Now that Gov. George W. Bush has finally stolen the election, the prevailing idea endorsed by Americans is that the entire country -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- should unite behind President-elect Bush. But is this really the right thing to do? Should we pretend that this mangled election never happened, that Bush actually won? Can we honestly condone the winning of an election because of a time limit rather than a fair and accurate count of all ballots in Florida? Unfortunately, the answer to all these questions is yes. While the legitimacy of the Bush administration does deserve to be thoroughly questioned, those of us who feel Bush was elected unfairly must force ourselves to give the new president a chance.
This, of course, would be in total contrast to the actions of Republicans after President Clinton was elected in 1992. Complaining that George Bush Senior's loss was a result of the siphoning off of conservative votes by Ross Perot, Republicans swept in by the horrendous Uprising of '94 proceeded to block almost every measure President Clinton and other Democrats introduced into Congress. While revenging the stolen election by blocking Bush's proposals may be attractive to Democrats, it would only serve to damage the country's prospects in the long run. The goal for Democrats in Congress should therefore be to make compromises and concessions only so far as they do not undermine Democratic ideals. That is, Democrats must exert their power in Congress " they now are in control of half the Senate and the House is essentially divided equally -- but should not blindly reject all Republican proposals. The first goal of Congress, especially its Democratic contingent, should be to pass some kind of national voting uniformity act that will make every American's vote count and will prevent candidates from winning elections on technicalities in the future. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed interest in this cause, and with any luck they will be able to build on this common interest.
The bipartisanship that Bush promised during his acceptance speech will hopefully remain a part of politics during his presidency. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten these words of only a few weeks ago, assigning several hard-line conservatives to his cabinet. Particularly alarming is Bush's choice for attorney general, former Republican Sen. John Ashcroft. Not only does Ashcroft have extreme pro-life views, but his record on civil rights issues also is worthy of concern. As Missouri's senator, Ashcroft hailed Confederate soldiers as "patriots" without a "perverted agenda," and accepted an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, which until very recently banned interracial relationships. Other selections for Bush's cabinet and agencies, such as former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats for secretary of defense and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to head the Pentagon, seem to point in the direction of a one-sided, conservative cabinet that effectively damages the spirit of bipartisanship.
Even Bush's vow to seek Democrats for his cabinet was slightly misleading. At the start of the transition period, Bush courted Louisiana's Sen. John Breaux for the cabinet position of energy secretary. Surely, Bush must have known that for Sen. Breaux to leave his senate seat and be replaced by someone selected by the Republican governor of Louisiana would be impossible, given the tight 50-50 split in the senate. Bush's late selection of Norman Mineta for secretary of transportation seems to be just a token Democrat -- similar to the token minorities picked for his "New Republican" cabinet -- chosen at the last minute only to appease liberals. It seems that usual politics has already seized the office of the next president, even before he has been sworn in.
Yet if Bush manages to fight off partisan politics and embraces compromise with Democrats, there is a possibility that he may actually become a "good" president. This, of course, could prove devastating for Democrats now that all three branches of government are essentially in Republican control. For Democrats to have a chance in the 2002 congressional elections, they may have to employ politics themselves. Perhaps by constantly reminding voters of the shaky circumstances under which Bush was elected Democrats can finally retake Congress two years from now.
There is, however, the fact that Democrats are inherently politically impotent -- failing to take advantage of the impeachment hearings to help them in this year's election is an example. It may turn out that the only way Democrats can wrest control of Congress away from Republicans is through bipartisan efforts and solid progress. The question is, will Republicans let them do it?
