Monday, November 08, 2004
The "Mandate"
I'm a skeptic of the whole idea of presidential "mandates". Talk of such things seems to me a weak effort to draw out of public will from the disparate votes of a 300 million member democracy. Our democracy speaks with millions of voices, not one. People make their vote choices for dozens of reasons, and no one agrees on the whole agenda of either candidate. Being elected by a majority doesn't even guarantee a majority support any of your policy proposals. So I address the topic of whether Bush received a "mandate" with a grain of salt: few if any presidents (maybe only FDR '32, and that too is debatable, since he implemented different policies from the ones he ran on!) ever received such a thing.
Bush received a bare majority of the vote. It's an improvement on his last election, which he lost, yet treated as carte blanche to implement all his policies without throwing a bone to the Democrats. So naturally, he interprets a 51-48 squeaker as a "mandate", rather than a deeply divided nation containing 58 million who love him and 55 million you hate him passionately. Using terror attacks, war, and the tools of incumbency (Marine One helicopter landings, anyone?) to spook voters into returning the incumbent, and he got just 51%? It's more than I wanted him to get, more than I expected, but even if you believed in mandates, this wouldn't be one.
He didn't even talk about his domestic policies, expect in the vaguest terms (a desire to reform the tax system, and to privatize Social Security, and a tight-lipped refusal to discuss details because a.) he knows they would be unpopular, and b.) he's too stupid to explain them). If Bush has a mandate it is to crush terrorists and win in Iraq. Period, full stop, end of mandate. It does not include Social Security, the tax system, the establishment of a state religion, the packing of the SC with ideologues, or the destruction of all minority rights in Congress. If Bush had run on those things, he would have lost, and Karl Rove knows it (Lord knows what Bush knows).
What would Bush say if he had won 55%? Would he be rounding up Democrats and sending them to camps, because the people had spoken?
For more on the topic, read this piece by two of our most politically engaged political scientists. I wish I had their energy and optimism, but the election has laid me low.
A topic for another time: to the extent Bush believes in democracy at all, it seems to be the plebiscitory democracy of Napoleon. He think he embodies the people now, and whatever he thinks must be their will. We get one shot every four years to do as we're told and vote for him (or else the nation will be destroyed by our enemies), and the rest of the time, the people don't even exist. Just l'emporer Bush, "democrat".
No doubt that is the democracy planned for Iraq. And Bush hand-picked their leader. Have fun Iraqis. (Oh, and enjoy the state of emergency, a sure sign that "freedom is on the march", as we were told so many times by Allawi and Bush).
Bush received a bare majority of the vote. It's an improvement on his last election, which he lost, yet treated as carte blanche to implement all his policies without throwing a bone to the Democrats. So naturally, he interprets a 51-48 squeaker as a "mandate", rather than a deeply divided nation containing 58 million who love him and 55 million you hate him passionately. Using terror attacks, war, and the tools of incumbency (Marine One helicopter landings, anyone?) to spook voters into returning the incumbent, and he got just 51%? It's more than I wanted him to get, more than I expected, but even if you believed in mandates, this wouldn't be one.
He didn't even talk about his domestic policies, expect in the vaguest terms (a desire to reform the tax system, and to privatize Social Security, and a tight-lipped refusal to discuss details because a.) he knows they would be unpopular, and b.) he's too stupid to explain them). If Bush has a mandate it is to crush terrorists and win in Iraq. Period, full stop, end of mandate. It does not include Social Security, the tax system, the establishment of a state religion, the packing of the SC with ideologues, or the destruction of all minority rights in Congress. If Bush had run on those things, he would have lost, and Karl Rove knows it (Lord knows what Bush knows).
What would Bush say if he had won 55%? Would he be rounding up Democrats and sending them to camps, because the people had spoken?
For more on the topic, read this piece by two of our most politically engaged political scientists. I wish I had their energy and optimism, but the election has laid me low.
A topic for another time: to the extent Bush believes in democracy at all, it seems to be the plebiscitory democracy of Napoleon. He think he embodies the people now, and whatever he thinks must be their will. We get one shot every four years to do as we're told and vote for him (or else the nation will be destroyed by our enemies), and the rest of the time, the people don't even exist. Just l'emporer Bush, "democrat".
No doubt that is the democracy planned for Iraq. And Bush hand-picked their leader. Have fun Iraqis. (Oh, and enjoy the state of emergency, a sure sign that "freedom is on the march", as we were told so many times by Allawi and Bush).
