HOME / dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

What Now?

dialogues:
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

From: Alan Brinkley
To: Michael McConnellPosted Thursday, Dec. 7, 2000, at 9:00 PM ET

Alan Brinkley is Allan Nevins Professor of History at Columbia University and the author most recently of Liberalism and Its Discontents (click here to buy it). Michael McConnell is the Presidential Professor of Law at the University of Utah. Slate asked them to keep a running commentary on the presidential endgame.

RSS

As we wait for the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court and of the hearing on the Seminole County absentee ballots—which seem to be the last remaining obstacles to the election of Bush—it might be worth looking forward to what lies ahead for Bush should he become president.

Needless to say, the battle over this election has created tremendous problems of legitimacy for either candidate, but particular problems for Bush. It is now clear that he will have lost the popular vote by 300,000 votes or more. It is clear to everyone who looks honestly at Florida that he would have lost that state as well were it not for problems in ballot design and Votamatic machines. Most Republicans will happily overlook those annoying facts (just as most Democrats would happily overlook Gore's selective recounts should he prevail). But many people will always look at Bush and see a man who won by a fluke—who was elected but not chosen.

Even so, Bush has some significant strengths if he is able to use them. Few people give him much credit for intelligence; many people doubt he knows enough to be president. It would not take much (just as it didn't take much in the debates) for him to exceed expectations. Bush also has the kind of unthreatening, genial public personality that could win over a lot of people—as he demonstrated in his awkward but generally gracious 60 Minutes interview this week and in his occasional flyby sound bites. And he premised his campaign, of course, on ending the bitter partisanship in Washington and working across party lines. That is precisely what he will need to do in this political environment if he wants to accomplish anything at all as president.

But will his party let him do it? That seems unlikely at the moment. With friends like Trent Lott and Tom DeLay, who needs enemies? Lott has already set up a confrontation with the Democratic leadership over how to organize a 50-50 Senate; and while Tom Daschle's proposal for absolute equity was never a realistic one, a Republican leader interested in creating a workable environment for a new Republican president would have made at least some gestures toward conciliation. Lott made none and seems unlikely to do so. The House is even worse. DeLay is already leading an effort to renege on the earlier GOP budget agreement with the White House on education spending and is talking about a government shutdown if Bill Clinton doesn't sign a continuing resolution that freezes the budget—not just until after the inauguration, but for the entire fiscal year. It's hard to imagine a scenario more destructive to a new Republican presidency than a bitter showdown on the eve of the inauguration over cutting education spending—a losing issue for the Republicans if there ever was one, and a particularly losing issue for a new president who seemed at times to be campaigning almost exclusively out of elementary-school classrooms.

Are there more reasonable figures in Congress capable of stopping this lunacy? Dennis Hastert (whom DeLay claims to support, but whom he refers to dismissively as "Denny," and not as "the speaker") seems a true cipher, helpless in face of the right-wing zealots. The Republican moderates in the House have not shown themselves to be numerous enough or powerful enough to affect their party's decisions and have also not yet demonstrated enough strength to break with the leadership when it careens down its self-destructive paths.

And what about the putative new president? Can he control these so-called allies? Granted, the uncertainty about the election has made it more difficult for Bush to assert any real authority over the Republicans in Congress. But at least someone in his circle should be aware of the political disaster that lies around the corner if the Lott-DeLay strategy proceeds much further. That Bush has done nothing (or at least nothing effective or visible) to defuse this situation does not inspire confidence in his willingness or ability to rein in the excesses of his fellow Republicans on the Hill. He will have enough trouble with embittered Democrats without having to do battle with his own party; and of course if he goes along with the congressional leadership, he will make his own circumstances even worse.

Finally, a note about the Seminole County case. There probably is a legal problem in election officials having permitted Republicans to fill in missing information on absentee ballots without allowing Democrats to do the same (although it is not entirely clear to me that there were Democrats prepared to do the same). But surely that cannot justify throwing out thousands of ballots from voters who were themselves entirely innocent and who received ballots on which they were free to vote for anyone they chose. I admit it would be gratifying to listen to the Republican outrage about not counting ballots if the decision were to go against them—given their absolute and unyielding opposition to counting the ballots Gore wanted counted. But it would, nevertheless, be a travesty for this election to be decided for Gore through the very tactics that he has so strenuously opposed throughout this controversy. (He acted very unwisely yesterday in seeming to align himself with the plaintiffs in the Seminole suit.) In any case, the legislature would surely step in to overrule any such decision—as it may do anyway—setting up a possible battle in Congress that Gore would almost certainly lose.

dialogues:
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

From: Alan Brinkley
To: Michael McConnellPosted Thursday, Dec. 7, 2000, at 9:00 PM ET

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Alan Brinkley is Allan Nevins Professor of History at Columbia University and the author most recently of Liberalism and its Discontents (click here to buy it). Michael McConnell is the Presidential Professor of law at the University of Utah. This week, Slate has asked them to keep a running commentary on the presidential endgame.

