August 19, 2025 • 20 mins
People-powered, AI-Generated
Season 10, Episode 3
In our 3rd episode of season 10, we focus on how voter suppression in combination with climate change is suppressing the vote by design to keep authoritarians and oligarchs in power:
https://guywolf070425.substack.com/p/the-heat-of-suppression-when-voting?r=5d8qd2
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're the show that well dives
deep into complex topics, pulling from different sources
to give you the key insights youneed to stay informed.
That's the goal, trying to cut through the noise.
Exactly. And today, we're exploring
something that's really shaping our world, sometimes subtly,
sometimes quite forcefully. It's this idea of heat.
(00:22):
And look, we're not just talkingabout the literal heat.
You know, these record-breaking summers.
NOAA confirmed summer 2024 was the hottest ever recorded.
And we all felt that. Yeah, absolutely unavoidable.
But no, we're pivoting. We're looking at another kind of
heat, maybe more insidious a a, a profound pressure that's
building on democracy itself. Right.
(00:42):
And the main source we're looking at today puts it in
really stark terms. It really does.
Yeah. It argues that democracy isn't
lost in some, you know, big dramatic collapse.
Instead, it claims it's quote stolen in the silence of
suffering. That phrase really lands,
doesn't it? Stolen in the silence of
suffering, it immediately makes you think differently about how
rights might erode. Yeah, you picture big obvious
(01:03):
things, but this suggests something quieter, maybe more
gradual. And potentially just as
damaging, if not more so, because it's harder to see
happening. Absolutely.
So that's our mission for this deep dive to unpack how
fundamental democratic rights, especially voting, are, well,
according to this source, being systematically undermined.
(01:25):
We're looking at policies that the source describes as like
deliberately designed to create suffering, to create exclusion.
Making the very act of participating, like casting a
vote, risky for certain people. And we want to explore the real
cost of that, not just for the individuals affected, but, you
know, for the whole democratic system.
Yeah, the fabric of it all. Our main source today is an
(01:47):
article called The Heat of Suppression when voting becomes
a risk to your life, right. It was published by Educate the
Planet, and interestingly, they used to be known as Educate the
Resistance. OK, so the article offers a
pretty stark and thought provoking look at how democratic
processes might be getting eroded.
It goes beyond just, you know, the usual political back and
forth. It digs into the mechanics you
(02:08):
mean. Exactly the sort of granular
ways power can be held onto by, well, controlling who gets to
the ballot box easily. OK, so our goal today is really
to get past the headlines. You might see we want to
understand the the nuanced tactics of voter suppression as
this article lays them out. Connecting the dots maybe
between things that seem separate, yes.
(02:29):
Connecting seemingly disparate actions to what the source
argues is a bigger strategy. We'll look at the real world
impact on people. Like actual stories?
Yeah, analyze the motivations behind it, at least as the
author interprets them, and crucially, talk about how maybe
awareness, maybe collective action, could work as resistance
against this, this quiet erosion.
(02:52):
OK. Sound like a plan?
OK, let's unpack this. So the article starts with this
really strong metaphor, doesn't it?
This heat idea. Yeah, draws a parallel.
Right between the literal environmental heat, the record
summers, the heat waves, and this other kind of heat being
applied to democracy. And it's clear, the source
argues, this political heat isn't like a natural weather
(03:12):
pattern. No, definitely not, it says.
It's a pressure on democracy itself, that is, And this is the
key phrase created by design. Created by design, so
intentional. That's the core argument.
Not an accident, not a side effect, but a deliberate
application of strain on the system.
And that leads into this really striking phrase.
(03:32):
The source uses cruelty as a policy tool.
It's a hard phrase. It is.
It suggests that some lawmakers are actively, quote, weaponizing
both the climate, that literal heat, and their legislative
power. So it's not just about policy
outcomes, but the intent behind them.
That's what the source claims that it's about.
(03:53):
Well, intentional cruelty being sort of woven into the laws
themselves. Which is a pretty heavy charge
to lay against legislative action, to say it's designed to
be cruel. Definitely.
It's a disturbing idea and you know it makes you want to see
the evidence they present. And they do provide specifics,
which makes the argument, you know, more concrete.
It's not just abstract accusation.
Like the Georgia example? Exactly.
(04:15):
Georgia Senate Bill 2O2 from 2021.
The article details how this lawmakes it illegal to hand out
water or food, or well, anythingreally, to people waiting in
line to vote. Within a certain distance,
right? Yeah, within 150 feet of the
polling place or 25 feet of any voter in line.
So just offering a bottle of water to someone standing for
(04:37):
hours, potentially in the sun. That simple act becomes a crime.
Becomes a crime, yeah. I mean, when you break it down
like that, it does seem absurd, inhumane even.
