countercurrents | The freedom to publish and speak, and protection from vigilante
justice are two examples of what actor Bill felt would most likely fall
under an appalling Reagan presidency, as they had in very dramatic
fashion under President Wilson. He also underscored the fragility of
voting results, emphasizing that “unacceptable results” might not be
honored. That’s the sort of thing the U.S. has been doing
— not honoring election results — around the world for a very long
time, its “Exceptional Good Guy” (carefully honed democratic) image
notwithstanding.
“When… in 1918 and again in a special election the next year,
Wisconsin voters elected a Socialist to Congress, and a fairly moderate
one at that, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 330 to 6, simply
refused to seat him. The same thing happened to five members of the
party elected to the New York state legislature.”
Third parties in the U.S. don’t tell their members that if they run a
candidate for a major office there’s the strong possibility that
electoral fraud will kick in if the candidate wins and is seriously
offensive to the powers that be, the two major parties and those they really represent for the most part. Which is not the people, of course, in an oligarchy. Or is it a plutocracy? It should be discussed. In schools. Instead of the ideal democratic
checks and balances being given more time than they deserve in the
classroom, options for dealing with our macabre momentum could be the
subject of spot on, useful exchanges.
But third parties themselves have an obligation to do this. To really
get down with their members respecting why their major candidates don’t
have a shot in hell at taking office even if they win. Again, not just
in the context of electoral fraud, but because newspapers and other
media outlets — just as they did during Wilson’s wartime antics — are
likely to be supportive of anti-democratic actions which keep radicals
out of office. Whatever form they take.
0 comments:
Post a Comment