Let me get this straight…The anti-progressive Mr. Schneider is using a progressive argument as a counter to a progressive tradition. However, I’ve never seen so many strawmen in my life regarding Mr. Schneider’s rebuttals to the erudite Professor Fallone.
Anyhoo, refer to source “Lawyers Unite Against Recall”. In the article, several lawyers are noted to oppose the recall election. In particular, Benjamin Poss and George Ballhorn worked for major corporations. Not surprisingly, there was a rift between the liberal and conservative wing of the Republican Party in the early 1900’s. A number of lawyers, including the two I just mentioned, who opposed the recall election had economic interests at stake. It would not be a stretch to surmise that their INTENTIONS to objecting to the recall was motivated by FINANCIAL, rather than POLITICAL, reasons.
]]>Of course, there are numerous Capper posts in which he criticizes Rick Esenberg.
You know what? I’ll take the college professor and trained lawyer over the rotund, mustachioed county employee.
]]>(1) So, in 1926, the _Wisconsin State Journal_ loved the idea of using the recall to hold executive officials accountable, but it reasonably recognized that it wouldn’t be used very often for this purpose with a 2-year election cycle.
It doesn’t take a leap in logic to believe that, faced with a four-year election cycle, these contemporary editorial boards would have still loved the ability of recalls to hold executive officials accountable. The only difference is that with a four-year election cycle the “potentiality” would be translated into “practice.”
So, Mr. Schneider, if the supporters of the recall in 1926 thought that recalls were “an instrument of popular control of public administration which is useful as applied to executive officials,” how can you seriously argue that the current recall campaign “is far different from what the original drafters had envisioned.”
Is not the current recall campaign an “an instrument of popular control of public administration?”
(2) The supporters of the recall law in 1926 realized it would not be used very often for “executive officials” BECAUSE of the existing TWO-YEAR ELECTION CYCLE. Recalls, they reasoned, would be unnecessary to force an early election, because elections happened every two years already.
These recalls have essentially re-instituted the old two-year election cycle for Gov. Walker, which is exactly the system under which the recall supporters operated in 1926.
(See, under pre-1967 rules, the current recall would not be happening, precisely BECAUSE Gov. Walker would have been up for election anyway in 2012!)
Ergo, it could be very easily argued, that, by re-enforcing this old two-year election cycle, the current round of recalls is giving back to the voting public the “whip-hand” they previously enjoyed over “executive officials” during the earlier era of two-year election cycles.
(See, in 1926, the WSJ and other recall proponents loved the two-year election cycle, because of the “whip-hand” it gave the electorate over “executive officials.” You and other supporters of Gov. Walker dimissively call this the “permanent election cycle,” but the people you are using to support your argument called it business as usual. Are you really sure you want to be citing these folk who loved elections every two years to support your view that they didn’t like elections every two years?!)
To repeat, in 1926 the WSJ reasoned recalls would be unneccessary, because the Governor and other “executive officials” faced a two-year election cycle. This round of elections merely re-institutes the two-year election cycle that people knew in 1926.
So, Mr. Schneider, if the current round of recalls merely gives back to the voting public the “whip-hand” of a two-year election cycle it enjoyed over “executive officials” in 1926, how can you seriously argue that the current recall campaign “is far different from what the original drafters had envisioned.”
Using one of your own sources, there are two ways in which the current recall system is very much in line with the ideas of the recall’s proponents in 1926.
I look forward to your response explaining how this two-year election cycle for Gov. Walker is not exactly the situation that your sources supported in 1926, precisely because it gave the “whip-hand” over “executive officials” to the electorate in the form of frequuent elections.
]]>And then he wonders why people question his scholarship.
]]>