MUST READ: Juan Cole on what we must learn post election

I'd love to see this get lots and lots of tweets and shares .. ;-)
Yes, I am asking YOU.

1942 Midterms: Republicans win Popular Vote, Pick up 47 Seats in House; Roosevelt on Ropes; Pacific War Uncertain, Economy Slowly Improving

Posted: 03 Nov 2010 12:54 AM PDT

It was November, 1942. A year earlier the Japanese Empire had struck at Pearl Harbor and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had finally entered World War II. Although in May of 1942 the US was kicked out of the Philippines by the Japanese, with Gen. MacArthur retreating to Australia, in June of 1942 the US wins a major battle against the Japanese at Midway. Still, in fall of 1942 the long, bloody battle for Guadalcanal in The South Pacific had not been decided. The economy had finally begun improving after the long years of Depression. The unemployment rate was reduced from 14.6 percent in 1940 to only 4.7 percent in 1942. Roosevelt faced midterm elections.

Would you really choose that moment to more or less return to power the party that had caused the Great Depression?

We might look back on these years of the “Greatest Generation” as heroic, and Roosevelt as unbeatable. But you know what? His Democrats lost the popular vote, losing big in the House of Representatives, and Republicans picked up 47 seats. Because of the way things were then districted, the Democrats did hold on to the House by a slim margin. But they were deprived of a comfortable majority (left with just a 13 seat margin). As the Los Angeles Times noted the day after the election, Roosevelt was left without a real majority, because he always faced defections on any vote. The paper breathlessly noted the dramatic fall of Democratic dominance from the party’s commanding position in 1936.

Remember, this is almost a year into World War II, troops are fighting and dying in the Pacific, and the economy is looking up. Roosevelt and his party should have benefited from his being a war president, and should have gotten some credit for having saved the country from the worst economic crisis of all time. Instead, the voters punished him.

Timothy Y. C. Cotton explains in his article, “War and American Democracy: Electoral Costs of the Last Five Wars,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 616-635:

‘ The attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 brought home to Americans the sure knowledge that the aggressively expanding totalitarian powers on either side of them presented a real threat. At the time of the midterm election of 1942, the war effort was not going well. Voters seemed to turn from the Democrats, who were still enjoying the benefits of the recovery of the economy from the Depression. Despite strong economic growth in 1942, the GOP was able to cut substantially into the Democratic majority in Congress.

The lack of progress in battle was one reason the GOP fared better in 1942. Another was the imposition of wartime controls on the domestic economy. “During 1942 the Office of Price Administration instituted ten major rationing programs, while shortages in still exempt goods
drove their prices up, encouraged hoarding and forebode further rationing to come” (Blum, 1976: 227). Economic growth was being funneled into the war effort rather than consumer goods as part of the effort to build up the nation’s military strength. Labor unions were
obliged to lessen their demands and not to strike, given the critical need for maintaining the supply of the tools of war. Workers became resentful, however, thinking that they were being taken advantage of by management. These factors conspired to turn the voters against the
Democrats in 1942.’

Of course, the dynamics were very different than today, with the Afghanistan War even chancier than the then Pacific one, and with government intervening in the economy in different ways (bank bailouts, briefly taking over an auto company, stubbornly high unemployment closest to that of 1940 than that of 1942, health care reform).

An even more interesting story could be told about the 1946 midterms, when Democratic President Harry Truman, who had, like won World War II, saw the Republicans pick up an astonishing 55 seats and take control of the House. People were tired of long years of war and sacrifice and the Republicans promised prosperity through unleashing the free market.

But that’s American politics. Presidents often lose big in midterms, and especially when the public is nervous about foreign wars and domestic economic uncertainty. In a two party system and a corporate-dominated society, what else can one expect but a continual see-saw?

A little catchup on elections and subverting democracy

Except for posting a digg item on Dennis Kucinich's demand for a recount in New Hampshire, I haven't REALLY commented too much on the voter irregularities, but that doesn't mean I am not watching and reading every thing I can about it; I most definitely am. It's more than just demanding a recount; there is a whole lot more to it than that and I wanted to ensure I keep my ducks in a row about this one.

Electoral stealth is the subject of major bestsellers .. and my advocacy of Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse knows no bounds.

I found Ron Paul's ignoring the New Hampshire votes something I could not reconcile myself with; after all, Mr. Constitution, why are you NOT upholding it? It is YOUR responsibility to see that it is enforced. You took the oath. (But responsibility is not something I see readily being accepted from that camp .. lots of spin and hype but little real responsibility, I guess that will keep potential voters filling up your campaign war chest!!)

DIRTY ELECTIONS MAKE FOR DIRTY BUSINESS.

I went and worked this fall as an elector in the Ontario elections to find out for myself how a clean election is run. I compared that to everything I read in Greg Palast and see online about US elections and was appalled. MORTIFIED beyond belief that something this dastardly is still around after the highjack of the US presidential election, which the truth be known, was a coup.

A coup d’état (also coup) is the sudden, illegal overthrowing of a government by a part of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government. (wikipedia entry)

The electoral system itself is a branch of the government, the truth be known. And I'll stand my position that 2000 was a bloodless coup in America. And it's had global repercussions.

It's going to be hard work to get any honest candidates running for President in 2008 - the media is going to bend over backwards to prevent it. Wealthy men don't want us saying anything against their interest, and they don't want candidates to suggest that the wealthy's power be taken away. Hence we end up with Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich already off the television screens.

The political conventions themselves make for a pretty difficult hurdle to overcome; we've all read about backroom deals at conventions. If you don't, and need some mental imagery of what happens then just read Gore Vidal's excellent, The Golden Age - there's an Amazon link to the book right over there to your left.'

But voting, what you can say? It can be subverted all along the line, as a way to control the convention delegates right to the way your vote is counted!! Watch this telling video (it's short; the HBO video, Hacking Democracy is quite long. I watched the hearings on the puter when they were held.) The comments on the youtube website are very good, should you wish to go visit there.

If you want many many fine articles on this topic to read, just head over to OpEd News, that's where the EXPERTS can tell you the facts.

European press: It wasn't a miracle - Hillary won via a rigged vote

By Michael Carmichael

Global Research, January 14, 2008

Planetary Movement

The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines. In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners. According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire. Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards. The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000. In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed. If you trust HiLIARy go ahead, I surely do not. That's your perogative in a democracy. But there is no democracy, so I would beware, is my advice. Why is she NOT complaining when others in her very own political party are and the evidence is so clear. Why is she NOT demanding very valid elections if she were so secure in her "candidacy"?? and why does Ron Paul "stay out" of the controversy? To keep his supporters feeling like "victims". Give me a break and let's go HEALTHY, accountable voting. It's not that tough to accomplish.

Global Watch here: New Zealand

PublicAddress.net

Legislating in the Twilight Zone

GUEST: Steven Price of the Coalition for Open Government

I've just got back to New Zealand from a three-week overseas holiday. At least, I think it's New Zealand. Reading people's comments about the Electoral Finance Bill, I can't help wondering if my return flight somehow crossed into the Twilight Zone.

It's an attack on democracy, thunders the NZ Herald, suggesting that the revised bill is only slightly better.

No it's not -- it's worse! -- contends table-thumper-in-Chief David Farrar.

Struggling to compete in the battle for a tendentious quote, Rodney Hide lost his marbles completely:
The Electoral Finance Bill is the most serious assault on free speech and political expression ever seen in the developed world - and the recent amendments to it have changed nothing.

In the New Zealand I thought I knew, most people figured this bill was trying to achieve something important: to remove the corrupting influence of big money in politics. To make parties tell voters who is behind the huge donations they receive. To make sure the public could find out who's behind the swag of pamphlets, billboards and ads they're exposed to at election time. To limit the power of a few to swing elections using the sort of wealth the rest of us can't hope to compete with.

The New Zealanders I thought I knew only needed to remember the 2005 election to remind themselves why these things were important. Almost until the eve of the election, no-one knew who was behind the Exclusive Brethren's million-dollar pamphlet campaign -- or about National's involvement in that campaign.

Nor do we have any idea who provided Labour and National with hundreds of thousands of dollars to bankroll their electioneering - or what those people might hope for in return.
It was clear that our electoral system needed a healthy dose of transparency. And that we should have listened more closely the Royal Commission on the electoral system in 1986 when they warned of the need to minimise the effects of economic inequalities on public debate for democracy to prosper.

Still, the Electoral Finance Bill as originally drafted was a horrible disappointment. There was nothing restricting secret trusts and anonymous donations to political parties. On the other hand, the restrictions on the speech of others who wanted to be involved in the debate were far too tight. As drafted, that bill was an attack on democracy.

There was an outcry, and a chastened government publicly announced that changes would be made. Sensible people responded by grumbling about the closed-door process being followed, but resolved to wait for the changes and see whether they really made things better.

Non-sensible people continued to rail against the bill as if the government had announced it was going to pass the bill in exactly the same form.

Well, now we can all see the changes.

And as someone who's spent his life studying, writing about, and arguing free speech issues, I think this bill is much better.

It shortens the net capturing "election advertisements". It doubles the amount that people can spend on them. It scraps the onerous statutory declaration regime. It restricts overseas donations.

Best of all, it introduces new controls on secret trusts and anonymous donations.

I am mystified by the people who are claiming that the changes aren't significant and that the bill is still "draconian". Bill English: this means you. Why are you telling people that this is about silencing Labour's critics?

Shouldn't you point out that it equally restricts Labour's cheerleaders, and National's critics?

How can you justify calling this "heavy regulation" of free speech? Shouldn't you mention that no more than a handful of people want to spend more than $120,000 on electioneering? And that hardly any of us even spend the $12,000 that would require us to register our identities with the Electoral Commission so that everyone knows who's behind our ads? Most of us exercise free speech by talking to each other, writing letters to the editor, and talking to the media. Those things aren't regulated at all.

What's that you're saying about the regulations applying one year in every three? Shouldn't you point out that political speech in the early months of the year is very unlikely to be calling for people to vote one way or another - so it won't fall under the Act?

For example, if the Sensible Sentencing Trust runs an ad in March calling for MPs to vote for the More Prisons Amendment Bill, that speech won't be affected. If they run an ad in October calling for the public to vote against the parties who refused to support the More Prisons Amendment Bill, it will count as an election advertisement. As it should.

Is the bill perfect? No. There are still some flaws. I'd like to see the limit for anonymous donations reduced still further, for example. Why should parties be able to get $10,000 donations each year from people without telling voters their identities?

And the bill should be tweaked to make it clear that people with loudhailers and placards don't have to put their names and addresses on them (the government has announced it will fix this).
I'm still hoping that shortly I'll land back in the New Zealand that has a sense of fairness and proportion, and can debate this revised bill on its merits. When that happens, we might start asking ourselves some really interesting questions, such as who stands to gain most from the lack of fairness and transparency in the present system -- the system that will prevail if this bill is defeated?

Steven Price is co-founder of the Coalition for Open Government.