“Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act,” US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) thundered. It is “designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice.”

File under “every accusation is a confession.”

SCOTUS’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais quashed the argument that Louisiana is not just permitted, but required, to gerrymander congressional districts for the purpose of ensuring that candidates from — and claiming to collectively represent because REASONS — particular racial groups are nearly guaranteed to win election. Good for the court.

Jeffries is big mad. Why?

His criticism assumes, absent any rational basis, that all members of any “community of color” can, will, and must choose to support and vote for ONLY candidates from that “community.” And it assumes, again absent any rational basis, that voters who are not members of that “community” can, will, and must choose to support and vote ONLY for candidates who aren’t part of said “community.”

That view is no different its essence than claims that black people — ALL black people — prefer fried chicken and watermelon for lunch between the crack binges they go on right after picking up their welfare checks. And that white people —  ALL white people — keep robes, hoods, and nooses hanging in their closets to haul out for entertainment purposes between meals of white bread and cheap domestic beer with methamphetamine chasers.

Jeffries is, in other words, openly and virulently racist.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The right to vote does not imply any guarantee of Pantone Matching System [TM] closeness in skin tone between the candidates elected and the voting majorities in districts. Nor should it.

If you’re voting on the basis of skin color, You. Are. A. Racist.

If you choose to vote, there are many other things to base your vote on than the candidates’ races, and almost all of those things are better criteria.

What are the candidates’ positions on the policy issues you care about?

Are the candidates of good moral fiber?

Are the candidates upstanding and contributing members of the whole district “community” rather than just beholden to one racial subgroup of that community?

“Representative government” is difficult if not impossible even with no racism involved. Assuming that all people of a particular sex, occupation, ZIP code, etc. have similar interests or needs is just as irrational as basing such assumptions on race.

I suspect there are still quite a few racists among us, although thankfully fewer than there used to be.

But if we’re going to engage in the charade of “representative government” (I consider that a myth and a fantasy), we shouldn’t cater to them by drawing districts to  enshrine their views in that system.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In the wake of Cole Tomas Allen’s alleged attempt to assassinate US president Donald Trump and/or other political officials, journalists, and general-purpose celebrities come the usual calls for “gun control” because that’s just how things work.

My preferred argument against such nonsense leans hard on morality (it’s evil to infringe on the unalienable human right to self-defense) with a chaser of overall practicality (more than 100 million Americans own several hundred million guns and won’t be giving them up without a fight you do NOT want to witness).

However, it occasionally it seems worthwhile to change lanes and instead examine just how well “gun control” actually works in practice.  This is one of those times.

On April 21, Allen boarded an Amtrak train in Los Angeles, California.

California generally, and Los Angeles specifically,  have some of the strictest “gun control” laws on the books, and Amtrak only allows firearms to be carried in locked, checked baggage, with prior written notice/declaration, none of which conditions Allen complied with.

After switching trains in Chicago, IL, he arrived in Washington, DC, on April 24 and checked into the Washington Hilton. Like California, Illinois and the District of Columbia have strict “gun control” laws on the books, none of which Allen complied with.  The Hilton forbids firearms on its premises other than those carried by “law enforcement personnel.” Allen ignored that rule.

The following day, carrying the 12-gauge shotgun and .38-caliber pistol he’d brought with him over a trip spanning more than 2,000 miles in, from, and through various “gun control” zones, he attempted to charge  a security checkpoint and reach the hotel’s International Ballroom, intending violence.

“Gun control” had chance after chance after chance to prove it could thwart Allen’s plans.

And. It. Didn’t.

Whoa … violent criminals don’t obey “gun control” laws and private venue gun rules any more than they obey other kinds of laws and rules? Whodathunkit?

It’s not that the laws and rules aren’t adequately enforced. The only way to reliably prevent Allen from traveling from LA to DC with guns would have been to force him to travel on foot and buck naked … after which he’d have almost certainly been able to buy a gun on the street if he wanted one.

“Gun control” laws aren’t just evil and impractical, they’re stump-stupid.  As a solution to the violence of criminals they make about as much sense as a gaudy new White House ballroom.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On April 25, one Cole Allen allegedly charged a security checkpoint outside the Washington Hilton ballroom where many of the nation’s most prominent politicians, journalists, and entertainers were gathered for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, bearing both arms and ill will toward some or all of those inside — almost certainly including US president Donald Trump.

I’ve been in that ballroom. I’ve also been outside the exit, mere feet away, where there’s a historical plaque commemorating the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, by John Hinckley, in 1981.  I was there even as Donald Trump was too, campaigning for the support of several thousand anti-government extremists at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention. At which event, it’s worth noting, no one tried to kill him (that I know of, anyway).

Allen was quickly taken down after shooting a  Secret Service agent (whose bulletproof vest fortunately stopped the bullet). It seems unlikely that he’ll get much enjoyment out of his future lifestyle. And whatever the reasons for his resort to attempted political assassination, the attempt almost certainly didn’t serve his desired ends … and wouldn’t have even if he’d been successful.

This is not the part where I clutch my pearls about the evils of “political violence.” There’s no creature on Earth more violent than a politician, albeit usually at arm’s length and behind a wall of security to insulate him or her from negative consequences.

Politics IS violence, and I don’t see how shooting a politician is inherently any more immoral than, say, ordering the murder of an eight-year-old American girl (Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki) or the bombing of a school in Iran, both of which Trump himself bears responsibility for.

But it’s probably no LESS immoral, either.

I’m no pacifist. I fully support violence in immediate self-defense of one’s own life or the lives of innocent others, and you won’t find me shedding any tears for those who, having overseen and ordered non-defensive violence, eventually pay the ultimate price for their misdeeds.

BUT!

When considering an attempt to kill someone, even if the target arguably deserves to die, the likely consequences of one’s own actions are worth considering.

If Donald Trump — or any other president — dies at the hands of an assassin, two such consequences follow as night follows day.

First, that president becomes a martyr. His party and/or movement become stronger, not weaker. Some of the things he or she was trying to accomplish become far more likely to happen through a process of lionization and memorialization. The assassination of John F. Kennedy arguably resulted in (to name two big things) passage of the Civil Rights Act and the moon landing. Both things might have happened anyway, but his death put them on rails.

Second, the regime that president led opportunistically uses the assassination to expand its police and surveillance powers, and clamp down on dissent. Especially the varieties of dissent associated with the assassin’s persona.

If you happen to be “anti-Trump,” the LAST thing you should want is for him to die violently in office.

Or, for that matter, even non-violently. If he has a perfectly ordinary fatal coronary tomorrow, he’ll still get the “martyr effect” (and a certain sub-set of his supporters will forever suspect foul play regardless of the evidence).

Absent  revolution, which seems unlikely in this country and at this time, taking out figurehead politicians empowers rather than enervates their supporters, cronies, and hangers-on.

Don’t like Trump, personally or politically? Your best bet is to persuade others to agree with you and start building sentiment and  infrastructure for better times …  then wait him out. His time will come without your violent assistance.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY