BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen
I voted early in the US midterms because I was going to be out of the country on Election Day itself. Before entering the voting area, I chatted to both Democrat and Republican party representatives standing by, ready to give voters information about the candidates and policy initiatives on the ballot.
Speaking first to the Republican party representatives, I heard such a series of whopping distortions about current political issues, that my jaw literally dropped. It brought home to me just how much the Trump administration’s practice of serial dishonesty has seeped down to the rank and file level, turning even relatively normal Republican party members into willing accomplices, in their desperate attempt to cling onto power.
The person I spoke to was an elegantly dressed, middle-aged woman, who reminded me exactly of the kind of well-spoken, middle-class women who used to run charity events or bake sales for Conservative candidates in the UK Home Counties in the 1970s. After introducing myself to her as a relatively new voter, willing to be persuaded, I asked her to convince me why I should vote for her party.
Instead of talking about national level issues, or the candidates running for office in my district, she immediately opted to talk about three specific constitutional amendment proposals which are also on the ballot in Virginia.
According to the leaflets provided by the state, the first proposal is aimed at enshrining reproductive rights in the Virginia constitution, including the right to make personal decisions concerning prenatal care, childbirth, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management and fertility care, and to protect doctors, nurses and patients from being punished for their decisions. The proposed language includes provision for the State to be able to regulate abortion care in the third trimester (ie: restrict it), but allows for abortion care in all circumstances when it is medically needed to protect the life and health of the patient, or when the foetus is not viable.
This is against a backdrop of many states introducing more restrictive measures on abortion following the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 overturning Roe vs Wade, which previously guaranteed reproductive rights at the federal level. Since then, there have been numerous cases of women in states such as Texas being forced to carry unviable pregnancies to term, of being denied medical care during miscarriages, and of medical staff being threatened with prosecution if they provide such medical care.
But according to my Republican lady, the proposal was primarily a backdoor way for allowing abortion without limits, removing parental authority, allowing sterilisation and transgender procedures, and the “unregulated sale and purchase of human embryos leading to the exploitation of women.” When I asked her to show me where in the proposed amendment it said all these things, she said she did not actually have it to hand.
The second ballot initiative proposes to amend the Virginia state constitution to enshrine the right to same sex marriages, and for all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law – both of which, astonishingly, are still prohibited in the Virginia state constitution, though protected at a federal level following a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2015. The proponents of the amendment have argued that it is important to enshrine the right at state level as well, in case a future Supreme Court decides to overturn its previous decision, as it did concerning abortion rights.
However, again, according to my Republican lady, and her leaflet, the real agenda was “trans-ideology”, including allowing males in female sports and spaces. Again, she was unable to show me the precise language in the amendments making these points.
So, I walked to the Democrat booth, where I was given a leaflet setting out the actual proposed new wording – and sure enough, there was absolutely nothing in them about transgender issues, sale of embryos, or any of the other alleged horrors she described. The proposed amendments were exactly as described in the official summary.
When I returned to the Republican table to show them the language, and ask them to clarify how it chimed with their allegations, they refused to discuss it, saying I obviously had an agenda.
So we never got round to discussing the third amendment, which proposes lifting the current ban in Virginia on convicted felons ever being able to vote again, unless they get a special exemption from the Governor, to allow them to rejoin the democratic process once they have served their time. However, the explanation I read in their handout turned out to be equally specious – arguing in capital letters that the main aim was “expanding rights to MURDERERS, RAPISTS, PEDOPHILES, AND MENTALLY INCOMPETENT” (sic).
Of course, I can understand why many voters might feel queasy about allowing any violent offenders the chance to vote again, but the existing rules virtually eliminate any chance at rehabilitation and atonement – surely the kind of Christian virtues many conservatives embrace.
In practice, it also would not actually apply to the most violent offenders, such as those guilty of aggravated forms of murder, since they receive mandatory life sentences. Moreover, the hypocrisy of the Republican stance on this issue is also off the charts, given the naked grift, criminality, and cover-up of the Epstein files by the Trump administration, and Trump’s pardoning of hundreds of convicted criminals on the flimsiest of reasons.
I then tried to talk to the Republican lady about her wider reasons for supporting the party. She said she was originally a Democrat, then became an Independent voter, then a Republican, because of the economy. So I asked her if the price of petrol or groceries had gone up or down under Trump. She insisted gas prices were lower than under President Biden. When I later cross-checked her argument, I discovered she was right that gas prices had once briefly been higher under Biden – climbing over $5 in 2022 shortly after the invasion of Ukraine – but had been lower than today’s prices for 95% of his Presidency.
I asked if she supported Hegseth’s proposal to live stream the execution of a criminal on a US military base. She said this had only been a suggestion – even though Hegseth had actually declared it was going to happen, until he was overruled by Trump.
I asked if she thought it appropriate for the President to threaten to invade a NATO partner country in order to take control of Greenland. She said that it was necessary for the US to have Greenland for national security, and that anyway, the US hadn’t ended up attacking Denmark since a deal had been reached. I asked how she would feel if Britain declared it needed Alaska for its national security, or France decided it wanted New Orleans back. Would it be acceptable for them to threaten the US with military action if it refused to hand these territories over? She refused to reply.
I asked if she thought it was appropriate for President Trump to say to a female reporter “Quiet, Piggy”. She said it was misrepresented by the media. I asked how she would feel if I told her “Quiet, Piggy.” Wouldn’t she be offended? I pushed her to agree that the President had actually said those words. She kept saying that the incident was misrepresented, and the media were always unfairly attacking the President.
My last question was if she thought it appropriate that the President had pardoned the January 6th insurrectionists, to which she replied “there was no insurrection.”
I will admit that by the end of our conversation I was going out of my way to ask provocative questions. She and her colleagues became so irritated that they eventually threatened to call the police on me. But by then, I had become so gobsmacked, that I was happy to walk away.
I came away from the encounter shocked to the core. She came across as a decent person, someone who probably thought of herself as a pillar of society, doing her civic duty by engaging in the political process. Ordinarily, she probably would deplore political violence, or declining standards in public life. Yet, here she was, dismissing the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and wilfully distorting policy issues.
It was a classic example of how the serial dishonesty displayed at the top levels of the Republican party has now seeped down to the ordinary rank and file members. No doubt, Republicans will argue, not entirely without cause, that many Democrats have been guilty of similar distortions – though surely none as serious as denying the gravity of what happened on 6 January.
My Republican lady was obviously an educated woman, who could not genuinely plead ignorance. Either she had decided it was necessary to do whatever it took to stop, in her mind, the appalling prospect of a Democrat administration. Or, she has become so brainwashed by the lies spewed out by her party, that she can no longer distinguish between fact and fiction.
Either way, it’s a worrying example of the degree to which political life has become degraded in America. In the run up to the midterms, many analysts have good reason to worry about the extent to which the Trump administration might try to invalidate the elections, for example, by challenging outcomes in court, claiming illegal voting, seizing ballot boxes or machines, alleging foreign interference etc. But even if most of these efforts fail, more lasting damage to America’s democracy has already been done, in the form of turning too many good citizens into willing liars.
