A nation divided
A Times EditorialWith the results of the presidential election again extremely close, it is important that the race be decided by the voters and not by legal maneuverings.
Published November 3, 2004
After an excruciatingly close and bitterly contested election four years ago, George W. Bush promised to govern in a bipartisan manner that would heal the nation's divisions. While little else was certain as this year's election count extended into Wednesday's wee hours, this much was clear: Bush's presidency has left the country even more starkly divided than it was when he took office.
Nothing would be more corrosive for our democracy than for the outcome of yet another close presidential election to be delayed and left at the mercy of legal maneuverings. It is important for Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry to send the clear message that this election ultimately will be decided by the voters, not by lawyers or judges. Otherwise, the declared winner of a tainted power grab could diminish the presidency and do irreparable damage to the nation.
The 2004 presidential vote has turned out to be a virtual replay of 2000 - except the 2000 campaign didn't generate great passion and polarization until after the ballots were cast. Four years ago, Bush and Al Gore generally were viewed as relatively moderate candidates arguing over relatively minor issue differences. Few voters said they considered the Bush-Gore election an especially important one.
Several intervening events led most voters to conclude that this presidential election involved much higher stakes. The disputed outcome of the 2000 race embittered millions of Democrats who never accepted the legitimacy of Bush's claim on the White House. The 9/11 attacks placed the existential threat of terrorism at the forefront of the presidential campaign, overshadowing less emotional issues. The Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq raised questions of competence and credibility that have left the country deeply divided on another life-and-death issue.
In Iraq and on an array of domestic issues, Bush chose to govern not as a consensus-builder but as an ideological warrior. His tax cuts for the rich, assaults on the environment, hard-line judicial appointments and regressive social policies presumed an ideological mandate that he never earned. The effects of that polarizing style were evident in voters' behavior throughout this campaign and on Election Day: Half of the country fervently supported Bush, and half fervently opposed him. Kerry has rarely provoked comparable emotions.
Unfortunately, the tenuous results of this election will only deepen those divisions and complicate the task of dealing with our problems over the next four years. Extricating our troops from Iraq in an honorable way will require rebuilding the domestic and international support the Bush administration squandered through its false prewar claims and false postwar assumptions. Restoring fiscal sanity in Washington will require addressing the unfair tax cuts and egregious pork-barrel spending bills that turned a record surplus into a record deficit. Ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare will be made more difficult by the past four years of neglect.
In Florida, citizens could have responded to the fiasco of the 2000 election by turning cynical. Instead, they turned out in record numbers, with many standing in line for hours to cast their votes. Thousands of formerly disaffected citizens became political activists. Millions of first-time voters seized the chance to make themselves heard.
Once a presidential winner is declared, he can start addressing those issues by finding ways to tap into the citizen activism that was the defining feature of this presidential campaign. The results of the presidential election will have a meaningful impact on the direction of the country only if the American people remain as engaged after the election as they were in the weeks leading up to it.