COUNTING THE VOTES

Midterm elections have traditionally been ho-hum affairs, generally favoring the party out of power and featuring a significantly lower turnout than presidential elections. Nevertheless, this year's election could well be the most consequential in years, possibly defying political history. With minuscule Democratic majorities in both chambers, all 435 House seats and 35 U.S. Senate seats up for grabs, control of Congress is definitely in play. Perhaps more importantly, the 2022 midterms may also well be the first election ever in which the elections themselves are on the ballot. While President Biden is not up for reelection per se, the midterms will be a referendum on the first two years of his administration and the performance by his Democratic party. Basic issues like the economy and inflation, crime and gun policies, climate change, immigration, and the increasingly more prominent reproductive rights, AKA abortion, issue will encounter a vastly different approach in Congress depending on which party wins control. But, after all, Mr. Biden will still be president wielding veto power. Odds makers tend to agree that the Republican Party will most likely end up as the majority in control of the House of Representatives. It takes 218 seats to win control of the House. Right now Democrats hold 221 seats, Republicans have 213. They need a net gain of 5 seats to unseat Nancy Pelosi and others, and presumably install Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Anyone interested in keeping track of the votes in all 435 Congressional districts as they happen, will need an interactive computerized spreadsheet. Fortunately for us, multiple media outlets will help us take care of that. However, keeping track of the Senate races is more interesting and manageable. We currently have a 50-50 Senate. This includes 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 Independents voting with the Democrats. Twenty-one seats currently held by Republicans and 14 held by Democrats are in play. Of these, most appear secure for their respective incumbents. Only a hand full are considered "toss-ups" in which either party has a legitimate chance of winning. Anyone interested in keeping track of the electoral outcome of this race ought to focus on Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia and, possibly, Ohio. The Arizona contest is between Democratic incumbent, former astronaut, Mark Kelly, who is considered vulnerable against Trump backed venture capitalist Blake Masters. In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is thought to be the most likely sitting Senator to lose her seat to Republican challenger, former state attorney general, Adam Laxalt. Pennsylvania exhibits an interesting contest between Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is supported by the former president, and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, who recently recovered from a massive stroke. Current Republican Senator Pat Toomey decided not to run for reelection. Georgia has also been in the news lately. Republican candidate, former running back, Herschel Walker will attempt to unseat Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock. This contest appears to be key to the GOP strategy to retake the Senate. However, Mr. Walker, who is running on a family values, strict anti-abortion, platform, allegedly reimbursed a former girlfriend for the cost of an abortion - a charge he denies. This race is still too close to call. Finally, in Ohio, U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, will attempt to take the state's senate seat away from the Republican party, defended by their candidate J.D. Vance. Incumbent Rob Portman also decided not to run for reelection. The Republican party could win all of these toss-ups and claim control of the Senate. Democrats are defending three out of five, and would enhance their dominance over the Senate by claiming victory in the two states abandoned by their incumbents. While these contests will likely determine the balance of power in Congress for the next few years, the arguably most consequential electoral battle is being fought over control of the electoral process itself. In many places the choice is between Democratic and Republican supporters of our democratic traditions, and those still asserting that the 2020 election was stolen and that American elections are deeply flawed. The latter movement, emboldened by open encouragement from former president Donald Trump, is no longer an aberration on the fringes. In many constituencies the influence of these so-called election deniers is overwhelming and permeates all levels of government. On ballots across the country, the Brookings Institution identified 345 candidates who have expressed election denial beliefs. These are candidates, across a variety of races during this election, who perpetuate ex-president Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Many election deniers are congressional incumbents who voted to reject certification of the presidential election results. This group of candidates will be on the ballot in virtually every state and make up more than half of all Republicans running for congressional and state offices. According to the Cook Political Report and a Washington Post analysis more than 170 election deniers are running in districts or states where Republicans are expected to win. If they succeed, especially at state levels, they could have the power to interfere with non-partisan election administration and put our free, fair and secure elections at risk. Governors, Attorneys General and Secretaries of State set the rules, run the elections, supervise the counting of ballots and control certification of results. In some extreme cases bills have already been introduced which, if passed, would give legislators the power to reject election outcomes and replace winning candidates with those more to their liking. Across the country, 13 of 27 secretary of state races, 10 of 30 attorney general contests and 19 of 36 campaigns for governor have openly declared election deniers on their respective ballots. Few are shy admitting that their main objective is to have more control over certification of elections and control the outcome of the upcoming 2024 presidential contest. More than 100 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was very blunt when he proclaimed that "those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." A disturbing number of recent converts to this philosophy seems to be ready to agree. Arizona candidate for Governor Kari Lake is not alone when she insisted a week or so ago that she would only commit to accept the election results if she wins. If this becomes a trend, we are in trouble. To quote another politician, courageous, highly principled Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney makes it clear: "If you care about democracy, and you care about the survival of our republic ...we cannot give people power who have told us that they will not honor elections." Theo Wierdsma

WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN EUROPE?

