Isn't it weird how, even now, most people have an unshakable faith that the mechanics of the Constitution will just keep on moving along, no matter what happens? I think that I have that faith still, even as it looks less and less well-founded.
I guess my rationale is "230 years, and a few bombs are going to wreck the whole thing?"
But the protests that would result from suspending the Constitution probably would wake us from the dogmatic slumber in which we think, "Oh, of course democracy is really happening -- we're following all the rules!"
At the very least, we need to force the authorities to talk about their plans. Ideally, they should be pressured to articulate standards in advance: How bad will it have to be? What criterion will they use? Who will certify that the criterion has been met?
It's not the content that matters. The point is just to get them talking and thereby acknowledging that this is a live option in their minds. They'll probably admit that "It's all up to the President, he can postpone the elections whenever he wants for as long as he wants on any pretext he wants."
The public needs to know what kind of administration we're dealing with. Legal and constitutional experts needs the heads up to start writing position papers and driving the national debate.
For now, our strategy should be to convince the public that such a thing is even possible. People need to realize that it really could happen here.
Some anonymous sources and a suggestion from an administration official that Congress enact legislation. I see the danger here, and I shall immediately rush to the barricades.
Trying to convince people that the Bush Administration is planning to cancel the 2004 election is definitely good politics. Just don't forget your tinfoil hat. I like the Reynolds brand foil myself.
It's not just about promoting hysteria, etc. Anything that decreases voter turnout is sure to benefit Republican candidates. If it happens, yes we should protest. More important, we have to mobilize everyone to take (new) election day off of work and drive people to the polls.
Hm, I tend to see postponement as helping Democrats assuming an agreed upon plan is in place before hand. A devastating attack immediately before elections (I'm talking 9/11 scale or bigger) would only benefit Republicans as the inevitable rally round the President response kicks in. A cooling off period would help Democrats.
Further, Spain is not a comparable model. Part of the Spanish election result was due to the fact that the government tried to blame the bombing on Basque separatists.
Finally, I like the poetic justice of election day coninciding with Thanksgiving. That would be really cool.
Primary elections were postponed due to Hurricane Andrew in Miami and the Sept. 11 attack in New York, and democracy didn't come to an end.
Posted by Shamhat | Link to this comment | 07-11-04 2:00 PM
Right, file those under "logistical challenges."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-11-04 2:02 PM
Isn't it weird how, even now, most people have an unshakable faith that the mechanics of the Constitution will just keep on moving along, no matter what happens? I think that I have that faith still, even as it looks less and less well-founded.
I guess my rationale is "230 years, and a few bombs are going to wreck the whole thing?"
But the protests that would result from suspending the Constitution probably would wake us from the dogmatic slumber in which we think, "Oh, of course democracy is really happening -- we're following all the rules!"
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 07-11-04 4:59 PM
We should just announce a few days before November 9th that the election is being held early.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-11-04 6:56 PM
At the very least, we need to force the authorities to talk about their plans. Ideally, they should be pressured to articulate standards in advance: How bad will it have to be? What criterion will they use? Who will certify that the criterion has been met?
It's not the content that matters. The point is just to get them talking and thereby acknowledging that this is a live option in their minds. They'll probably admit that "It's all up to the President, he can postpone the elections whenever he wants for as long as he wants on any pretext he wants."
The public needs to know what kind of administration we're dealing with. Legal and constitutional experts needs the heads up to start writing position papers and driving the national debate.
For now, our strategy should be to convince the public that such a thing is even possible. People need to realize that it really could happen here.
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein | Link to this comment | 07-11-04 9:12 PM
Some anonymous sources and a suggestion from an administration official that Congress enact legislation. I see the danger here, and I shall immediately rush to the barricades.
Trying to convince people that the Bush Administration is planning to cancel the 2004 election is definitely good politics. Just don't forget your tinfoil hat. I like the Reynolds brand foil myself.
Posted by unf | Link to this comment | 07-11-04 9:48 PM
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!
Posted by larry ziegler | Link to this comment | 07-12-04 8:45 AM
It's not just about promoting hysteria, etc. Anything that decreases voter turnout is sure to benefit Republican candidates. If it happens, yes we should protest. More important, we have to mobilize everyone to take (new) election day off of work and drive people to the polls.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 07-12-04 10:26 AM
Hm, I tend to see postponement as helping Democrats assuming an agreed upon plan is in place before hand. A devastating attack immediately before elections (I'm talking 9/11 scale or bigger) would only benefit Republicans as the inevitable rally round the President response kicks in. A cooling off period would help Democrats.
Further, Spain is not a comparable model. Part of the Spanish election result was due to the fact that the government tried to blame the bombing on Basque separatists.
Finally, I like the poetic justice of election day coninciding with Thanksgiving. That would be really cool.
Posted by David Salmanson | Link to this comment | 07-14-04 12:53 PM