Prudent Paranoia
by Wendy Fried

Just because you're rightfully paranoid doesn't mean you're paranoid about the right things.

The Bush administration has done more for left-wing conspiracy theories than Miracle-Gro will ever do for the petunias on my terrace. So it wasn't surprising to see hackles shoot up when a presidential appointee recently made noises about postponing this November's election in the face of a terrorist threat. Politicians and pundits on the left unanimously proclaimed that the election must go forward no matter what, lest Mr. Bush concoct an alert and declare himself our leader in perpetuity.

And, sure enough, with the Democratic convention successfully concluded, along came the next conveniently timed Homeland Security fearfest. So Democrats should pat themselves on the back for squelching all discussion of Election Day emergencies, right?

Wrong. The truth is that Democrats should be thinking hard about the prospect of disaster striking around Election Day. In fact, the less faith people have in those holding power, the harder they should push for a public airing of Nov. 2 contingency plans. Everything should be on the table, even the last resort of delaying the election for a short time. Given that terrorist threats (not to mention huge power outages) seem to hit the blue states disproportionately, it doesn't take much imagination to picture an Election Day on which voting goes swimmingly in Republican strongholds while an emergency throws Democratic ones into helpless confusion. So Democrats could well be sorry we made "postpone" such a dirty word.

To get some perspective on this issue, it's worth observing the sense of urgency with which the administration and Congress are racing to shore up the nation's financial infrastructure, as opposed to its democratic infrastructure. Not many people are familiar with the alphabet soup of government and public/private entities that have been toiling, since shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, on what's euphemistically known as "business continuity planning" for Wall Street and other hot spots in the economy. This effort was given teeth in part by an executive order President Bush issued a mere month after the attacks. The administration's attentiveness to this task, and the resources devoted to it, make its dearth of planning on the election front that much harder to understand.

In just one example, the Treasury Department has tried to plan for situations that might delay regularly scheduled auctions of Treasury bills, notes or bonds. This is a touchy subject for Wall Street because these auctions play a sacred role in the bond markets. But when it comes to the financial world, it's clear that the administration isn't looking for excuses to postpone important market events; on the contrary, it is doing everything possible to increase the odds that they can take place even under difficult circumstances.

With less than three months to go, Democrats should be wondering why the Republican-controlled administration and Congress display no similar urgency about preparing for emergencies that could interfere with what John Kerry likes to call "the most important election of our lifetime." It cannot be a bad thing to seek answers, in a public forum, to such questions as, What might legitimately lead an election to be postponed or voting hours to be extended? Could Congress, which has power to set federal election dates, delegate this role to a bipartisan body with the tools to size up a situation quickly and the authority to reschedule the election on short notice? How would decisionmakers communicate if phone lines and e-mail servers are out of commission? What should state legislators be doing to prepare for election emergencies, and how can we best ensure that states act in a fair and uniform way? And how, in a chaotic situation, would the public find out about changes to voting dates, hours, locations or procedures?

Advance planning, done in an open and legal way, doesn't threaten the democratic process. Rather, it's the failure to plan, and the intense confusion that's likely to reign if an election is disrupted, that should keep Democrats up at night. The less prepared the nation is, the easier it will be for Republicans to make ad hoc decisions that turn the situation to their favor. And even in the unlikely event that no one misbehaves, last-minute changes to election procedures would almost certainly violate the letter of the law and give the loser a legitimate reason to challenge the results. It would then fall to the courts to try to figure out who won, or if anyone did. The nation could be in for a prolonged state of chaos and strife that makes what happened in Florida look like a cakewalk, if you'll pardon the expression. And you may remember how that one turned out.

Lately the lights in my kitchen have begun to flicker a bit, as they did a few weeks before last year's massive blackout. Should I notify the power company? Nah, I'm sure it's just the Republicans getting ready for Election Day.

E-mail Wendy Fried at wfried@nyc.rr.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)