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
HELL, NO.....STAND AND FIGHT!!!!!!!!!
yes, it should be delayed. if the security siuation remains as it is currently, it shoud be delayed. the iraqi forces are not able to provide security.
if the election is held, there will be massacres at many polling places. that will be the only story that gets any media attention regarding the iraqi election.
delaying the election will not "cripple iraq" - its simply an acknowledgment of the realities faced on the ground there, and that more time is needed to correct them.
Postponing an election on the premise that somebody might get hurt empowers those that are opposed to democracy. The next time they will up the ante to prevent elections. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Besides, would the elections be postponed because of weather.
Doc
Good stuff, CB. After listening to the Iraqi PM (Sunni) today (when he was with Bush in presser), I'm convinced the people of that country want this date to hold.
Yes, we should go ahead. If the Sunnis want to terrorize their neighbors or boycott the election, that's their business.
I don't know how often we have to point out that in this life, nothing is perfect. That's especially true of politics. If we wait until everything is perfect, we'll wait forever, because the terrorists, encouraged by the delay, will just start making new problems.
Let the Iraqi elections go forward, come hell or high water. Delay IS NOT AN OPTION. Any delay will only exacerbate the problem. Hat's off to you Congressman Billybob...
YES!
Shortly after he!! freezes over and tasks the terrorists in self survival without our help.
You have some "reality' arguments.
However,The delaying elections will probably be demoralizing to the Iraqis that want their own government. The Iraqis surely should be able to figure out a process for the elections. Why not take Florida's model....we took WEEKS to get our election done with all the pre-election day voting and lots of alternative polling places.
Uh, I am not hearing the UN really getting involved to figure out a process.
Just, for God's sake, keep Jimmy Carter outta 'der!!
Can't have the elections early, of course, but holding the elections in Afghanistan pretty much shut up the nay-sayers there, and we need to do the same in Iraq.
As a general practice, I look at the position taken by the NYT, and take the OPPOSITE position. Works 99% of the time!
how many people waiting to vote in florida were gunned down by AK47s and car bombs? if you don't think that is going to happen on election day in iraq, you are mistaken. absent some quick turnaround in the security situation there, it will.
I would say go forward with this election, if you could convince me that time wouldn't help solve this problem. But indeed, time is what we need to kill more insurgents, train more iraqi police and get the ones on the job now to actually start shooting back, etc. how many people a re you willing to see die to hold the election on 1/30?
Thanks for the bump,oceanview----A good read,but I still feel the way I feel.
The early elections didn't have bombs going off all over the place and raging terrorists----ooops,insurgents,trying to kill anything that moves.
yes. and again, notice how few posts these iraqi threads on FR get these days.
How far back will multiple massacres at the voting precincts
set the democratic process back?
Security must improve dramatically or the voters will not go to the polling place, making election 2005 in Iraq a joke.
Keep American and other Coalition troops back about 5 miles back from the polling places and let the chips fall where they may.
aaaaaaaangh.
wrong answer.
will security be better in 3,6 months. no the bad guys will see they forced a delay and step up the attacks.
if the sunni's do not get thier voice heard then they are to blame for allowing the terrorist safe haven for so long.
let them lose out not the 14 districts that are ready.
How far back will multiple massacres at the voting precincts
set the democratic process back?
_______________________________________________________________
Probably not as great a setback as postponing them would have. Postponing over "security concerns" pretty much assures the terrorists that they can disrupt any process that they see fit.
Typo -- didn't you mean 30 January, 2005?
-PJ
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.