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
it has nothing to do with american journalism caring about anyone. if the civil war breaks out, that will be the reality that drops US public support for the iraqi war. if it doesn't happen, the journalistic spin won't matter.
sometime we here on FR think everything we see from the news media is a false reality promoted for their political purposes. of course, they do engage in that. but let's not ignore reality. the insurgency in iraq is real, has lasted longer then anyone predicted, the security situation in iraq is not the best, the performance of the iraqi police has been horrible. those facts are not an invention of the american media.
| Any delay = Major defeat to freedom/Major victory to terror. No delay + massive violence + failed election = Minor defeat to freedom/Minor victory to terror No delay + massive violence + successful election = Minor victory to freedom/Minor defeat to terror No delay + some violence + successful election = Major Victory to freedom/Major Defeat to terror No Delay = No choice |
Journalism's negative, superficial, and arrogant perspective colors its output so heavily that is quite literally difficult to overestimate it.Reality will always prove to be more in line with conservative principle and less in line with the perspective of journalism than you think. You will always look back to historical perspective and realize that you did not sufficiently discount journalism's perspective enough. Always.
Excellent!
Problem would be that as soon as they were postoned, the terrorists would claim victory, saying that the US had never intended to hold elections and that the Iraq government could not get popular support for democracy...and too many in the Middle East would agree (sad), and far too many in Europe would agree (sadder), and that many in the US--including the MSM--would also agree with the terrorists (saddest)
The problem I see with your argument is that, although security should improve over the next 3-6 months under current conditions, delaying the election may (would) embolden the insurgeants.
I heard that a number of Sunni groups have now announced they will join the elections--and are presently fielding candidates. Have you heard anything about this? I wonder how widespread that movement is? It would be a very good sign indeed.
I think they are emboldened already - it comes down to whether we can kill enough of them, and break up the organizations significantly enough before the election (whenever it is) - to prevent mass slaughter at the polling places. can we? are the iraqi forces and the police up to it, or do they need more time?
Fallujah didn't go as we expected, we have to face that. The weeks and weeks of advance notice, leaflets, warnings - and then we act surprised that a good number of the insurgents simply relocated someplace else and continue the fight.
the scenario that scares me is this - right now, US public support for this iraq effort is in the low 50s. if we have this election, and its a mess, and it leads to civil war, the media is going to go nuts with their coverage, and US public support is going to drop into the low 40s/high 30s. Rumsfeld is hanging by a thread right now, what do you think is going to happen to him in light of that? so then we have this new iraqi government in place, its now up to them to fight the civil war. are they up to it? are their security forces going to go in there, house to house like our Marines are doing, and root these guys out? I don't see any evidence that the iraqi police are up to it. and how long is US public support going to hold up, how long will this be sustainable? what happens if we lose Rumsfeld? if this iraq effort implodes, its the last time you will ever see the US use the military in a pre-emptive strike like this (this is what the Dems and the liberal MSM really want, they want us neutered).
are all these risks worth it, to stick to the 1/30 date? that's the question we have to ask.
Pre-12th amendment, each elector had TWO votes.
but the two votes were undesignated -- in effect, though not in intent, they were BOTH votes for President. Now, you cast one vote labelled as for a Pres, and one for a Vice-Pres. Thus, GW could only have gotten a maxiumum of one-half of the votes cast, which he did (unless you could cast both votes for him, which you couldn't).
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.