SAVE AMERICA FROM “SAVE AMERICA”

MARCH 23, 2026 – I often recall from the first Trump Era protest I ever attended (October 2018). My favorite protest sign, a sign of the times—then and since—read, “WHERE DO I START?” As if in a game of spin-the-bottle, for today’s topic I landed on . . . the “SAVE America Act[1]”

Yesterday while running an errand, I heard Jim Jordan, Chairman [sic] of the House Judiciary [sic] Committee, interviewed on right-wing radio. The former wrestling coach [sic] regurgitated the standard Republican Party talking points in favor of the proposed voter suppression legislation presented as a “common sense” way to prevent voter fraud. If I hear or read these talking points one more time, whatever object is on the receiving end of my flying shoe is likely to sustain critical damage.

If math is the language of physics, the branch of science that rules the cosmos, the language of politics, the branch of human endeavor that rules earthbound civilizations, is . . . language—manipulated to influence our malleable minds. As far as science has revealed, teeny-tiny earth is the only situs of . . . minds, malleable and manipulated or otherwise.

With the manipulation of language in mind, let us start with the title of the subject pending legislation: “SAVE America.” America is nothing if not a marketing juggernaut, and for generations, Dems and Reps alike have assigned a “marketing label” to proposed legislation. The motivation is to enhance “sales,” that is, buy-in by voters, starting with the sponsors’ base. “SAVE America” is a straight-up fast pitch to flag-waving MAGA members and an appeal to other Republicans (are there any?) and independents who covertly subscribe to the notion of “saving America,” which is really code for “saving America from people of color.” Yet, even naïve voters who consider themselves patriotic and aren’t overtly racist, believe that saving the country from . . . whatever . . . is a perfectly sound and laudable aspiration. What, they might ask, is to howl about with regard to “SAVE America”?

Plenty.

In the first place, the problem, as framed by Republicans, is “voter fraud,” another case of language manipulation. “Fraud,” triggers a universal reaction: it’s just plain bad. Good people know this implicitly. Bad people know it too, which is why they’ll go to great lengths to hide it or lie about it. It follows that anything designed to inhibit or prevent fraud is good; anything associated with it, rightly or wrongly, directly or indirectly (e.g. each of the 90,000 Somalis living in Minnesota) is bad. In short, if you’re a politician seeking positive publicity, condemnation of “fraud”—existent or non-existent—is a career-enhancer.

What’s problematic is when “fraud” is propped up like a strawman to give the politicians an easy score. “Voter fraud” is a classic example of a strawman. Multiple bi-partisan commissions and prosecutorial groups established to research and investigate “voter fraud” have invariably concluded that while incidents occur, in percentage terms as well as straight-up numerical measure, the occasions of voter fraud over the past quarter to half century are infinitesimal.[2] It’s become an alleged issue of prominence (and irrefutably rejected in the fora bound by the highest evidentiary standards of the land—the courts) only since Trump’s concerted campaign to discredit voter integrity after his loss to Biden in the 2020 election and only in states where Trump lost.

In other words, not only is the issue of “voter fraud” a strawman, but the proposed antidote—“SAVE America”—is classic case of a “solution” looking for a problem.

A person should always be wary of solutions searching for problems, especially when the solutions, so-called, are politically instigated. Again, though, welcome to language manipulation. Following their party-issued talking points, Republicans use the words “citizen” and “citizenship” with purposeful frequency when promoting “SAVE America.” And what’s wrong with that? After all, by the law of our land, citizens and only citizens have been blessed with the franchise. What’s the problem with a “solution” that is completely consistent with the universally accepted legal reality that to vote, a person must be a United States citizen?[3] Trump’s 10-year anti-immigrant and “illegal alien” scapegoat campaign has enhanced perceptions of the terms “citizen” and “citizenship,” fitting nicely into the talking points in favor of “SAVE America.”

Among the points on the Republican crib sheet is the national polling that shows as many as 87% of likely voters favor requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. What neither that poll nor the crib sheet tells us, however, is that 62% of likely voters mistakenly believe that proof of citizenship is already required. Would the respondents among the 87% have answered differently if they knew that proof of U.S. citizenship is currently required in only four states, whose aggregate population is only 4% of the national total? This fact aside, the Republican crib sheet asks rhetorically, “Why would Democrats in Congress [now, specifically, the Senate, since the House has already passed its “SAVE America” bill] oppose SAVE America when 87% of the voters favor proof of citizenship?”

This glib question leads directly to another manipulation of minds, namely, by invoking “common and sense.” “Common sense” as a concept is often valid. “Common sense” as a marketing term, is often fraught. What constitutes “common sense” exactly? Its applicability is highly contextual, and all too often it’s used to camouflage complexity. For example, “common sense” ought to dissuade a canoeist in the Boundary Waters from paddling straight into a fast-approaching electrical storm, but in the case of voter registration requirements, proof of citizenship might actually defy “common sense”—irrespective of what (misguided) poll respondents think. More on this below.

