phoenix Suns, and the Los Angeles Clippers. The last time any of those teams played in the Finals was 1993, when Charles Barkley’s Suns couldn’t prevent the Chicago Bulls from threepeating. The Bucks last made it in 1974 when they lost to the Celtics; they won the title three years earlier behind an MVP performance by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who at the time was still going by the name Lew Alcindor. The Hawks, led by Bob Pettit, were in St. Louis when they last won the Finals in 1958, which was the only year between 1957 and 1966 when Bill Russell and the Celtics did not take home the championship. The Clippers, it goes without saying, have never been to a Finals.
These are odd circumstances for the NBA, which tends to crown dynastic teams rather than one-off champions. Since Magic Johnson arrived in the league some forty years ago ushering in the modern era of the NBA, only twelve teams have won the championship: The Los Angeles Lakers, the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia 76ers, the Detroit Pistons, the Chicago Bulls, the Houston Rockets, the San Antonio Spurs, the Miami Heat, the Dallas Mavericks, the Golden State Warriors, the Cleveland Cavaliers, and the Toronto Raptors. Of those twelve teams, four (Philadelphia, Dallas, Cleveland, and Toronto) have won it all only once. The remaining eight are repeat winners.
Beyond dynastic teams, though, NBA champions have been defined by dominant transcendent players: Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lakers), Larry Bird (Celtics), Moses Malone and Julius Erving (76ers), Isiah Thomas (Pistons), Michael Jordan (Bulls), Hakeem Olajuwon (Rockets), Tim Duncan (Spurs), Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant (Lakers), Kevin Garnett (Celtics), Dirk Nowitzki (Mavericks), LeBron James (Heat, Cavs, and Lakers), Dwyane Wade (Heat), Kawhi Leonard (Spurs and Raptors), and Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant (Warriors). Only the 2004 Detroit Pistons stand out as an anomaly here. That championship was over a decade removed from their 89-90 repeat, and their best player, Ben Wallace, only made it into the Hall of Fame this year. An athlete’s greatness is not dependent on winning a championship, but that comes closest to the truth in the NBA, where an elite player can more easily take over a series by imposing his will on his opponents.
This dominant-player thesis would therefore seem to favor the Clippers this year since they have Kawhi Leonard, who is aiming to win his third championship with his third team. Leonard, however, has reinjured the knee he hurt in San Antonio years ago and it’s unclear when he might return. Without him, the Clippers—even with Paul George—probably don’t have enough to get by the Suns.
Phoenix is a deep team and their coach Monty Williams has them playing inspired ball. Devin Booker is an up-and-coming star, although he may not quite crack the list of truly transcendent stars. Instead, the Suns may be led to a championship by the Point God Chris Paul (pictured above) who has been snakebit in the playoffs in the past but is fighting through adversity this time around (he sustained an injury against the Lakers in the first round that limited his effectiveness, and he’s currently out with a positive COVID diagnosis despite being vaccinated.) When Paul has been healthy, he’s looked great and way younger than his 36 years would suggest.
Paul has spent the past few seasons bouncing around between teams. He played for a good Clippers team alongside Blake Griffin, but that squad maxed out its potential every year in the second round. In Houston he took a backseat to James Harden, with whom he never quite meshed. Shipped to Oklahoma City for Russell Westbrook, Paul seemed exiled past his prime to a team looking to rebuild; instead, Paul revitalized his career and demonstrated he could still be the driving force behind a winning team. That season in OKC got him a contract in Phoenix, which seemed a strange fit at first but now looks genius. A championship for Paul this year would elevate him alongside James, Wade, Curry, Durant, and Leonard as iconic players of this era and cement his status as one of the all-time great point guards in league history.
Long-range sharpshooter Trae Young is the star of the Atlanta Hawks. He’s still young—only 22—and his supporting cast isn’t as fully developed as the other remaining playoff teams. Every year it seems one team plays past their potential, and this year it’s definitely the Hawks, who exposed the 76ers as a deeply flawed team. While Young can launch threes from the logo, that probably won’t be enough to prevent them from being swept by two-time MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo and the Bucks…or maybe the Hawks will win a game or two…or three or four. Who knows. The Bucks have not looked sharp during these playoffs, with Antetokounmpo once again thrown off his game in a post-season series. He seems hesitant to assert himself on drives while teams are practically encouraging him to shoot threes. Every foul shot is an adventure: He looks like a deer in headlights every time he steps to the line, and he takes forever to shoot it. He airballed two free throws in Game 7 the other night. Something—the pressure, the expectations, his and the Bucks’ recent playoff history—has psyched him out, and it’s affecting every aspect of his game. Meanwhile, the rest of the Bucks can’t quite get it together either. All-star Khris Middleton has looked terrible in road games. If the playoffs are about adjustments from game to game, coach Mike Budenholzer seems at a loss when he has to move beyond a Giannis drive and dish or dunk. Still, despite these problems, they should cruise past Atlanta.
Things will get infinitely more difficult for Milwaukee if they reach the Finals. If the Clippers get Leonard back at 100%, that series would be fairly even; without Leonard, the Clippers don’t have a chance. Leonard’s glove-like defense would flummox Antetokounmpo in a Finals showdown, and the Bucks would fold in six max. Deandre Ayton of the Suns would offer an easier but still difficult match-up for Antetokounmpo. Ayton’s presence, Booker’s tenacity, and Paul’s leadership would be enough to pull the Suns across the finish line while the Bucks struggle to pull it together. That will be my Finals prediction: Suns in 6, with Booker MVP and Paul elevated to the upper echelon of NBA greats.
Still, Antetokounmpo is the best player left in the playoffs, meaning it may be his turn to hoist the championship trophy above his head. If so, it may mark a changing of the guard in the NBA from the LeBron/Curry/Durant/Leonard era to…well, I’d guess the next era will be defined by Antetokounmpo and Doncic at least, although I’m not ruling out an encore by a fully healthy and loaded Nets, Lakers, or Warriors next season. For the moment at least, NBA history seems up in the air.
Thanks for reading.
Photo credit: SkySports.com
Exit Music: “Ain’t Nobody” by Rufus and Chaka Khan (1983, Stompin’ at the Savoy)