The source pushes on that. It asks you to think why would
lawmakers do that? Prevent basic aid to citizens
who are just trying to vote, especially knowing how long
(04:57):
lines can get, particularly in places like Georgia.
And the heat there. And the heat?
The article argues pretty strongly this isn't about, like,
keeping order at the polls. No, it presents it as a
deliberate tactic designed to turn voting into an endurance
test. An endurance test.
The idea being if it's physically hard, but maybe fewer
people will do it, or fewer kinds of.
People, people who can't easily stand for hours, maybe yeah.
(05:18):
Or can't risk the heat? Precisely.
It basically turns a civic duty into this like physical ordeal.
And the source argues this isn'tjust a one off thing in Georgia,
right? No, it makes clear this is part
of a pattern. It points to Texas as well.
Significant restrictions on mailin ballots.
Implemented by the Secretary of State's office, I think it said
back in 2022. That's right.
(05:39):
And you know, the started reason, the official line was
fraud prevention, which often comes up with these kinds of
laws. Right, that's the common
justification you hear. But the source really pushes us
to look deeper than that justification.
And this is where it gets reallyinteresting.
You mentioned earlier comparing the stated reason to the maybe
implied intent. Exactly.
(06:00):
The source brings in the BrennanCenter for Justice.
They're a nonpartisan group focused on voting rights, and it
highlights their findings, whichconsistently show that
widespread voter fraud, especially the kind mail in
voting restrictions supposedly prevent, is just, well, it's
incredibly rare. So the data doesn't really back
up the need for these big restrictions based on fraud.
(06:22):
Not according to the Brennan Center's research cited in the
article. No, they're 2020 findings, for
example, showed documented fraudis exceedingly rare.
Certainly not enough to justify stripping away voting options on
a large scale. OK, so if fraud isn't the real
problem they're solving, then what is the purpose according to
the source? Well, the source suggests, quite
(06:45):
compellingly I think, that it's not really about securing the
vote. It's about making voting harder,
less accessible. For certain people.
That's the argument. These seemingly small things
like stricter rules for matchingsignatures on mail in ballots,
or limiting how many drop off boxes there are, or making it
harder to even qualify for an absentee ballot.
(07:06):
Logistical hurdles. Yeah, little hurdles that add
up. And the source contends they
collectively create this strategy.
The strategy aimed at. Aimed at, quote, punishing the
most vulnerable. You know, people who maybe don't
have easy transportation or can't get time off work, people
with disabilities, health issues.
The people who might most need options like mail in voting.
Exactly, while at the same time,the source argues, these rules
(07:29):
help protect and entrench those already in power.
So it's presented as this kind of subtle, structural way to
shape the electorate, not by banning people outright, but by
making it too difficult for someto participate.
Creating a maze of obstacles? Yeah.
And the article drives this homewith a personal story.
Doesn't it show the human cost? It really does.
It shares this quite poignant anecdote happened last year in a
(07:54):
Democratically controlled part of Texas, interestingly enough,
And it just makes the impact of these laws incredibly concrete.
It's not abstract policy. It's about real people.
Tell us about the story. It involves a veteran, a 100%
disabled Vietnam veteran who wasactually recovering from skin
cancer at the time. OK, wow.
And this man, someone who had apparently voted his entire
(08:16):
life, really valued it. He suddenly faced this
impossible choice because of Texas's new, tighter voting
laws. What?
Was the choice. Well, he needed to vote by mail
because of his health, you know,recovering from skin cancer,
right? But his request was denied under
the stricter rules. So mail in wasn't an option for
him anymore. Right, which meant his only
(08:37):
choice was to vote in person. But his doctors?
Exactly. His doctors specifically warned
him. They said waiting hours in the
blistering sun and we know Texassun could literally cost him his
life. That was reported by the Texas
Tribune. So vote or potentially die.
That was the choice the system gave him.
Essentially, yes, exercise the right he fought for or protect
(08:59):
his own life. An unimaginable position to be
put in. And what happened?
For the first time in his entireadult life, he didn't vote.
Wow. And the source makes a really
crucial point here. It wasn't apathy.
It wasn't because he didn't care.
It was, as the article puts it, because the system itself denied
him the dignity of voting safely.
(09:19):
The system put up a barrier he couldn't overcome without
risking his life. A barrier put up by the very
government he'd served. It implies his life wasn't
considered worth the exercise ofhis right to vote.
That specific story, it really hits hard and it connects
directly back to the sources main argument right about how
democracy gets eroded. Perfectly, the article says.
(09:41):
This is how democracy is stolen,not in a single sweeping decree,
but in the quiet exclusion of those who have already given so
much. Quiet exclusion.
That phrase again. It emphasizes that suppression
isn't always loud or dramatic. Often it's the slow, systematic
chipping away at access. One person here, one person
(10:01):
there. It adds up to a huge cumulative
effect and it makes you question, yeah, what value is
placed on civic duty when doing it becomes life threatening for
some. It suggests that the deliberate
devaluation of certain voices for sure.
