Posted on 12/06/2004 5:10:58 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Many commentators have questioned whether the Iraqi elections, scheduled for 30 January, 2004, should be delayed. Such comments from anyone at the UN should be rejected out of hand. After all, the UN is dominated by dictatorships who fear free elections the way vampires fear necklaces of garlic. Plus, the UN is on a long, unrelieved run of anti-Americanism. Whatever the US favors, UN bureaucrats will instinctively oppose.
But some of the groundswell to delay the Iraqi election comes from the likes of the New York Times, who ought to know better. This is perhaps the tenth time I have quoted George Santayana’s statement, “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.” Those who forget the history of the most durable democratic republic in history (the US) will not understand the path to success for any other nation.
What was the most important election in US history? We’ve had elections during wars. We’ve had elections during Depressions. But the most critical election was the first one, in 1789, when our Constitution first went into effect and George Washington, who set many examples for all Presidents to come, was first elected.
Some of the better-prepared (but less seen or read) pundits have noted that during the Civil War some states did not participate in the election of Abraham Lincoln. Yet that fact did not make his election illegitimate. There is an example clearer than that, which all sources except this column you are now reading, have missed.
How many states existed during that first presidential election in 1789? Just the original 13 states.
How many states took part in the election of George Washington in 1789? (This is not a trick question.) Only 10 states took part in that election.
A reporter or editor who was competently prepared on the subject of democracy in America would know the following facts: As of the election of 1789, two states were not part of the Union. North Carolina and Rhode Island had both failed to ratify the Constitution. As the relatively unknown fifth page of the Constitution provided, it applied only to “the states so ratifying the same.” So there were only 11 states in the Union at that time.
What was the other state missing from that election? New York did not participate because its legislature hadn’t passed an election law in time so that state could take part.
Anyone who cares to check the facts will find that only 10 states cast Electoral College votes in the election of George Washington. They’ll also find that the election of Washington was not unanimous; a total of eleven other men received votes for President in that election. But the most important aspect of that election was that it took place, and that a stable US government resulted from that.
Consider the failure of American governance which preceded that election. Under the prior constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had failed. Our diplomats were reduced to being beggars in foreign capitols, borrowing money at high rates of interest to keep the government afloat. Financial failure at home and inability to pay war debts had led directly to Shay’s Rebellion, which came close to toppling the American government, and also threatened more of the same.
It was this national failure which led to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. But however good the Constitution that the Convention produced might be in theory, national and international respect and legitimacy of the US could not be restored until an actual government was elected and began to function under that Constitution.
You now see the parallel with Iraq in the 21 century. Iraq is now squarely on the cusp between abject failure as a government, and possible success greater than any other Arab government in history. It has a theory of government – a constitution. But until it conducts its first honest and successful election under that constitution, there is no chance of success and the odds of failure grow by the day.
It would have been a disaster for the US to delay the election of 1789 because 3 of 13 states were not participating. For the exact same reasons, it would be a disaster for the Iraqi election of 2005 to be delayed because 4 of its 18 provinces might not be able to participate. History is a fine teacher, but only for those who bother to read it.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net
I think the only "reality" is that postponing elections will accomplish only one thing: telling the terrorists that they have won and can influence our decisions.
you are correct sir.
i often wondered why we let the police and or ING, gather in crowds to get pay and or sign up.
it would be easy to set up stations outside city limits requiring a 1/2 or 1 mile walk through open space to enlist or collect. any vehicle moving anywhere is fair game.
a suicide bomber still may get near but 1 or 2 vs 10s and 20s getting hit is way much better.
Many said
Oops..Many said the same thing about Afghanistan
i think the terrorists blew it in afghanistan (thank the Lord)
they will be much more active in iraq, but we must move ahead with the vote! 1/30/2005, let freedom reign
the minds of things taking place on a daily basis in iraq, were not going on in afghanistan.
minds=kinds
"Anyone who cares to check the facts will find that only 10 states cast Electoral College votes in the election of George Washington. They’ll also find that the election of Washington was not unanimous; a total of eleven other men received votes for President in that election. But the most important aspect of that election was that it took place, and that a stable US government resulted from that."
Minor point of disagreement: As far as it was possible, the election of George Washington as President in 1789 was unanimous. Since as you pointed out there were only 11 States in the Union in 1789, New York did not appoint its allotted eight Electors, Maryland had two Electors who did not vote, Virginia had one Elector who did not vote and one Elector who was not chosen due to lack of returns from that District. So 12 Electors out of the possible 81 cast no electoral ballots.
So of the 69 electors who could vote, each was given two electors votes in their choice for President, which could not be cast for the same candidate. This means that while there were 138 possible electoral votes to be cast, a candidate could at best receive only half of them, or 69 electoral votes. George Washington received that maximum number of 69 electoral votes. one vote from each elector. Since the Constitution at that time was structured to have the candidate who received the second most electoral votes was to become the Vice-President, every elector understood that his "second" electoral vote would actually 'elect' the Vice-President, since no other candidate would receive a 'unanimous' 69 electoral votes, rather they were fragmented among 5+ other 'Presidential' candidates. John Adams became the Vice-President upon receiving 34 electoral votes.
Since a candidate could only get a maximum of 69 electoral votes of the 138 electoral votes cast in 1789, I submit that George Washington was unanimously elected under the pre-12th Amendment system. He would not have been if another candidate had also received 69 electoral votes, then forcing the election into the House of Representatives...
dvwjr
The other essential components are a Free Press, Free Speech, Free, Stable and Prosperous Economy, Domestic Tranquility and party system that has at least two major political parties.
Iraq may have an election but they will not be a Democracy any time soon.
However, it can be done, it is just going to take a while.
There cannot be freedom without stability.
Yes, there are risks, however rewarding terror by delaying the election would be catastrophic.
I don't see it as a reward to terror. the security realities are what they are, accept it, because claiming they are something they are not isn't going to help. attacks killed 80+ people this past weekend, did you see the video of that police station attacked? the bodies of the so-called police officers were everywhere, they didn't even fire a shot. most of the police are just collecting paychecks, they are providing no security at all, they can't even guard their own stations and prevents cars from approaching.
Humans do not have a democracy Gene and therefore have to be taught Democracy. Aside from stabilizing the situation, the people have to be taught that elections are a serious if not sacred event and should be conducted under the most peaceful and honest circumstances.
By holding an elections this soon it will be seen as fraudulent when one candidate gets all the US support. People will view that as "Well these elections are just like Saddam's elections" and democracy will never take root. Instead, there will be little faith future elections and leaders will be viewed as illegitimate.
Yes, I saw. Tragic.
But wouldn't you agree that US troops guarding fortified election posts would present far more formidable targets compared to Iraqi police stations?
no.
taking a worst case scenario (I am not predicting this will happen, only suggesting it could as a worst case) - the election itself may well be the trigger for the civil war.
imagine what the US media will do with that story. too many freepers in the wake of GWBs win have this impression that public support for the iraq effort is at 70%. it isn't. some watershed event, like an election turning into a mess and blood in the streets - could tip US public support for the iraq effort towards an unrecoverable negative view. if that happens, then all the people here talking about a delay "rewarding terrorism", will really have given the terrorists a big win.
We have lost way to many American Boys to establish a sham democracy and extend the situation losing more American Boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.