For a saner public discourse
The new republican dominance of the institutions of government may well be the greatest single triumph for the GOP since William McKinley sat on his porch in Canton, Ohio, throughout the campaign of 1896--then won the largest popular vote since 1872. Apart from the Republican split in 1912 (which put Woodrow Wilson in the White House), there was no break in the Republican ascendancy until the Great Depression, when FDR and the Democrats had their turn, ruling the roost for 20 years.
There can be no question this time of the legitimacy of President Bush, but it is still true, as it was four years ago, that he rules a deeply divided nation. The fundamental difference is over America's values, its foreign policy, and its future direction. Senator Kerry's graceful pledge to "do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide" is a good start, and President Bush would do well to take him up on it, for our nation works best when government operates on the basis of bipartisan compromise even when it doesn't have to, not when the party in power feels free to follow the dictates of its base.
Can the president do that? Promisingly, in his first post- election statement, he suggested he would "reach out to the whole nation." But in his press conference the next day, he said sternly that he had earned his political capital during the bruising campaign and that he intended to spend it. The temptation for the president, given his majority and his party's control of Congress, would be to do everything within his power to realize the goals he stated during the campaign. But he should be mindful that more than 50 million Americans don't trust his leadership and that for the train wreck of critical problems facing the nation he will require the broadest political support. Here are just some of the issues.
1. National security. America has a unique challenge that will not go away in four years or maybe even 40. This is the generational struggle against the menace of terrorism. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "Never before has it been necessary to conduct a war with neither front lines nor geographic definition and, at the same time, to rebuild fundamental principles of world order . . . . The basic adversary is the radical fundamentalist, militant fringe of Islam, which aims to overthrow both moderate Islamic society and all others it perceives as standing in the way of restoring an Islamic caliphate. . . . The trick here will be defeating the radicals militarily without undermining the forces for moderation." Even the vast resources of the mightiest nation on Earth will be hard put to meet this challenge. President Bush, who began as a unilateralist, will require an international collaboration as deep and intense as we had in the Cold War on intelligence, trade, and relations with Muslim populations. It may be that a threat arises that is so alarming we will have to invoke once again the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, "getting them before they get us," but that would require the broadest public support in the United States and elsewhere. So, too, with the more specific menace of nuclear proliferation with theocratic Iran and dictatorial North Korea. The president has committed himself to a multilateral effort against both. It cannot begin too soon.
advertisement