Nevertheless, after calling “SAVE America” a matter of “common sense,” the Republicans go directly to their answer to their rhetorical question—“Why would Democrats in Congress oppose common sense?”—namely, “Because Democrats want to allow voter fraud, since it’s the only way they can win.”

Supporting the syllogistic flaws behind this explanation are the stubborn effects of age-old propaganda amplified by modern communications. The propaganda reaches back to the Bolshevik Revolution, the Red Scare, the Palmer Raids, McCarthyism, Vietnam, the Domino Theory, and the long-enduring influence of the “China Lobby,” the work of a small group of Americans hellbent on backing Chiang Kai-Shek in his quixotic mission to retake the China Mainland after Mao’s takeover in 1949. Generations of Americans have been inculcated with a fervently anti-communist bias that led to often hysterical condemnation of all things left of center (communist or not)—without noticing that over time since FDR, the political center of the U.S. was shifting steadily to the right, certainly by the standards of our freedom-subscribing democratic friends and allies.

This long-running bias has facilitated, nay encouraged, Republicans of the current era to paint all Democrats (besides Senator Fetterman, perhaps), as “leftwing radical extremist socialist communists.” For an unknowing and unthinking public indoctrinated by osmosis to believe what fits the basic tenets of their indoctrination, the Republican narrative works perfectly: only (leftwing radical extremist, etc.) traitors would oppose something as common sensical and as quintessentially American, as “SAVE America.”

But here’s the rub; here’s the worst of it: an ulterior motive resides in full transparency behind “SAVE America.” That motive is part of the larger Project 2025; an integral aspect of a long-time grand plan by a confederacy of conservative organizations to gain advantage by a carefully engineered campaign to effectuate gerrymandering and voter suppression to the disadvantage of Democratic candidates—who, taking things full circle, are by repetitious definition, “leftwing radical extremist, etc.”

It all comes down to this: whether you think proof of citizenship “sounds okay” or is necessary (despite the yawning dearth of evidence of voter fraud), citizenship proof is problematic; not simply “inconvenient,” but seriously challenging, and not for a few people here and a few people out of sight over there, but for tens of millions of bona fide, full-fledged, red-white-and-blue citizens all across this land of ours.

As it is said, the devil resides in the details. Two forms of proof of citizenship exist: 1. A U.S. government-issued passport, and 2. A state-issued birth certificate.

Roughly half of the citizens of the U.S. do not have a passport. That right there is a problem, as you would know if you’ve planned your first trip abroad, have a month before your vacation begins and you realize you must obtain a passport. First problem: DOGE. Remember all the staffing cuts? Second problem, you must do stuff, procure stuff, pay money, provide evidence that you’re entitled to obtain a passport! Now, ask Chairman Jordan: how many voting-age citizens without passports will get around to procuring a passport before next November? More directly, how many of such citizens who are among Democratic constituencies will apply for and obtain passports before November—or more specifically, how many realistically have the wherewithal to do so (transportation, funds, time-off from work, etc.) without serious inconvenience? The foregoing questions, of course, are rhetorical. Contextual “common sense” provides the likely answer to each: many people who are citizens and fully eligible to vote but lack passports won’t, for a variety of reasons, clear the passport hoops.

That leaves the birth certificate route. Raise your hand if you have on hand a certified copy of your birth certificate. One . . . two? Any others? That’s what I thought. To obtain a birth certificate, you’ll need to go through “a process.” You’ll need to fill out forms, pay money, drive somewhere, find parking, wait in line at the window of an understaffed government office. And guess what: if you’re a woman (which statistically means you’re more likely to vote Democrat than Republican), married, and changed your name . . . uh oh. Or if you’re my (citizen) friend B_ _ _, with an impossibly long last name and spelled one way on his birth certificate and another way on his driver’s license . . . good luck explaining that to election officials tasked with vetting every single voter.

No, “SAVE America” is the cynical label assigned to a dastardly scheme that is at once anti-Democratic and anti-democratic. It has nothing to do with election integrity and everything to do with a sweeping Republican strategy to remain in power. It’s hawked as a cure for fraud, packaged in the false wrap of “common sense,” and sold as a means of saving America—either from people of color or “leftwing radical extremists, etc.,” so called, take your pick. One size fits all, just as one innocent appearing hurdle blocks millions of likely Democratic voters.

To save America, “SAVE America” must be defeated.

Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

© 2026 by Eric Nilsson

[1] The pending legislation is not yet an “Act.” Only when a bill is passed by both House and Senate and signed by the President (or a presidential veto is overridden by Congress) does it become an “Act.” (“SAVE” stands for “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility.”)

[2] This was not true over a longer horizon that pre-dates modern technology and voter integrity practices. See, for example, Robert Caro’s seminal biography of LBJ.

[3] Plus, be at least 18 years old and not restricted by various state-imposed disqualifications, such as a felony conviction.