Bilge

If a word is to have meaning as anything other than a synonym, it must indicate something different from other words. Derrida may have convinced a lot of people, but words still have meanings. To misuse a word to the point that the misuse becomes the meaning is to rob people of the ability to say a particular thought, and potentially of the ability to even have the thought. Today's word to protect is "mandate".

In the political - and specifically Presidential - sense, a mandate is not just an electoral victory. (Bill Clinton claiming a mandate with 43% of the vote, for example, assumes that victory is the same as "mandate". In fact, I seem to recall James Carville saying something to the effect of "One extra vote is a mandate". Rather, a mandate is an electoral victory so convincingly large that Congressmen feel the need to support the victor's policies or face electoral defeat themselves. Given that the Congress is, in fact, in Republican hands, there's not a mandate for President Bush: the Republicans would already have supported his policies; they are not compelled to do so by the magnitude of his victory.

President Bush, thankfully, refers to the political capital he has accumulated by winning convincingly, rather than calling his victory a mandate. If only Vice-President Cheney - and the media - were as careful with language.

And one other thing while we're at it, just to clear up a point of logic. The purpose of elections is not to hand power to one Party or another, but to pick those who will govern the country. The job of those picked is most emphatically not to set the stage for gaining more power in the next election, but to govern wisely and well.

When there is disunity in the country, and people seem pretty far apart (with the exception of the fringes, most Americans on both the Left and the Right and all the spectrum between tend to be pretty close in values and goals, if not in preferred methods), and there's been an election, it's the loser's job after the election to reach out and reconcile. If this is made the winner's responsibility, then the loser can make it impossible for the winner to succeed, just by not cooperating no matter what the winner does.

For example, President Bush in 2001 kept on Norm Mineta and George Tenet - both Democrats - in high-level positions, and sought other high-level Democrats for cabinet-level jobs; gave Ted Kennedy everything he wanted on education reform and Tom Daschle everything he wanted on prescription drug coverage by Medicare; renominated a bunch of Clinton's judicial nominees who hadn't yet been through the Senate; and backed off on some of his more controversial priorities (like Social Security reform). Not enough: the Democrats simply attacked him harder, sensing that President Bush was weak and would give them more.

This may feel good in the short term, and might have some chance of improving the loser's electoral odds next election, but it's not a recipe for cooperation, and certainly not for good governance. Since the winner cannot bow to the loser, except on minor points, without disregarding the wishes of most of the people who voted, it has to be the loser who moves the most. And the loser really has no reason to be surprised when the winner, thus rebuffed, changes from cooperation to simply trying to force his way on every issue.

Or, you can just bitch and whine. Your call, I guess.

Posted by Jeff at November 6, 2004 03:12 PM | Link Cosmos