LISTEN HERE
They want to see your ID at the rally. At the polls? That’s different.
There’s something wonderfully revealing about politicians who suddenly discover the importance of identification when it’s their own event.
On Saturday’s show, I brought up an example involving Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and a campaign event featuring Hasan Piker.
Attendees reportedly had to present identification matching their registration information.
Imagine that.
You want to attend a political rally? Show us who you are.
But suggest that voters should have to identify themselves at the polls, and suddenly we’re having a national conversation about discrimination, access, and the terrible burden of producing an ID.
Now, Michigan already asks voters for photo identification, with an affidavit option for those who don’t have it. The argument is over how strict those requirements should be.
And that’s a debate worth having.
But what interests me is the difference in attitude.
When campaigns want to control admission to their own events, checking identification becomes a perfectly ordinary precaution.
When election officials propose additional identity checks, the conversation becomes considerably more complicated.
I brought this up while arguing with my good friend Chris, a Democrat who regularly calls the program.
Chris and I disagree about plenty, especially elections. But I kept coming back to a simple question: Why is asking someone to establish their identity considered reasonable in one setting and objectionable in another?
And here’s something else that bothers me.
For years, debates about voter ID have included arguments about whether minority voters face greater difficulties obtaining acceptable identification.
Those concerns deserve to be examined on their actual merits, including the cost, availability, and accessibility of identification.
But I reject the suggestion that Black Americans are somehow incapable of obtaining an ID. I’ve heard enough of that kind of condescension over the years.
I’ve learned to pay close attention to the assumptions hiding inside political arguments.
Sometimes the most revealing part isn’t what politicians say they believe.
It’s how quickly their standards change when the circumstances change.
So here’s my question.
If identification is a sensible precaution when you’re deciding who gets through the door at a campaign event, why shouldn’t we be able to discuss sensible identification requirements for elections without the political fireworks?
That seems like a perfectly reasonable conversation.
And I’d love to hear somebody answer it without immediately changing the subject.
— Bo
LOOK FOR RUSH HOUR IN THE DAILY BS BLASTS TUESDAY – SAT!
Look out for the Rush Hour link Tuesday – Saturday in your Daily BS email blast.