The handwriting was on the wall: the headlines could not be ignored: "Italian voters appear ready to turn a page for Europe." (NY Times); "Election will test Italian's cautious optimism." (Gallup); "Right-wing alliance seen as likely winner as Italians vote." (Reuters). News media across the spectrum warned the world that Italy, the E.U.'s third largest economy, was about to elect a Fascist alliance to run its next government. As predicted, it happened. So, now what? People ask "why?" How could this happen? Is Europe about to return to a darker past? The outcome of this election, although uncomfortable for many, should not come as a total surprise. Continental Europe, a landmass significantly smaller than North America, has been home to at least 20 hard-right political parties. Many of these have roots in a Nazi or Fascist past, and most all proclaim Neo-Nazi or Neo-Fascist leanings. Virtually all proclaim frustration with their country's political establishment. They point out that Democracy is not terribly efficient. They resent globalization. They tend to hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic and racist views, and charge that liberal immigration policies are diluting their national identity. Most exhibit an inclination to be Eurosceptic, fundamentally opposed to the E.U. and European integration, even if their country benefits substantially economically from membership in the European Union. A growing number of hard-right nationalist parties have accumulated sufficient electoral support to enter governing coalitions in their host countries. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run the country for over a decade. It is staunchly anti-immigrant, openly intolerant of minorities and the liberal leanings of philanthropist countryman George Soros, and vocally critical of E.U. sanctions on Russia. Austria's far-right, anti-Muslim, "Freedom Party", founded in 1955 and rooted in National Socialism, is a dominant participant in the country's government. The right-wing opposition "AFD" (Alternative for Germany) political party is overwhelmingly supported in areas which prior to the country's reunification in 1990 were part of East Germany. As of the federal elections in 2017 it became Germany's third largest party. The "Sweden Democrats," once a fringe, anti-immigrant, party created out of a group of hard-line Neo-Nazis, recently received 20.5% of the vote and became the largest party in Sweden's new center-right majority in parliament. In France, Marine Le Pen, who presides over the "National Rally," a perennial candidate for president, received 41.5% of the popular vote in last April's run off election with Emmanuel Macron - a significant improvement over the 33.9% she received in 2017. And there are numerous others who have gained prominence: "Vox" in Spain, the "Danish People's Party," "Vlaams Belang" in Belgium, "Forum voor Democratie" and "Party for Freedom" in The Netherlands. And, outside of the European Union, the dominant "Swiss People's Party." Most of these are hard-right, nationalist, anti status quo, and ready to take the reigns of traditional democratic countries. That within this political environment another right-wing fringe party, the "Brothers of Italy" should manage to become a serious player is hardly surprising. Italy is the birthplace of Fascism. Following World War II, the country never repudiated Fascism and Mussolini in the way Germany renounced Nazism and Hitler. Rachelle Mussolini and Alessandra Mussolini - il Duce's granddaughter - are still prominent in Italian politics. However, labels don't necessarily reflect ideology. Georgia Meloni has said that she dislikes talking about Fascism. She is convinced that the Italian right "has banned Fascism over to history for decades" already. She expresses support for NATO, the E.U., Ukraine, and the sanctions on Russia. Although these are positions not necessarily shared by her coalition partners. Europe anxiously waits to see what will happen. Roberto D'Alimonte, professor of Political Science and an acknowledged expert on Italy's electoral system at the University of Florence, advises critics to remain calm. He rejects the believe that the country has moved to the right, and does not think that its citizenry considers Ms. Meloni a threat. According to him the country did not vote for Fascism. It was simply tired of an inefficient liberal government, and just wanted a change. His take is that the Italian establishment is more concerned with her party's lack of competence than with an authoritarian takeover. The fact remains that a century after Benito Mussolini's 1922 "March on Rome," which brought the Fascist dictator to power, Georgia Meloni will lead Italy's first far-right-led government since World War II and becomes Italy's first woman Prime Minister. Opinions aside, this remains a big political shift for a pivotal European country dealing with ongoing economic and political instability. Theo Wierdsma