And the source is clear. This veteran's story, while
powerful, isn't just some tragic, isolated incident.
It's framed as like one piece ofa much larger puzzle.
(10:24):
A systemic effort. A systemic effort to control
democratic outcomes. The article then pivots from
that personal story to the broader strategy it perceives.
And this. Is where it brings in Donald
Trump. Yes, it specifically mentions
what it calls his latest executive order banning mail in
ballots, and the source is very direct in its interpretation.
It says it's not about security.Right flat out says it is not
(10:46):
about security but about silencing.
No ambiguity in their claim there.
So positioning these moves as targeted efforts to suppress
turn out among specific groups. Exactly.
And again, and it circles back to debunk the fraud
justification. It cites the Brennan Center,
again remind us, reiterating that there's never been evidence
(11:06):
of widespread fraud with mail invoting, but there is, quote,
overwhelming evidence that removing mail in voting
disproportionately harms seniors, veterans, people with
disabilities, and working families.
So the very groups who most benefit from accessible voting
are the ones most harmed by removing.
It that's the core of the argument.
The people often praised for their service or seen as needing
(11:28):
support are the ones disadvantaged by these rules
and. This fits into an even broader
narrative. The source discusses something
about no more elections. Yeah, it brings in another
source here, an article from a publication called The Left Took
the title was No More Elections.That's good.
Take it from the top. Which sounds, you know, extreme.
Like abolish elections altogether.
Right. Sounds like hyperbole maybe?
(11:49):
But the source uses it to explain something more subtle,
more insidious, as it says. How so?
It argues that you don't actually need to cancel
elections to undermine democracy.
You just need to rig the process.
Exactly. Rig the process so that fewer
and fewer voices count. Create a system where the
outcome is heavily skewed, maybeeven predetermined, not by
(12:12):
stopping the vote, but by makingit incredibly difficult for
certain people to participate effectively.
A kind of de facto end to real representation without actually
saying no more elections. That's the idea presented and
the veteran story we talked about, that's one piece of that
puzzle. His silence wasn't apathy.
His silence is not apathy, it isthe direct result of deliberate
(12:33):
design. That's the sources claim his
inability to vote wasn't just bad luck, it was a consequence
built into the system. A system.
Designed to exclude, to diminishvoices that might challenge the
status quo. This quiet, systematic erosion.
That's the picture the article paints.
Which brings us to what the source calls the hypocrisy of
power. Yeah, a really sharp critique
(12:54):
here. It points out this core
contradiction. What's the contradiction?
The same leaders who claim to defend freedom and patriotism
have no problem stripping both from those who have sacrificed
most for this country. So a disconnect between the
rhetoric and the reality of the policies A.
Huge disconnect. According to the source, it
highlights this paradox. Leaders talking about protecting
(13:16):
America while the article contends their actions are
dismantling its foundation. Because the Foundation is
participation, free and safe participation.
Exactly. And when you curtail that right,
especially for people who served, the irony is stark, the
source argues. It's not just irony, it's a
deliberate choice. And connecting this back to the
(13:37):
veteran again. It makes the point incredibly
powerfully. He was drafted into a war he
never asked to fight, yet he served because his government
demanded. It an immense sacrifice, often
under duress, Yeah. But he did it.
And now when he just asks for the right to vote safely, a
basic civic act, that same government denies him.
(13:57):
The contrast is just jarring. It really is.
It highlights this gap between what's demanded of citizens and
what rights are actually guaranteed to them in practice.
And the sources conclusion on this point is pretty blunt.
Extremely blunt. It says this is not patriotism,
this is betrayal. Betrayal.
Strong word. Very strong and it forces you to
(14:18):
ask well, what values are being prioritized by those in power if
not the ones they talk about. Maybe power itself?
Consolidation of power. The article certainly implies
that that the rhetoric of freedom and patriotism might be
used selectively. Less about shared rights, more
about maintaining control. Maybe ensuring only certain
people vote. Manufacturing consent from a
(14:40):
smaller, maybe more favorable electorate.
That seems to be the implication.
So, OK, why does all this matter?
What's the bigger take away? Well, the source ties it all
together very clearly. It says that the rhetoric, the
No More Elections idea, minimizing citizen input and the
reality on the ground, the votersuppression tactics like the
veteran face, they're connected.They're two sides of the same
(15:02):
coin, not separate issues. They both serve quote the same
purpose, to consolidate power byerasing opposition 1 voter at a
time. A deliberate strategy to
marginalized, dissenting voices until they're just irrelevant.
That's the grim picture painted a systematic silencing but.
It doesn't end there, does it? The article offers some sense of
(15:24):
agency hope. It absolutely does.
