Today's lead editorial in the Washington Post (in the print edition entitled "Action in Congress") warns that amidst all the focus on the Mueller investigation and speculation about Trump-team collusion with the Russians, the more serious and pressing issue is safeguarding our elections from future meddling. On this, little has been done. And that's because Trump has chosen to pretend the Russians didn't meddle (or meddled without consequence). Yet it seems certain that more attempts to meddle can be expected in Congressional elections later this year.
The Post urges that Congress address the issue by means of a legislative proposal cosponsored by Senators VanHollen (D-MD) and Rubio (R-FL), entitled "DETER" for short (and "Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines" for long). The idea is to pre-define such heavy sanctions upon any country shown to have meddled in our elections that they would have a deterrent effect. Indeed, Van Hollen and Rubio deserve credit for their initiative, and I fully agree Congress should pass it.
But the Post doesn't go far enough. I'm not personally very satisfied by trying to deal with election meddling after it has occurred. That doesn't provide much incentive for those politicians who may benefit from the interference to follow through with imposing sanctions later. (It certainly didn't this time.) So we also MUST have better security in our election process to prevent meddling at the source. This lies within the purview of state governments, where progress on this front unfortunately is inconsistent. Many states need to do more.
There is one "bright" spot (unfortunately in a very dark sense) for those who see Trump as the menace he is to our democratic processes and institutions. It strikes me his attempt to sweep election meddling under the rug, his ignoring clear evidence it took place, his denial that it might have benefited him ("tax reform" anyone?); and above all his failure to address it before the next election, might provide excellent bipartisan ground on which to base a serious case for impeachment. Realistically, we can't impeach him for a sexual dalliance (though the Republicans tried that with Bill Clinton, didn't they?). But failure to protect our free and fair elections? Let's go with it.
Comments