Zachary Roth

I missed hearing about Robert Kennedy’s assassination for two days thanks to a camping trip. I was just a child at the time but ever since I have been a news junkie. Thanks to that I was already aware of most of the laws that Zachary Roth mentions in his book, The Great Suppression : voting rights, corporate cash, and the conservative assault on democracy. What made me feel inadequate was how I missed putting the big picture together.

Suppressing the number of voters in demographics that show more might not agree with their conservative policies has been an obvious tactic of the GOP for years. Decades if you look at our nation's history. In fact, “We the People” included only white male property owners at the time of the nations founding. Roth points out that voter suppression is just the tip of the iceberg. The GOP, the party of small government, is pushing push to restrict our right to self rule. Over and over Roth pointed out GOP initiatives, often written with the corporate special interest group ALEC, designed to reduce America's local government’s powers to pass lawS not favoring corporate special interests.

Roth exposes anti-democratic (small D democratic) policies that the GOP is using to restrict every individual citizen’s rights. True “small government” conservatives should read this book. Any American that values the ability of people to decide the course their government should read this book. show less

I had a terrible time reading this book. My problems had nothing to do with the quality of the book. Indeed, it was very well-written. The narrative style was good and the book had excellent access points which made it easy to cross-reference and ease my way into the content. There was an introduction; table of contents; acknowledgements; exhaustive notes and an index. (My copy which was an uncorrected proof/not for sale publication did not contain an index - only the pages where it would be show more in the published copy. It is a shame because I would have used it extensively. I received this copy as part of Library Thing’s early review program.) I checked many of the notes and they were correct. I extended my reading because of the notes and bibliographical references. They were compelling.
What is my problem, you may ask? My problem was the subject matter. I spent many minutes (too many to count) violently cursing, gagging, shouting, snarling and just plain furious.
THE GREAT SUPPRESSION: VOTING RIGHTS, CORPORATE CASH, AND THE CONSERVATIVE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY by Zachary Roth (national reporter for MSNBC) exposes the roots of the Republican Party’s premeditated, deliberate, unethical, outrageous, disgusting, devious, calculating assault on the democratic principles and laws of the United States. The Republican super-rich and corporate interests control the GOP and mandate adherence to certain policies which cast aside average citizens as unimportant non-beings who do not deserve the right to vote or to elect their own community leaders. The Republican Party wants to limit voting by undesirables (think poor, certain religions & certain ethnicities); they pour corporate and think tank money into campaigns; practice preemption tactics (this is an interesting theory); use gerrymandering to control regions of the country; and manipulate Congressional rules. This is just the beginning.
If you read the epilogue which highlights the problems in Flint, Michigan, you will experience every one of the GOP’s vicious, deliberate assaults on U.S. democracy.
The book is not a debate or discussion. It is a documented, well-researched, factual account of the Republican Party’s goal to suppress democratic principles so as to advance their own agenda of supremacy of the rich.
Read this book. I double-dog dare you. show less

The problem with trying to review any book about political issues is that bias is unavoidable. How can a reviewer be objective about something that is inherently subjective? I’ll try to keep it simple and focused.

Roth’s general thesis in The Great Suppression is that Conservatives (Republicans are not targeted as a party) have strongly pursued measures that limit the political voice of minority and lower SES Americans in an intentional effort to limit full democracy. The book attempts to show more demonstrate this and to highlight the weak defenses for these measures. These defenses run the gamut from pointing out the Founders’ intent to relying on misleading or insubstantial data (e.g. 2 cases of in-person voter fraud since 2000 to justify Texas’ new voter ID laws). In one instance (*I think it was in discussing NC gerrymandering issues*), a legislator argued that redrawing the districts to redistribute democratic votes was legal since it did not use race as a factor – an argument built on a lack of concern for the democratic process.

However, what is most disconcerting here is the way Roth implicitly frames the Conservative movement as willing to bend its own ideology in an effort to achieve its own ends (i.e. controlling each branch of government at both the state and federal level). For years, the general consensus among Conservatives has been to scale back regulation and legislation at the federal level and allow it to happen at the state and local levels. Yet, Conservative politicians began to lead a “preemption” movement to prevent local governments from passing bills related to wage increases or more inclusive voting practices (see Ch 3).

I am sure that many conservative reviewers may ask Roth to turn some of the arguments back onto Democrats or Liberals. I believe this is a valid request and something that I would have liked to see more honesty in. The only real occasion that Roth attempted to demonstrate his awareness of a counterargument was in reference to the legalization of same-sex marriages and its effect on county governments: “But we didn’t wring our hands about the threat to local democracy…” (79). I also disagreed with Roth’s assertion that the Electoral College has a “small state bias” (147), though he clearly explained his reasoning.

I would not characterize Roth’s style as polemical or aggressive (or really even angry); I think he is simply flabbergasted. Biased though he his, I would recommend Conservatives read through this for a chance to consider their actions from another perspective. In saying that I am not suggesting that Roth could not also benefit from a conservative rebuttal to his work. Our willingness to enter into healthy debate and compromise – something that members of both major parties seem unwilling or unable to do – is the only effective way to heal what many (on both sides) feel is a broken democratic system. 4 stars (with the admission that I agree with many of Roth’s arguments)

Thanks to LibraryThing and Crown for this ARC. show less

This was a difficult book. Difficult, because I was brought up to think that American democracy works. But I'm white, and female but born late enough that of course I will get to vote. Probably always.
Roth details multiple ways in which the right of folks not like me -- Black people, brown people, poor people -- to vote has been increasingly limited through various strategems. Those were interesting enough, and have been detailed in the news as they've been introduced, and litigated. Voter show more ID laws. Closing of early voting opportunities. Most recently this week, the refusal of FL to extend voter registration deadlines even as Hurricane Matthew bore down on the state. Equally interesting were the chapters explaining how local governance by the people gets overturned on the state and national level if the will of the (local) people isn't in line with the interests of government. This flies in the face of the Conservative idea of states' rights (and the corresponding local rights, for those cases where it's the state that imposes on its people). And the ways that election donation money buys politicians and effectively disenfranchises the middle and poor classes is nothing surprising as well. Disappointing, yes, and what can you do but shake your head and say, but what really can someone like me do?
But what was challenging about this was Roth's description of the philosophical underpinnings of the idea that some people should be disenfranchised: that the wealthy, the educated, those used to being in charge, know more how to keep the government functioning for all. It was challenging because yes, today I'm distressed that Black voters in SC are having their access to voting limited. Because I think their interests, and their rights, are rights for all. But I'm also sitting here looking at the latest about Trump, and how Evangelical Christians are still overwhelmingly supportive of his candidacy, and thinking, these crazy people, these people who put their version of religion over the basic rights of all (against even the Old Testament prophets and the model of Jesus' care for the poor), these ignorant masses of poor people VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS in the name of ideology, these racists -- wouldn't it be nice if we could just keep them from voting? (And if they don't get their way, they'll vote with their guns.) That makes me a hypocrite, because in my heart I too think that some folks just shouldn't be allowed to vote.
OTOH, would I keep them from voting? I'm not sure I would...but I sure would drag them off to get some education. Force them to meet and interact with people not like them. Force them to learn some economics. To engage in some critical thinking about their religion, and maybe even actually read the Bible for themselves, instead of listening to their demagogue preachers. And then I'd let them vote.
But I sure as hell don't want them voting in November -- just as I sure don't want to see Black, or Latino, or whatever, citizens kept from voting. show less