It shifts gears powerfully from documenting the problem to
suggesting solutions or at leastforms of resistance.
What's the core message there? It's this powerful statement.
Authoritarianism thrives on silence, and silence is
something we can refuse to give it.
Refuse to be silent. Yeah, it emphasizes that
individuals and collectives havepower.
(15:47):
We can disrupt the strategy justby speaking up, by not letting
these things happen unnoticed orunchallenged.
And it gives examples of what that refusal looks like
Practical. Things very specific, tangible
examples. It says resistance is every
story told. Like the veteran's story?
Yeah, highlighting the power of narrative.
Exactly, making the abstract human.
It's also every neighbor who brings water to a voter.
(16:08):
Direct defiance of laws like theone in Georgia.
Simple acts of solidarity. Simple acts, but they directly
counter the cruelty, showing compassion where the law tries
to suppress it. These small things add up.
What else? It mentions systemic challenges
to every official challenged in court, using the legal system to
fight back against suppressive laws.
(16:29):
Legal resistance. And importantly, every
journalist who connects these dots, the role of information,
of making sure people see the bigger pattern, not just
isolated incidents. So, people.
Understand it's a strategy, not just random events.
Precisely. And each of these actions,
telling stories, helping neighbors, legal challenges,
journalism. The source calls each one an act
(16:50):
of resistance. And proof that democracy isn't
just handed down. Exactly.
It's not a gift given from the top down, but a right that lives
because people demand it. It has to be actively upheld.
But the source also acknowledgesthat fighting back can be
tiring, right? Oh definitely.
It explicitly states that the opposition, those pushing these
suppressive tactics, want us exhausted.
(17:13):
They want us cynical. They want us divided.
That's the psychological goal. Make people give up.
Make people feel it's hopeless, that the system is rigged.
There's no point. That weariness, that cynicism,
that division, they serve the purpose of weakening resistance.
But then it offers a counter to that.
A really powerful one, it says. They cannot take away the
(17:33):
solidarity that builds when we see through the lies.
When we connect the dots. When we connect climate to
cruelty, when we honor veterans by fighting for the democracy
they risk their lives to protect.
It's interesting how it weaves those different threads
together. Climate cruelty, Democracy.
Veterans rights it. Really does.
It frames it as a unified resistance.
(17:54):
It's not just about 1 issue in isolation, but seeing the
connections finding common causeagainst what it portrays as
intentional cruelty and power grabs.
And the final message on this. It's 1 of empowerment, clear and
direct. We still have power and together
we will use it A. Reminder that agency still rests
with the people. Despite the challenges, yes.
(18:14):
An affirmation of collective action.
OK, so wrapping up this deep dive, the really critical
insight seems to be that democracy's erosion can be this,
well, quiet step by step process.
Yeah, not always a Big Bang. More like that heat of
suppression, these individual acts of denial.
Like the veteran's story. A slow burn.
(18:35):
Subtly undermining the foundations.
But on the flip side, the resistance also starts small.
Everyday acts, Awareness, solidarity, defiance.
Those seemingly small things become the building blocks for
pushing back. That's the idea.
They have a cumulative power too.
So maybe the thought to leave everyone with is this If
silencing 1 veteran in Texas is,as this source argues, part of a
(18:58):
deliberate design, what's the cumulative impact of thousands,
maybe millions of voices being silenced like that around the
country, maybe around the world?And flowing from that, what's
the responsibility of those of us whose voices can still be
heard, whose ability to participate isn't compromised
yet? What's our responsibility to act
for those being excluded? It's a heavy question.
(19:20):
This deep dive really underscores how linked our
rights are and how much vigilance is needed.
Definitely, and we hope you listening will discuss these
ideas, talk about them with friends, family, online, because
that conversation is the source,reminds us, is itself a way to
break the silence. Authoritarianism thrives on
silence, right? Right.
So talk about it, and maybe consider how you can personally
(19:42):
act on this, understanding that democracy isn't guaranteed.
It's something we have to constantly demand and protect.
If you want to dig deeper into these topics, the source Educate
the Planet has free global civiceducation resources available.
Where can people find those? You can check them out at
https.github.com/free Service educationthatsgithub.com/freeciviceducation.
(20:06):
OK, good resource. You can also join their
community conversation. They call themselves planetary
protectors. On Blue ski, the address is
HTTPS dot B ski dot a profile Educate the planet dot B ski dot
social. And they have audio content too.
Yeah, audio analysis of this article and others apparently
available on Spotify if you search for Educate the Planet.
(20:26):
And of course, you can subscribeto their publication for free to
get new posts and support what they do.
Great, and if you found this deep dive valuable, please
consider sharing it with someoneelse.
Yeah, spread the conversation. Subscribe to the Deep Dive so
you don't miss future explorations.
And hey, leave us a review if you can.
It really helps us reach more people.
Your support lets us keep havingthese important conversations
(20:47):
and digging into the sources behind the headlines.
Thanks for tuning in. We'll catch you on the next deep
dive.
Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're the show that well dives
deep into complex topics, pulling from different sources
to give you the key insights youneed to stay informed.
That's the goal, trying to cut through the noise.
Exactly. And today, we're exploring
something that's really shaping our world, sometimes subtly,
sometimes quite forcefully. It's this idea of heat.
(00:22):
And look, we're not just talkingabout the literal heat.
You know, these record-breaking summers.
NOAA confirmed summer 2024 was the hottest ever recorded.
And we all felt that. Yeah, absolutely unavoidable.
But no, we're pivoting. We're looking at another kind of
heat, maybe more insidious a a, a profound pressure that's
building on democracy itself. Right.
(00:42):
And the main source we're looking at today puts it in
really stark terms. It really does.
Yeah. It argues that democracy isn't
lost in some, you know, big dramatic collapse.
Instead, it claims it's quote stolen in the silence of
suffering. That phrase really lands,
doesn't it? Stolen in the silence of
suffering, it immediately makes you think differently about how
rights might erode. Yeah, you picture big obvious
(01:03):
things, but this suggests something quieter, maybe more
gradual. And potentially just as
damaging, if not more so, because it's harder to see
happening. Absolutely.
So that's our mission for this deep dive to unpack how
fundamental democratic rights, especially voting, are, well,
according to this source, being systematically undermined.
(01:25):
We're looking at policies that the source describes as like
deliberately designed to create suffering, to create exclusion.
Making the very act of participating, like casting a
vote, risky for certain people. And we want to explore the real
cost of that, not just for the individuals affected, but, you
know, for the whole democratic system.
Yeah, the fabric of it all. Our main source today is an
(01:47):
article called The Heat of Suppression when voting becomes
a risk to your life, right. It was published by Educate the
Planet, and interestingly, they used to be known as Educate the
Resistance. OK, so the article offers a
pretty stark and thought provoking look at how democratic
processes might be getting eroded.
It goes beyond just, you know, the usual political back and
forth. It digs into the mechanics you
(02:08):
mean. Exactly the sort of granular
ways power can be held onto by, well, controlling who gets to
the ballot box easily. OK, so our goal today is really
to get past the headlines. You might see we want to
understand the the nuanced tactics of voter suppression as
this article lays them out. Connecting the dots maybe
between things that seem separate, yes.
(02:29):
Connecting seemingly disparate actions to what the source
argues is a bigger strategy. We'll look at the real world
impact on people. Like actual stories?
Yeah, analyze the motivations behind it, at least as the
author interprets them, and crucially, talk about how maybe
awareness, maybe collective action, could work as resistance
against this, this quiet erosion.
(02:52):
OK. Sound like a plan?
OK, let's unpack this. So the article starts with this
really strong metaphor, doesn't it?
This heat idea. Yeah, draws a parallel.
Right between the literal environmental heat, the record
summers, the heat waves, and this other kind of heat being
applied to democracy. And it's clear, the source
argues, this political heat isn't like a natural weather
(03:12):
pattern. No, definitely not, it says.
It's a pressure on democracy itself, that is, And this is the
key phrase created by design. Created by design, so
intentional. That's the core argument.
Not an accident, not a side effect, but a deliberate
application of strain on the system.
And that leads into this really striking phrase.
(03:32):
The source uses cruelty as a policy tool.
It's a hard phrase. It is.
It suggests that some lawmakers are actively, quote, weaponizing
both the climate, that literal heat, and their legislative
power. So it's not just about policy
outcomes, but the intent behind them.
That's what the source claims that it's about.
(03:53):
Well, intentional cruelty being sort of woven into the laws
themselves. Which is a pretty heavy charge
to lay against legislative action, to say it's designed to
be cruel. Definitely.
It's a disturbing idea and you know it makes you want to see
the evidence they present. And they do provide specifics,
which makes the argument, you know, more concrete.
It's not just abstract accusation.
Like the Georgia example? Exactly.
(04:15):
Georgia Senate Bill 2O2 from 2021.
The article details how this lawmakes it illegal to hand out
water or food, or well, anythingreally, to people waiting in
line to vote. Within a certain distance,
right? Yeah, within 150 feet of the
polling place or 25 feet of any voter in line.
So just offering a bottle of water to someone standing for
(04:37):
hours, potentially in the sun. That simple act becomes a crime.
Becomes a crime, yeah. I mean, when you break it down
like that, it does seem absurd, inhumane even.
The source pushes on that. It asks you to think why would
lawmakers do that? Prevent basic aid to citizens
who are just trying to vote, especially knowing how long
(04:57):
lines can get, particularly in places like Georgia.
And the heat there. And the heat?
The article argues pretty strongly this isn't about, like,
keeping order at the polls. No, it presents it as a
deliberate tactic designed to turn voting into an endurance
test. An endurance test.
The idea being if it's physically hard, but maybe fewer
people will do it, or fewer kinds of.
People, people who can't easily stand for hours, maybe yeah.
(05:18):
Or can't risk the heat? Precisely.
It basically turns a civic duty into this like physical ordeal.
And the source argues this isn'tjust a one off thing in Georgia,
right? No, it makes clear this is part
of a pattern. It points to Texas as well.
Significant restrictions on mailin ballots.
Implemented by the Secretary of State's office, I think it said
back in 2022. That's right.
(05:39):
And you know, the started reason, the official line was
fraud prevention, which often comes up with these kinds of
laws. Right, that's the common
justification you hear. But the source really pushes us
to look deeper than that justification.
And this is where it gets reallyinteresting.
You mentioned earlier comparing the stated reason to the maybe
implied intent. Exactly.
(06:00):
The source brings in the BrennanCenter for Justice.
They're a nonpartisan group focused on voting rights, and it
highlights their findings, whichconsistently show that
widespread voter fraud, especially the kind mail in
voting restrictions supposedly prevent, is just, well, it's
incredibly rare. So the data doesn't really back
up the need for these big restrictions based on fraud.
(06:22):
Not according to the Brennan Center's research cited in the
article. No, they're 2020 findings, for
example, showed documented fraudis exceedingly rare.
Certainly not enough to justify stripping away voting options on
a large scale. OK, so if fraud isn't the real
problem they're solving, then what is the purpose according to
the source? Well, the source suggests, quite
(06:45):
compellingly I think, that it's not really about securing the
vote. It's about making voting harder,
less accessible. For certain people.
That's the argument. These seemingly small things
like stricter rules for matchingsignatures on mail in ballots,
or limiting how many drop off boxes there are, or making it
harder to even qualify for an absentee ballot.
(07:06):
Logistical hurdles. Yeah, little hurdles that add
up. And the source contends they
collectively create this strategy.
The strategy aimed at. Aimed at, quote, punishing the
most vulnerable. You know, people who maybe don't
have easy transportation or can't get time off work, people
with disabilities, health issues.
The people who might most need options like mail in voting.
Exactly, while at the same time,the source argues, these rules
(07:29):
help protect and entrench those already in power.
So it's presented as this kind of subtle, structural way to
shape the electorate, not by banning people outright, but by
making it too difficult for someto participate.
Creating a maze of obstacles? Yeah.
And the article drives this homewith a personal story.
Doesn't it show the human cost? It really does.
It shares this quite poignant anecdote happened last year in a
(07:54):
Democratically controlled part of Texas, interestingly enough,
And it just makes the impact of these laws incredibly concrete.
It's not abstract policy. It's about real people.
Tell us about the story. It involves a veteran, a 100%
disabled Vietnam veteran who wasactually recovering from skin
cancer at the time. OK, wow.
And this man, someone who had apparently voted his entire
(08:16):
life, really valued it. He suddenly faced this
impossible choice because of Texas's new, tighter voting
laws. What?
Was the choice. Well, he needed to vote by mail
because of his health, you know,recovering from skin cancer,
right? But his request was denied under
the stricter rules. So mail in wasn't an option for
him anymore. Right, which meant his only
(08:37):
choice was to vote in person. But his doctors?
Exactly. His doctors specifically warned
him. They said waiting hours in the
blistering sun and we know Texassun could literally cost him his
life. That was reported by the Texas
Tribune. So vote or potentially die.
That was the choice the system gave him.
Essentially, yes, exercise the right he fought for or protect
(08:59):
his own life. An unimaginable position to be
put in. And what happened?
For the first time in his entireadult life, he didn't vote.
Wow. And the source makes a really
crucial point here. It wasn't apathy.
It wasn't because he didn't care.
It was, as the article puts it, because the system itself denied
him the dignity of voting safely.
(09:19):
The system put up a barrier he couldn't overcome without
risking his life. A barrier put up by the very
government he'd served. It implies his life wasn't
considered worth the exercise ofhis right to vote.
That specific story, it really hits hard and it connects
directly back to the sources main argument right about how
democracy gets eroded. Perfectly, the article says.
(09:41):
This is how democracy is stolen,not in a single sweeping decree,
but in the quiet exclusion of those who have already given so
much. Quiet exclusion.
That phrase again. It emphasizes that suppression
isn't always loud or dramatic. Often it's the slow, systematic
chipping away at access. One person here, one person
(10:01):
there. It adds up to a huge cumulative
effect and it makes you question, yeah, what value is
placed on civic duty when doing it becomes life threatening for
some. It suggests that the deliberate
devaluation of certain voices for sure.
And the source is clear. This veteran's story, while
powerful, isn't just some tragic, isolated incident.
It's framed as like one piece ofa much larger puzzle.
(10:24):
A systemic effort. A systemic effort to control
democratic outcomes. The article then pivots from
that personal story to the broader strategy it perceives.
And this. Is where it brings in Donald
Trump. Yes, it specifically mentions
what it calls his latest executive order banning mail in
ballots, and the source is very direct in its interpretation.
It says it's not about security.Right flat out says it is not
(10:46):
about security but about silencing.
No ambiguity in their claim there.
So positioning these moves as targeted efforts to suppress
turn out among specific groups. Exactly.
And again, and it circles back to debunk the fraud
justification. It cites the Brennan Center,
again remind us, reiterating that there's never been evidence
(11:06):
of widespread fraud with mail invoting, but there is, quote,
overwhelming evidence that removing mail in voting
disproportionately harms seniors, veterans, people with
disabilities, and working families.
So the very groups who most benefit from accessible voting
are the ones most harmed by removing.
It that's the core of the argument.
The people often praised for their service or seen as needing
(11:28):
support are the ones disadvantaged by these rules
and. This fits into an even broader
narrative. The source discusses something
about no more elections. Yeah, it brings in another
source here, an article from a publication called The Left Took
the title was No More Elections.That's good.
Take it from the top. Which sounds, you know, extreme.
Like abolish elections altogether.
Right. Sounds like hyperbole maybe?
(11:49):
But the source uses it to explain something more subtle,
more insidious, as it says. How so?
It argues that you don't actually need to cancel
elections to undermine democracy.
You just need to rig the process.
Exactly. Rig the process so that fewer
and fewer voices count. Create a system where the
outcome is heavily skewed, maybeeven predetermined, not by
(12:12):
stopping the vote, but by makingit incredibly difficult for
certain people to participate effectively.
A kind of de facto end to real representation without actually
saying no more elections. That's the idea presented and
the veteran story we talked about, that's one piece of that
puzzle. His silence wasn't apathy.
His silence is not apathy, it isthe direct result of deliberate
(12:33):
design. That's the sources claim his
inability to vote wasn't just bad luck, it was a consequence
built into the system. A system.
Designed to exclude, to diminishvoices that might challenge the
status quo. This quiet, systematic erosion.
That's the picture the article paints.
Which brings us to what the source calls the hypocrisy of
power. Yeah, a really sharp critique
(12:54):
here. It points out this core
contradiction. What's the contradiction?
The same leaders who claim to defend freedom and patriotism
have no problem stripping both from those who have sacrificed
most for this country. So a disconnect between the
rhetoric and the reality of the policies A.
Huge disconnect. According to the source, it
highlights this paradox. Leaders talking about protecting
(13:16):
America while the article contends their actions are
dismantling its foundation. Because the Foundation is
participation, free and safe participation.
Exactly. And when you curtail that right,
especially for people who served, the irony is stark, the
source argues. It's not just irony, it's a
deliberate choice. And connecting this back to the
(13:37):
veteran again. It makes the point incredibly
powerfully. He was drafted into a war he
never asked to fight, yet he served because his government
demanded. It an immense sacrifice, often
under duress, Yeah. But he did it.
And now when he just asks for the right to vote safely, a
basic civic act, that same government denies him.
(13:57):
The contrast is just jarring. It really is.
It highlights this gap between what's demanded of citizens and
what rights are actually guaranteed to them in practice.
And the sources conclusion on this point is pretty blunt.
Extremely blunt. It says this is not patriotism,
this is betrayal. Betrayal.
Strong word. Very strong and it forces you to
(14:18):
ask well, what values are being prioritized by those in power if
not the ones they talk about. Maybe power itself?
Consolidation of power. The article certainly implies
that that the rhetoric of freedom and patriotism might be
used selectively. Less about shared rights, more
about maintaining control. Maybe ensuring only certain
people vote. Manufacturing consent from a
(14:40):
smaller, maybe more favorable electorate.
That seems to be the implication.
So, OK, why does all this matter?
What's the bigger take away? Well, the source ties it all
together very clearly. It says that the rhetoric, the
No More Elections idea, minimizing citizen input and the
reality on the ground, the votersuppression tactics like the
veteran face, they're connected.They're two sides of the same
(15:02):
coin, not separate issues. They both serve quote the same
purpose, to consolidate power byerasing opposition 1 voter at a
time. A deliberate strategy to
marginalized, dissenting voices until they're just irrelevant.
That's the grim picture painted a systematic silencing but.
It doesn't end there, does it? The article offers some sense of
(15:24):
agency hope. It absolutely does.
It shifts gears powerfully from documenting the problem to
suggesting solutions or at leastforms of resistance.
What's the core message there? It's this powerful statement.
Authoritarianism thrives on silence, and silence is
something we can refuse to give it.
