Recently Mitch McConnell GOP Senate Majority Leader blocked from coming to a vote via unanimous consent two Democratic bills aimed at tightening US Election security from foreign manipulation. Broadly one would have required paper records of each vote and the other would have required campaign reports attempts by foreign nationals and power to influence the election. For blocking these bills, and because the Russian interference in the 2016 that sought to assist Donald Trump in both the primary and the general election is ongoing many on the left gave McConnell the nickname ‘Moscow Mitch.’
Granted it did not look good but that may have been the point, in politics it is a common tactic to advance a proposition simply to force the opposition to vote it down or block because on the face it looks terrible when in fact there may be legitimate reason to defat any particular bill. Given that all of the recent foreign interference has benefits or sought to benefit the Republican Party it can’t be dismissed that at this time election security cuts against the GOP’s self-interest.
I poked around on general news, liberal, and conservative sites looking for various perspectives on these bills and McConnell’s action blocking them. Over at National Review I found a piece defending McConnell and that it very illuminating.
Rich Lowry’s defense of Leader McConnell falls into three major premises.
1) The American system localizes election and it is wrong for the Federal government to dictate to local officials how to conduct elections.
2) Broad legislation, law, and regulation are ‘more likely’ to capture minor and innocent transactions and incidents.
3) McConnell has already passed 380 million dollars of election security assistance.
In our federal system our election system is highly localized, so on that point Lowry is correct. Our decentralized election system has even been touted as a safeguard against electoral tampering because manipulating 8000 individual election authorities is vastly more difficult than attacking a single national system. And that would be argument for the safety and security of a decentralized system IFwe elected our president with the popular vote but the Electoral College turns that strength into a weakness. A bad actor seeking to manipulate our presidential contest doesn’t need to attack every election district in every state but rather merely a handful of districts in perhaps as few as one or two states to change the results of the election. Insisting on localism in this context means we are pitting the Cleveland Registrar of Voters against the combined might of the Russian Federation’s Security apparatus. This requiresfederal intervention.
To Lowry’s second element there is even less supporting his position. It is certainly a good ‘rule of thumb’ to consider how vast sweeping regulations and generalities interact with reality but when the focus is on a particular piece of law or proposed law then it becomes a requirement to showwhere it is overly broad and how that is counter-effective and Lowry’s doesn’t even attempt to do that. He spouts a platitude as though it is an argument and moves one.
Lowry’s third defense is also quite weak. 380 million dollars may sound like a lot of money to average people dealing with rent, utilities, and the minutia of life but in terms of large-scale projects it is a pittance. The reported budget for Avengers: Endgame is 350 million dollars and certainly securing out elections if vastly more critical than even a very entertaining Hollywood feature. Remember there are about 8000 election authorities in the United States and 380 million dollars works out to each one getting less than $5000. McConnell’s ‘assistance’ is barely more than lifting a finger.
Still, calling him ‘Moscow Mitch’ fair?
No, because his slavish devotion is to GOP power and not Moscow. If the Russians suddenly switched to helping the Democratic Party McConnell would become consumed with stopping them.
What we can say is that McConnell with his devotion to his party’s power at all costs and an utter disregard for all our political norms history and his willingness to advance our enemies cause if it helps his is that he is no patriot.