COMMENTS

Reader Comments from The Fray:

Michael McConnell argues that even a state-wide hand count might give Gore an unfair advantage, because the questionable punch card ballots were used predominantly in counties that heavily supported Gore. But his logic is flawed; he forgets that the argument for a hand recount--widespread undervoting that a human eye might correct--has already taken this very discrepancy into account. Though the hand recount would most likely discover a larger number of new votes for Gore than Bush because of the problems with punch cards, the inverse is true for the current machine count: Bush has been unfairly over-represented by his support in counties with more technologically advanced voting systems. It is not necessarily improper to concentrate energy on hand recounts in punch card counties, since they are the ones in which problems with unread votes are more likely. While I can't think of any serious argument against a state-wide hand count (except for the question about hand count subjectivity which might be dealt with by simple guidelines), the problem now is simply that the Republicans have argued for too long against hand counting at all, and are thus unable to concede this clear, proper compromise.

--Jared White

(To reply, click here.)

I believe that the hand recount is conducted, ballot by ballot, with a representative of both political parties, both of whom must agree on the party for whom each vote was cast. Any ballot that the two person team does not agree on is then reviewed by a three member panel of non-partisans. My point is simply that the recount is not a subjective as one might think. Since one of the candidates campaigned on the slogan that he "trusts the people" and the other has indicated a willingness to trust the people on this issue, I am surprised there is a problem.

--Carrie McLain

(To reply, click here.)

A way out: the Burr-Hamilton solution.

--APM

(To reply, click here.)

(11/15)

Reader Comments from The Fray:

I find it amusing that the Democrats are telling President-elect Bush that the only way he can succeed is to adopt their agenda.

The popular vote, as close as it was, could have swung Bush's way if it was recounted as Florida was. If California and all the voter irregularity in the excessively liberal and populous states were taken out of the picture, the popular vote across the nation was significantly more for Bush. It presents a more accurate picture of America as a whole to view the popular vote minus California. That's the reason for the Electoral College.

Democrats should be looking and asking themselves why they blew this election rather than deluding themselves that it was stolen. Look within. The liberal lies and scare-mongering, and class warfare language and willingness to depart from the law in order to win at any costs is not going to serve America or the Democratic party well. When America has more time to reflect on the days since the election, the Democrats will not fare so well. That is why the Democrats are trying still to deflect attention from their failures.

Vice-President Gore gave a noble speech last night. For the first time in this election process I gained respect for him. He was finally speaking honestly. Liberals should try honesty instead of distortion and manipulation more often.

--Mark Sherman

(To reply, click here.)

Sorry, but I don't see true bipartisanship happening. The division you see has been growing for decades. It isn't between skinheads or klansmen and 'good honest Americans,' it is between those who are willing to be responsible for themselves, and those who've been inculcated with the idea that they have a god-given right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The Dems have done the indoctrinating, and those of us who flocked to the personal freedom stances of 60's Democratic candidates are appalled at how the current flock of Democrat candidates have taken full advantage of the 'buy a vote with welfare' techniques they've developed over the years. I have predicted class warfare by 2010 since 1975. I may be off a couple years, but dramatic changes are in order

--Dennis Jacques

(To reply, click here.)
Â

Reader Comments from The Fray:

I disagree that what the Supreme Court faces is less compelling than Dred Scott. It's time to get past all this rhetoric and look at what we, as citizens, are being dealt. First of all, forget all the pious cant about the wisdom of the founding fathers. The Constitution was never a document that guaranteed democracy in this country, since the founding fathers' didn't want democracy. They didn't want people to be able to vote for the president, that was the job for politicians. Jefferson himself wrote "the people is an ass." While they may have been against British rule, they were in no shape or form democrats in light of the term today. And the Republicans are not such great believers in democracy today. If they were, they would have worked to get an accurate count in Florida. The Supremes are either going to yank us into the present, for those "asses" like myself, of haul us back into the past. That is the Constitutional issue at stake.

--George Grella

(To reply, click here.)

As we await the Supreme Court's decision, I stand astonished. Not that the Supreme Court delved into the 'miasma' of this election dispute--it is not such a bad idea for the last word of the land to have the last word; what astonished me was Scalia's stated reason for the stay granted. The stay itself was not such a bad idea (I voted for Gore, by the way). The decision needed to be made before there were facts on the ground so that no one felt any more robbed than they already do. However, Scalia's unprecedented indication that he has already made up his mind before even receiving a brief must have ruffled some of his colleague's feathers and perhaps created an environment that may well send the 'swing justices'--Kennedy and O'Connor--into the arms of the solid opposition. Scalia's statement may well turn out to be a self-fulfilling anti-prophecy.

It would be most astonishing if any decision were 5 to 4. I think it is more likely that there will be a more solid majority behind some sort of solomonic solution. One hopes that the court will be very, very cautious not to create law itself.

--Rabbi Jason

(To reply, click here.)

In our world of constant disorder, why is it so surprising that the old technology-based society is colliding with the new tech order? We are transforming our entire society to the new tech order. Many systems have not made the transition. Voting processes and systems are at the top of the list right now. This collision must take place and the new tech order take its proper place in this function of our society. Laws must change to support the new order. For now, the courts must decide the outcome based on our current technology and laws. We must invest the next four years and make our voting systems capable of supporting our transforming society, and build new law in this process.

--Steve R

(To reply, click here.)

(12/11)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES