Democracy on hold

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government... 

-- U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. IV

Last month the city of Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in history. For years the city has been in a steady state of decline that began when the automakers pulled up stakes and settled in the suburbs. Over the years more and more employers have left the city, leaving the municipal tax base in shambles.

Property values plummeted. Tax revenues dried up. The city couldn't afford to provide police and fire services and schools had no money.

Into the fiscal mess stepped Michigan Governor Rick Snyder who decreed that the state had the right to appoint an emergency manager, Kevyn Orr, to get the city through the crisis since local government officials couldn't seem to get out of their own way. Residents were understandably upset about the governor, in essence, voiding their local elections and choosing someone he wanted to run the city.

As a result of the uproar, the emergency manager law was tossed out by an appeals court because the law nullified the very principle of democracy. White voters in the suburbs and rural areas then approved a constitutional amendment giving the governor the power to appoint emergency managers to run cities which were teetering on the edge of insolvency. Interestingly enough, the people affected by the law were mostly black.

The problems in Detroit have to do with an eroding industrial base and very bad investment choices by the city - choices brought to the city by the very law firm, Jones Day, where Mr. Orr worked.

And now, instead of looking toward those who made the decisions that brought Detroit to its knees, the emergency manager is looking toward retired city workers to pay for a mess they had no hand in creating. By taking the city into bankruptcy, Mr. Orr is seeking to have a federal court allow creditors to raid the city's pension fund.

As an aside, Mr. Orr is being paid a salary of $275,00 to take from the old, the poor and the working class and hand it over to banks and wealthy investors. He is also living in a $4200 a month condo on the state's dime.

The city made a promise to its employees that they would receive a pension upon retiring. Most of the pensions are fairly modest and provide just enough money for retirees to get by on. But because the retirees are unsecured creditors, they have no protection in bankruptcy court. Their pensions will be sacrificed so that wealthy bondholders and bankers can get paid.

Employee unions are also under attack as Mr. Orr seeks to void union contracts and drive wages down. Union employees didn't create the fiscal problems in Detroit - yet they, too, are being asked to pay the price so that wealthy investors can cut their losses.

In addition Mr. Orr is looking at selling the city's art collection and park lands. In other words, the commons will be sold so that investors can cash a check.

And all the while the people who live in Detroit have no say in what happens to them because the governor decided to take away their right to vote.

See also:

"Detroit accused of exaggerating $18bn debts in push for bankruptcy," The Guardian (11/20/2013)

To the point

150 years ago today, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most famous speeches ever given by a president. The speech was short - it lasted all of two minutes. But in those two minutes, President Lincoln summed up the sacrifices made by those who died on the battlefield in July 1863.

According to Wikipedia, this is one of only two
photographs of Lincoln at Gettysburg on 11/19/1863.

If you haven't read the Gettysburg Address since you were in high school, take a moment of two to read it and think about what Lincoln was saying. Reflect upon the timelessness of the message.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 

- Abraham Lincoln, "Gettysburg Address" (Nov. 19, 1863)

Maybe the speech is so powerful because of the economy of words. Sometimes, you see, less can be more. Great oration doesn't mean long oration. We can all take a lesson from Lincoln, sometimes when we strip a speech (or writing) to its very essence, we enhance not only its meaning but its effectiveness.

While he pays homage to those who died, Lincoln also challenges the rest of us - those who lived during the Civil War, and those generations that came later - to ensure that our representative democracy survived. At the time Lincoln gave his speech there were still millions held in slavery. At the time of the speech, neither free blacks nor women had the right to vote.

Since that time the word people has taken on new meanings - and it will continue to take on new meanings into the future. The road has not always been easy and the course has not always been straight, but as we expand the meaning of the word people we get closer to that government of, by and for the people that Lincoln spoke so reverently of.

Making your bed and sleeping in it

Oh, be so careful what you wish for. Millions cheered when Muhammed Morsi was deposed last month in Egypt. No, he was no friend of democracy. But, what can you expect when the country has never known anything but authoritarian rule?

Mr. Morsi somehow believed that his election gave the Muslim Brotherhood the authority to impose an Islamic state on the people of Egypt. Never mind that he won with barely a majority of the voters. He took his win and did his best to ram his party's theocratic ideology down the throats of the people.

He seemed to forget that the revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak wasn't the work of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the work of the masses who were willing to stand up and risk their lives to overthrow a dictator.

After the fall of Mubarak it was the Muslim Brotherhood who was in the best position to take advantage of the power vacuum, having been an organized - albeit banned - party from the better part of the 20th century. They had the infrastructure, and the money, to put together a winning slate of candidates.

What they didn't have was the ability to compromise and to work with others in forming a coalition to develop democracy in Egypt. For Mr. Morsi and the Brotherhood, it was their way or the highway. And it was this attitude that brought about the crisis that resulted in a military coup in early July.

And make no mistake about it, it was a coup. The Obama administration can parse words and play games all they want - but when the military forces out a popularly elected president (no matter how much dissatisfaction their is with his rule), it is a coup.

There were those who welcomed the military into the streets in late June. There were those who cheered when the General Sisi announced that Mr. Morsi had been removed from office and placed under arrest. There were those who claimed that the military was acting to save the revolution.

Are they cheering now?

There are at least 281 more than 500 people who were killed by security forces today when the military-backed government made their decision to clamp down on dissent. What kind of a government turns its military on its citizens?

And, as I have asked before, what does this portend the next time a popularly elected president runs afoul of public opinion? What happens the next time the people gather together to demand that their voices are heard?

The government also imposed a month-long state of emergency. The purpose of the decree? To quell any and all dissent. How is this any different than life under the Mubarak regime? But I suppose that is a tricky question for those supporting the coup. So, come on , President Obama, explain the difference. Explain how the current situation is doing anything to advance democracy across Egypt. Or is this all about appeasing defense contractors who need markets to sell their tools of death and destruction?

I'm no fan of Muhammed Morsi. I'm no fan of anyone who wants to mix religion and politics. Could Mr. Morsi have handled his brief time in office better? There is no doubt about it. If he had been more interested in building a democratic Egypt than he was in deciding who folks could pray to, he would still be the nation's president. Had he been more concerned with improving the lot of the Egyptian people rather than telling them how to live their lives the nation wouldn't be under de facto military rule.

But that doesn't begin to excuse what has happened in Egypt over the past six weeks. And it doesn't being to excuse the shameful behavior of our government in the affair. The Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that our nation's supposed commitment to democracy and human rights is nothing more that empty words.

Never forget that what the military giveth by force of arms, the military taketh as well. Those who support the coup have made their deal with the devil and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. Or so long as they stay within the good graces of the military.

Be careful what you wish for

On this day that we celebrate declaring our independence from the English crown it seems appropriate to look at what's happening in Egypt.

In 2011 the Arab Spring reached its zenith as the US-backed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, fell from power. The army refused Mubarak's commands to fire on the protesters and forced Mubarak to step down. Over the course of the next 18 months secular and Islamist forces vied for control of post-Mubarak Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the outlawed opposition force during the days of the dictatorship, took both the presidency and the parliament (even after the original elections were invalidated). The Muslim Brotherhood also had a majority of the representatives in the assembly that was to draft the new constitution.

Dr. Mohamed Morsi, the standard bearer for the Muslim Brotherhood, did his best to force an Islamist state upon the people. Now, while his party did win a majority of the vote, there was still a healthy percentage of the population that voted in favor of the secular parties.

Over the past year Dr. Morsi's relationship with the political opposition deteriorated to the point that millions of Egyptians marched in the streets calling for Dr. Morsi to step down this week. That call was echoed by the leaders of the Egyptian military who told the president that if he didn't negotiate a political settlement with the opposition that they would step in.

And that is what happened on Wednesday evening. Dr. Morsi was removed from office by the military and placed under arrest - as were other members of his government and the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who had called for Dr. Morsi to resign were overjoyed after the coup.

But what is the price of victory?

Dr. Morsi was the first democratically elected president in Egypt's history. The parliamentary elections were the first free elections as well. While the secular parties and their supporters have legitimate grievances against the Morsi government, does it really serve the forces of democracy to have the military step in and remove a democratically elected president? What kind of precedent does this set for future governments?

Dr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood certainly didn't represent the views of millions of Egyptians who wanted Egypt to be a secular state. But he was elected. The Muslim Brotherhood, as an outlawed group, had, by far, the best organized party in the country. And it showed when it came time for elections.

The secular opposition wasn't happy. But Dr. Morsi played by the rules. The actions this week in Egypt were anything but democratic. Allowing the military to act as a sovereign branch of government is a very bad idea. Military rule is one of the worst possible forms of government as soldiers are taught to obey orders from above and not to question authority. Lest we forget, questioning authority is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

So now Egypt has a provisional president. At some point in the future new elections will be held and a new president will be elected. He may be better than Dr. Morsi. He may be worse. But what happens the next time there is public dissatisfaction with the government? Will the military step in once again?

In order for democracy to thrive there must be an understanding  that the people have the right to change their government. That right is exercised at the ballot box not by use of a rifle. The people in the streets of Egypt got what they wanted; but how will they feel when it's their ox that's being gored?

I have no sympathy for Dr. Morsi. I firmly believe that government and religion should be separate. But I also believe that you must accept the results of a free and fair election and fight your battles in the political arena. Organize your block. Organize your neighborhood. Picket. Shout. Protest. But be very careful what you wish for - because sometimes, in the long run, the price is more than you're willing to pay.

Justice in Guatemala

Yesterday in Guatemala we saw an example of just what democracy is all about. In a court of law former Guatemalan strongman Efrain Rios Montt was found guilty of genocide for the slaughter of more than 1700 peasants during the country's dirty war. The judge sentenced Rios Montt to 80 years in prison.

The verdict is a vivid demonstration that in a democracy, no one is above the law - even a former military dictator. Could you imagine if a former president stood accused of human rights violations in this country?

It's a sad commentary when a country that has spent most of its history under repressive regimes gives us a lesson in democracy and the rule of law.

President Obama ordered the murder of an American citizen in Yemen. As a result of his orders, two more Americans were killed in Yemen. He has also been complicit in the torture and illegal detention of prisoners of war in Guantanamo.

President Bush (the Younger) committed countless violations of human rights in the torture program his administration cooked up as part of the American arsenal in the war on everything terror. He also ordered air strikes in Iraq that killed hundreds of innocent civilians as part of his cooked up war against Iraq.

President Clinton sent the war planes into Balkan air space and bombed the hell out of men, women and children who had nothing to do with the civil war in the former Yugoslavia.

President Bush (the Elder) was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Panamanians when he ordered bombing raids on populated areas during his invasion of Panama.

Under each of these presidents, covert operations were launched in countless nations around the world that resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women and children were nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of our leaders.

And every time a new president is elected he tells the American people that it's time to look ahead and not argue about the past. No president has ever ordered an investigation into the human rights abuses committed by a former occupant of the White House. It's not because he wants to try to bring the country together in a common mission -- it's because it's tacitly understood that if you ignore what the guy before you did, the guy after you will ignore what you did in kind.

I have no faith that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions. I have no faith that any former president will have to stand and defend himself against charges that he committed gross human rights violations. And, until it finally happens, there will always be those who are above the law.

What a sorry lesson to teach our children.

We certainly can't let a bit of repression get in the way of a race

Stop me if we've been down this road before but the repressive government in Bahrain has launched raids to detain opposition activists prior to the annual motoring circus known as Formula 1 coming to town.

Last year the army, backed up by Saudi arms and American money, attempted to crush the revolt in the days leading up to the race leading for calls for the FIA to cancel the race. Ah, but the love of the filthy lucre was too much for Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies to pass up on and so they put on their dark sunglasses and looked the other way as much as possible and had a grand ol' time hanging out with the uber-wealthy set.

Once again those in charge of the Formula 1 franchise couldn't care less about a little repression here and there - just so long as it doesn't disrupt their little race. At least former World Champion Damon Hill has given the matter a bit of thought (even though he appears loathe to rock the boat too much).

Of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and so the US government, despite its claims to be fighting for greater freedom and democracy around the world, has no problem with a bit of repression now and then.

I guess it shouldn't be unexpected given that those involved in the world of motorsport tend to lean toward the right. A good many of the drivers in Formula 1 came from wealthy families who bankrolled their expensive little hobby as they grew up. The team owners were exceedingly wealthy and had to have some serious coin to deal with the massive cost of replacing equipment on a regular basis.

Over the years Formula 1 marketed itself as having the best drivers in the best cars on the world's best racing circuits. And you couldn't possibly have the commoners getting tickets to sit and watch so the bosses jacked the ticket prices to the stratosphere so that only the truly wealthy could afford to tag along with the road show.

Add this all together and you come up with a sport that has much more in common with the repressive regime in Bahrain than it does with the folks out on the streets fighting for a voice. Is it any wonder the powers-that-be don't care about a little bloodletting here and there?

After all, the series ran its races in plenty of other repressive states over the years including Franco's Spain, the generals' Argentina and Brazil just to name a few.

FIA has no problem taking public money to put on its traveling circus around the world. Considering that money could have been used for other purposes that would have benefited more people, race organizers should be a little bit more attuned to what's going on in the streets.

The race only serves to benefit the ruling elite of Bahrain. The Bahraini government (and FIA) want the world to see an antiseptic race course with lots of money being flashed around by pretty people. Having to put up with those annoying folks fighting for democracy would only serve to spoil the show.

Anyway, they've got to get ready for the Chinese Grand Prix coming up later this year.

The biggest loser

14,278.

That's the number of votes Republican judicial hopeful Brad Hart lost to incumbent Judge Maria Jackson this past November.

The voters of Harris County spoke and they rejected Mr. Hart's effort to move up to the 14th floor at 1201 Franklin from the 4th floor.

I've had a couple of cases over the years with Mr. Hart. He was always very reasonable to work with. He seemed to be the model of a career prosecutor (and I don't mean that in a bad way). His trademark was cutting to the chase. He didn't waste your time with a bunch of bullshit.

But then something funny happened. Judge Belinda Hill announced to the world that she was taking a top job with the DA's office. Even though her new job opportunity made her sitting on the bench the very definition of the appearance of a conflict of interest, there she sat because she couldn't step down until Gov. Goodhair appointed a new judge.

Well, actually she could announce her resignation from the bench but that resignation couldn't take effect until a new judge was appointed. Jacqueline Smith in the civil courthouse found that out the hard way when she tried to quit during the middle of her term to take a job with a white shoe firm downtown but was told that she had to listen to lawyers arguing until someone got around to finding someone else to take her place.

But I digress.

The other day Rick Perry appointed a new judge for the 230th Judicial District Court. Brad Hart.

So, while my colleague Murray is nursing his man-crush of the latest prosecutor cum judge, it's up to me to point out what's wrong with the appointment.

Gov. Perry pretty much told the voters of Harris County to go screw themselves by appointing a person who lost in November to ascend to the bench. Perry's move is a slap in the face to this little thing we call democracy. This also makes it painfully obvious that those who propose that we change our system of selecting judges from popular vote to appointments and retention elections haven't the slightest clue as to what they're talking about.

This is just the thing that the authors of the 1876 Texas Constitution did their best to prevent. As a result of Reconstruction, that document designed a decentralized government with most of the power resting with the citizenry. But what Gov. Perry has done is subvert the will of the people.

And before y'all jump up and scream that down ballot races are largely determined by straight ticket voting at the top, the fact remains that that is the system we have and that's the system we used last November. A good many Republican candidates for judge were banking on voters in the suburbs turning out in large numbers to vote for Mitt Romney. Unfortunately for them, the turnout in the city was enough to overcome the GOP votes in the county and they did not sweep into office.

But Rick Perry and his minions don't care about elections. They don't care about anything other than advancing their right wing philosophy which includes packing the courts with as many Republicans and conservatives as possible.

If we did away with popular elections whoever the governor appointed would sit on the bench until they got tired of doing so because retention elections have become the next best thing to lifetime appointments. All retention elections do is encourage large law firms to pump more and more money into judicial races creating nothing but conflicts of interest in the courthouse.

And, with the pending appointment of a judge to replace Joan Campbell in the 248th, I suppose we could just browse the names of Republican candidates who were rejected by the voters to determine who Gov. Goodhair will select.

Because the will of the people means nothing to him.

Suppressing the vote

Texas' latest attempt to reduce voter turnout this November has been struck down by panel of three federal judges. The GOP controlled legislature passed a bill that would require voters to present a driver's license or other form of government-issued ID before being allowed to vote.

Well, what's so bad about that, you might ask.

Shouldn't everyone have a drivers license? How hard can it be?

If you've got a Texas drivers license then you've got it made in the shade. Need to renew it? You can do it by mail, online or (if you have nothing better to do with two hours of your life) in person. But what if you've never been issued a drivers license? That's where the fun begins.

Do you have a passport? How about a Certificate of Naturalization? What about some document from Homeland Security or Customs and Immigration? No? Now it gets interesting.

Do you have your birth certificate or a State Department Certification of Birth Abroad? How about a court order of a name change? Oh, but that's not all. If that's all you got, then you've got to have two additional pieces of supporting documentation.

US Attorney General  Eric Holder rightfully decreed that the Voter ID bill constituted a poll tax for poor and minority voters that would only serve to deter them from voting in November.

And what about the claims by Gov. Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott that this measure is needed to combat voter fraud? Of the 13 million votes cast in the 2008 and 2010 general elections there were but four allegations of fraud that resulted in one indictment.

So, if it's not fraud, then just what is the new bill supposed to combat? And why are Mr. Perry and Mr. Abbott fighting so hard to get the law upheld? It's because Republicans know they need to suppress voter turnout to ensure victory. Just take a look at the 2008 general election in Harris County.

In a pattern that is duplicated in pretty much all metropolitan areas, voters in urban areas tend to lean Democratic while suburban voters lean Republican. If, as in 2008, the urban vote outnumbers the suburban vote, Democratic candidates tend to win. If, as in 2010, the suburban vote is greater, the Republicans win.

In 2008, the urban vote in Harris County was overwhelmingly Democratic and turnout was significantly higher than in 2004. The result was a near Democratic sweep in Harris County. The opposite was true two years ago.

Those in favor of voter ID laws know that the people who will find it the hardest to obtain the necessary form of identification tend to vote Democratic. When you factor in the more onerous requirements to obtain a drivers license in Texas (and in some other states), the intent of the law becomes crystal clear.

Every election, commentators decry the pathetic turnout. We hear pundits proposing new ideas to increase voter participation. And, now, we watch in state after state as the Republican Party does its best to make it harder for minorities and the poor to vote.

Chicago mayor seeks to quell dissenting voices

Up in the Windy City, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is preparing to host both a NATO summit and the G8 summit. And, since we're living in a dangerous world, new security measures are a must.

Mr. Emanuel wants to spend money on the summits without first getting approval from the City Council. He wants local police to be empowered to deputize out-of-state law enforcement officers and he wants to be able to restrict the times and locations of protests.

He claimed the requested measures would be temporary - to shut down protesters while the world's eyes were on Chicago. But, like most "temporary" government measures, the changes would have been permanent. The police want more power to deal with any possible scenario - no matter how far-fetched it might be.

Here's an idea, Mr. Emanuel, why not allow Chicago to be a shining beacon of just what the First Amendment means. You chose to have these summits come to your city; in other words, you invited the problems you foresee. Let the world see just how much the right to assemble and voice your grievances means to Americans.

The greatest threat to democracy, Mr. Mayor, is intolerance of differing opinions. Sure, free speech can be ugly. It can be rude. It can be inconvenient. But the people's dissent serves as a check on government. Instead of being afraid of what protesters might say and do while the world is watching, embrace this celebration of the Bill of Rights.

People have died in the streets of Cairo, Damascus and other cities throughout the Arab world over the last year because the authoritarian regimes would not tolerate dissent. In this country we have witnessed the orderly handing over of power for more than two centuries because dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Petty tyrants must be in control of everything. Differing opinions must not be tolerated. A true democrat embraces the cacophony of voices and celebrates the people's right to be heard.

More questions than answers

One of the trademarks of a dictatorship is the Law of Rule. When the forces of democracy finally topple the old regime (which they always do), the clarion call is for the Rule of Law. In order for civil society to evolve, the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the Law of Rule must be done away with.

But in nearly every one of those countries where the old regime has been replaced, the old dictator has either taken refuge in a friendly country or met a gruesome end. This past week in Libya was no exception. Col. Muammar Gaddafi was killed after attempting to escape from his hometown of Sirte.

The former dictator was found hiding in a culvert after his convoy came under fire from NATO forces.

Exactly how Col. Gaddafi met his end is not certain. What is certain is that it was an extra-judicial killing - in other words, Col. Gaddafi was murdered.

Sure, not too many folks are going to be too upset that he's dead. But, does killing a defenseless man who has just been captured make life in the new Libya any better than life in the old Libya? What does it say about the prospects of the Rule of Law?

A larger question is whether NATO forces should have been involved in what amounted to a civil war in Libya. Was there any justification for outside forces to align themselves directly with one side in an internal conflict in another part of the world? Let's not kid ourselves, by declaring no-fly zones in Libya, NATO was providing support for anti-Gaddafi forces in the country. What price will be paid by the new government? What promises were made? What was the cost of NATO's air power?

The task in Libya is now to establish a new government and constitution and to implement the Rule of Law so that all of the trappings of a democratic society can evolve. Unfortunately, the first chance the new rulers had to implement the Rule of Law was an abject failure.

See also:

"Another one down," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 21, 2011)
"On the killing of Moammar Gaddafi," Koehler Law Blog (Oct. 21, 2011)
"Mystery surrounds Gaddafi's end," BBC News (Oct. 21, 2011)

Wikileaks and the assault on openness

Oh what is one to make of this sordid scandal involving Wikileaks chief Julian Assange? As I write this, Mr. Assange is sitting in a London jail without bail on a Swedish warrant for sexual assault. I'm not here to go into the details of the alleged charges. Having unprotected sex and (allegedly) passing on a sexually transmitted disease is really not very cool. On the other hand, having world leaders calling for his head for espionage is even more unseemly.

Since the release of secret US documents last month, Wikileaks has been under assault. First Amazon (and later other firms) refused to host the Wikileaks website. Then PayPal and other firms halted the processing of electronic payments to Wikileaks. Then the Swiss bank that held the Wikileaks account froze it. Of course, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

All of this because Mr. Assange and his confidential sources released documents that might embarrass those in power.

Our elected officials, and their appointed minions, are accountable to the citizens of the United States. They work for us. The State Department has the task of managing the foreign affairs of the country. Their duty is to act in the best interest of the United States -- that is, the citizenry.

Destabilizing foreign governments, erecting puppet regimes and greasing the skids for American-based transnational corporations under clouds of secrecy is not in this country's best interest. I'm sure there are some very embarrassing things to be found in the leaked documents; I'm also certain that sometimes it's best to say one thing in public and something very different in private (we all do it from time to time). But let's face it, when it comes to foreign affairs, the United States doesn't have the best record of supporting human rights and civil liberties.

We would freak out in this country if it turned out that bucket loads of foreign money was being funneled to candidates for the House, Senate or White House. Yet, our government has no qualms about pumping US dollars into elections in other countries in order to elect politicians friendly to US demands.

I don't know what Mr. Assange's motives are and I don't really care. By releasing these documents, Wikileaks is imposing accountability on those who made decisions in the State Department. Accountability is supposed to be a good thing. Judges and prosecutors are forever telling defendants they need to be accountable for their actions. If it's good for Johnny Two-times on the street,  I think it's good for the President and his men, too.

Secrecy is the greatest enemy of democracy.

See also:

"Bailing Assange," Simple Justice, December 8, 2010.
"The false indignant outrage over Julian Assange," Felonious Munk, December 7, 2010.
"Julian Assange: Neocon tool?" New York Times, December 7, 2010.

Why fear democracy?

It seems to be an iron rule of organizations that leaders are not so much elected by the membership rather they are "promoted" from office to office. Contested elections seem to occur only when an office has been vacated. Very few members dare to challenge those already in leadership positions. There is an orderly succession and everyone knows ahead of time who will be holding what office in the near future.

Let's see, where else have we seen this particular type of governance? That's right. In the old Soviet Union, in China, in Cuba and in North Korea, just to name a few. How's that working out, by the way?

And don't say that's the way we've always done it, either. There are a whole lot of traditions in this country that were (or are) just plain wrong.

Why the fear of a contested election? If someone's a good candidate for an office, why shouldn't there be an election? Are we afraid that a competitive election is going to bruise some egos or lead to some disagreements? So what if they do? The benefit of contested elections is that issues that affect the membership come to the fore. Why would someone run against an incumbent officer? Probably because someone feels there is an important issue affecting the membership that isn't being addressed. Competitive elections are a way of conducting a periodic referendum to find out what issues are important to the voters. How can that be a bad thing?

And, as an aside, if your organization is conducting a contested election, wouldn't it make more sense to send out ballots in envelopes that identify the name of the organization? Sending out a ballot in an envelope marked with the name of an accounting firm seems to be a very effective method of lowering the "turnout."