AMERICA WON’T LEARN FROM HISTORY: SPAIN 1936 - SYRIA 2013

In 1936 the fascist military leaders in Spain led by Francisco Franco (El Caudillo) revolted against the Republic that had replaced the ancient Spanish monarchy.  The Republic was led by socialist and left-wing democrats.  Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy supported Franco with arms, planes and “volunteer” soldiers.  The Soviet Union supported the Republic similarly.  And the western democracies, England, France and the United States looked on; offering sympathy to the Republic but not wanting to assist them too much lest it strengthen the communists.  Before the start of WWII the fascists won in Spain and the Spanish people were subjected to some thirty-five years of dictatorship (after the war the west allied with Franco during the cold war).

In 2012 the people of Syria revolt against their dictator whose family had ruled for decades.  He bombs and strafes the villages and uses chemical weapons against his own people.  Iran and Russia and the radicals in Lebanon (Hezbollah) send arms and aid to the dictator.  And the western democracies, England, France and particularly the United States send platitudes and good wishes and humanitarian aid.  Weapons to match those that Russia has given the Syrian government might fall into the hands of the Islamists (reads like the Spanish communists).  Without putting troops on the ground the western powers with their missiles and drones and planes could enforce a no fly zone and assist the rebels as they did the Libyan rebels and as they did in the 1990's when they brought down Milosevic in Serbia and saved Kosovo.

But analogizing the Syrian situation to the Spanish situation is considered simplistic and war-mongering.  Because McCain and Graham and other hawkish Senators call for aid to the Syrian rebels our government further temporizes. We will stand by and watch Assad use chemical weapons against his own people as we stood by and watched the genocide in Rwanda in 1995.

In the beginning of the 19th century those who wanted to see a world of democracy and freedom thought of America as the world’s last best hope. The South American revolutionaries modeled their fights for independence from Spain on our Revolution and tried to use our model of peaceful independence rather than the French terror.  When the Chinese struggled for rights in 1989, as the Berlin Wall tumbled, they raised the Statue of Liberty as their symbol in Tiananmen Square.  Under President Obama, during the crisis in Egypt and the revolt in Libya, America began again to be seen on the side of the little people.  Now the waffling and the whimpering and the hesitation and the appeasement in Syria threaten to undo that image. As Russia sends missiles to Syria to shoot down any planes the west might employ in a no-fly zone and Hezbollah sends “volunteers” America pontificates and urges conferences.  We need to learn more about the rebels before we give further assistance. Fortunately for our country the King of France didn’t want to know more about the members of the Continental Congress before he decided to help us he simply wanted to know our enemy.  Why do we need to know more than two things: 1) the regime in Syria is massacring its own people and would rather ruin the country and murder the non-Alawite citizens (90%) than give up power. 2) the regime in Syria is supported by Iran and Russia and Hezbollah.

Winston Churchill once said that you could count on America to do the right thing after it tried everything else.  If we do that in this situation we will do the right thing when it is too little and too late and require more resources than we can expend.  The Syrian people have a right to live in peace and freedom.  All people have a right to live in peace and freedom.  And unless the greatest nation on the planet firmly stands for that than someday no one may be living in peace and freedom.

29 May 2013

Reform the Primaries and Save Democracy

The direct primary was a democratic reform instituted at the turn of the twentieth century so that the voters could choose their candidates and not be faced with choices in the election made in back rooms by party bosses. The idea worked well as long as voters paid attention and still works in the case of high visibility contests e.g. President (the Obama/Clinton primaries) or Governors and Senators and Congressmen.  But in many elections it has become simply another drag on the political system that in fact may be eroding popular belief in and support for the democratic system.

Yesterday, May 21 was Primary Day in Pennsylvania.  There was a statewide contest for Superior Court and many county and municipal as well as school district contests. The turnout of registered Democrats in my county of Delaware was 9%; in my borough of Folcroft 7%.  One can no longer make the argument that 10% or less of the registered party voters are measurably more democratic than having nominees chosen by party conventions (delegates often being chosen by the voters).

I believe that my state of Pennsylvania has a number of election law provisions that far from encouraging participation (which they were intended to do) actually help keep down the interest.  There are a number of practices used in other states that I believe might increase the popular participation in primaries in our state.

First would be to adopt the Oregon system of voting by mail - including fax and online and use that method of voting in primaries, particularly those in odd numbered years which have the lowest turnout.

Second would be to do away with cross-filing, which we now have in judicial and school director races. Instead of fostering bipartisanship in these contests it has created a system where money can now lock up both nominations and thereby end any choice in the general election.

Third would be to hold the primary after Labor Day with the general election in November. (This is done in many states including New York).  Interest is greater and petitioning and campaigning is done in the summer not the winter months.

Ballot access is important but allowing anyone with ten signatures to get on a local ballot hasn’t encouraged participation it has simply created a class of candidates who have no organization and little popular support so of course no turnout on primary day.  Let the political parties hold conventions, with requirements that assure popular voice in who attends, and then let any candidate who opposes the choice of the party get substantial signatures e.g. 5% of the party voters in the district to show that there is interest and organization behind the primary effort

Another reform would be to clear up the cluttered ballot by providing that when only one candidate is nominated or petitioned for a position (or the minimum number of candidates in a group contest) they are declared nominated and there is no need for a primary unless a write-in  candidate files a petition again with some signature requirement of substance.

Reduce the number of positions that need to be filled by providing for the appointment by the parties of the election inspectors (rather than their nomination and election) two per precinct per party with rotation as to Judge of Elections (e.g. odd number precincts a Democrat inspector as Judge of Elections and even number precincts a Republican Judge of Elections).  This would also have the added benefit of allowing the county board of elections to require the party to replace anyone who fails to attend training classes or messes up on voting day.

If we are save our democracy we need to streamline it and make it relevant to the culture of the twenty first century: elect offices that voters can relate to; use modern means of communication (e.g. mail, online, faxes) to allow voters to register and to cast their votes.  We can bemoan the lack of interest by the people in all these elections and we can insist that only those who show interest should be enabled to participate.  Or, we can recognize the changes in our culture that reduce participation in collective group activities and adjust our democratic system accordingly so that we retain democracy as the means by which our people govern themselves. Those who died in the wars since 1776 did so that their descendants and future generation would be free and enjoy liberty and equality.  They didn’t fight for a particular method of voting.  And since that Revolution there have been numerous changes in the way and when we vote and what we vote for. The changes at the turn of the twentieth century are no more sacred than the practices they changed were. To save democracy we may have to simplify and modernize and adjust to the convenience of the voter.

22 May 2013