Refuse to be silent. Yeah, it emphasizes that
individuals and collectives havepower.
(15:47):
We can disrupt the strategy justby speaking up, by not letting
these things happen unnoticed orunchallenged.
And it gives examples of what that refusal looks like
Practical. Things very specific, tangible
examples. It says resistance is every
story told. Like the veteran's story?
Yeah, highlighting the power of narrative.
Exactly, making the abstract human.
It's also every neighbor who brings water to a voter.
(16:08):
Direct defiance of laws like theone in Georgia.
Simple acts of solidarity. Simple acts, but they directly
counter the cruelty, showing compassion where the law tries
to suppress it. These small things add up.
What else? It mentions systemic challenges
to every official challenged in court, using the legal system to
fight back against suppressive laws.
(16:29):
Legal resistance. And importantly, every
journalist who connects these dots, the role of information,
of making sure people see the bigger pattern, not just
isolated incidents. So, people.
Understand it's a strategy, not just random events.
Precisely. And each of these actions,
telling stories, helping neighbors, legal challenges,
journalism. The source calls each one an act
(16:50):
of resistance. And proof that democracy isn't
just handed down. Exactly.
It's not a gift given from the top down, but a right that lives
because people demand it. It has to be actively upheld.
But the source also acknowledgesthat fighting back can be
tiring, right? Oh definitely.
It explicitly states that the opposition, those pushing these
suppressive tactics, want us exhausted.
(17:13):
They want us cynical. They want us divided.
That's the psychological goal. Make people give up.
Make people feel it's hopeless, that the system is rigged.
There's no point. That weariness, that cynicism,
that division, they serve the purpose of weakening resistance.
But then it offers a counter to that.
A really powerful one, it says. They cannot take away the
(17:33):
solidarity that builds when we see through the lies.
When we connect the dots. When we connect climate to
cruelty, when we honor veterans by fighting for the democracy
they risk their lives to protect.
It's interesting how it weaves those different threads
together. Climate cruelty, Democracy.
Veterans rights it. Really does.
It frames it as a unified resistance.
(17:54):
It's not just about 1 issue in isolation, but seeing the
connections finding common causeagainst what it portrays as
intentional cruelty and power grabs.
And the final message on this. It's 1 of empowerment, clear and
direct. We still have power and together
we will use it A. Reminder that agency still rests
with the people. Despite the challenges, yes.
(18:14):
An affirmation of collective action.
OK, so wrapping up this deep dive, the really critical
insight seems to be that democracy's erosion can be this,
well, quiet step by step process.
Yeah, not always a Big Bang. More like that heat of
suppression, these individual acts of denial.
Like the veteran's story. A slow burn.
(18:35):
Subtly undermining the foundations.
But on the flip side, the resistance also starts small.
Everyday acts, Awareness, solidarity, defiance.
Those seemingly small things become the building blocks for
pushing back. That's the idea.
They have a cumulative power too.
So maybe the thought to leave everyone with is this If
silencing 1 veteran in Texas is,as this source argues, part of a
(18:58):
deliberate design, what's the cumulative impact of thousands,
maybe millions of voices being silenced like that around the
country, maybe around the world?And flowing from that, what's
the responsibility of those of us whose voices can still be
heard, whose ability to participate isn't compromised
yet? What's our responsibility to act
for those being excluded? It's a heavy question.
(19:20):
This deep dive really underscores how linked our
rights are and how much vigilance is needed.
Definitely, and we hope you listening will discuss these
ideas, talk about them with friends, family, online, because
that conversation is the source,reminds us, is itself a way to
break the silence. Authoritarianism thrives on
silence, right? Right.
So talk about it, and maybe consider how you can personally
(19:42):
act on this, understanding that democracy isn't guaranteed.
It's something we have to constantly demand and protect.
If you want to dig deeper into these topics, the source Educate
the Planet has free global civiceducation resources available.
Where can people find those? You can check them out at
https.github.com/free Service educationthatsgithub.com/freeciviceducation.
(20:06):
OK, good resource. You can also join their
community conversation. They call themselves planetary
protectors. On Blue ski, the address is
HTTPS dot B ski dot a profile Educate the planet dot B ski dot
social. And they have audio content too.
Yeah, audio analysis of this article and others apparently
available on Spotify if you search for Educate the Planet.
(20:26):
And of course, you can subscribeto their publication for free to
get new posts and support what they do.
Great, and if you found this deep dive valuable, please
consider sharing it with someoneelse.
Yeah, spread the conversation. Subscribe to the Deep Dive so
you don't miss future explorations.
And hey, leave us a review if you can.
It really helps us reach more people.
Your support lets us keep havingthese important conversations
(20:47):
and digging into the sources behind the headlines.
Thanks for tuning in. We'll catch you on the next deep
dive.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.