From the WSJ Opinion Archives
POTOMAC WATCH
Two Countries, One System
Tuesday's results show a profoundly divided America.
America--or rather the two Americas--got the government we probably deserved this week. A perfectly divided nation appears to have elected an imperfectly divided government.
The half of the country that loves Bill Clinton vaulted his wife into the Senate, and probably toward a future run for the White House. The half that loathes this president appears to have rejected his designated successor, Al Gore, by electing the son of the man Mr. Clinton defeated in 1992.
America's socially liberal coasts dismissed two of Mr. Clinton's impeachers, Senate candidate Bill McCollum in Florida and the estimable California Rep. Jim Rogan. But the culturally conservative middle of the country kept the House that impeached in GOP hands and even delivered Mr. Clinton's home state of Arkansas for George W. Bush.
A phenomenal 65% of voters said the country was on the "right track," according to the exit polls, a reflection of the economy that spared Mr. Gore a rout. But half the nation still voted for change because 57% thought the country was on the wrong track morally, another Clinton consequence.
The only consensus in these results is that there is no consensus. America is of two minds, profoundly divided over the culture, the Clinton legacy, the scope of government and what it wants Washington to accomplish. Those two minds have now each elected half a government. Reversing Deng Xiaoping's famous formula for China and Hong Kong, we now have two countries, one system.
And we're about to test that system, which above all means keeping faith with it. There should be no doubt that whoever wins the popular vote in Florida, and thus the Electoral College, is legitimately president. The Electoral College has controlled in 53 presidential elections, and both sides knew the rules going in, as my colleague Al Hunt recently noted.
Mr. Hunt quoted Walter Dellinger, the former solicitor general under Mr. Clinton, saying that "There's no real legitimacy argument. If the presidency was decided by the popular vote, the two candidates would have run different races." Mr. Dellinger distributed a draft op-ed on the point before the election, and to his credit says he stands by it now "even when it benefits Republicans."
Republicans know what it's like to win more votes but suffer defeat. They won roughly 500,000 more House votes than Democrats in 1998 but lost seats because Democrats prevailed in more close individual races. The Electoral College stipulates 50 separate state contests for president, not one national plebiscite.
The popular vote, moreover, could get even closer than Mr. Gore's lead of 98,000 as this was being written. "We still consider it very much in doubt," says Tom Cole, chief of staff at the Republican National Committee.
There are tens of thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted in many places, including Oregon, where Mr. Bush is leading, and Washington state, where they usually go Republican. Sixty-eight thousand absentee ballots weren't counted in New Mexico, where the veep is ahead, and the GOP might yet ask for recounts in the close-run Gore states of Iowa and Wisconsin.
"We think the absentee ballots will increase our lead in Florida," says Mr. Cole. "It's unclear whether the Democrats will accept that. If they don't, we'll find ourselves in a constitutional crisis, and then we're off to the courts."
It's true that Mr. Gore is relentless and the early signs are that his party will want him to fight Mr. Bush forever. But such a challenge to the final popular vote in Florida could also hurt both Mr. Gore and Democrats. The problem of a confusing ballot in West Palm Beach is a blunder not a crime. If there's no fraud, but merely voter misinterpretation, what's the cause of action? Does every other voter who thinks he made a mistake get a redo? Sooner, rather than later, voters will want closure to avoid a constitutional showdown.
Even if Mr. Gore could somehow prevail, perhaps by invalidating Florida's results and throwing the contest into the U.S. House, the veep would then have legitimacy problems of his own. It's fair to withhold your concession before a recount; it looks destructive to pursue a bitter court fight. Sen. John Ashcroft conceded defeat yesterday in Missouri, and he lost to a dead man. Mr. Gore's statement yesterday acknowledging the Electoral College was a gracious start; his next decisions may show whether he's more partisan or patriot.
As for Mr. Bush, his probable victory will be tempered by its Rutherford B. Hayes-like mandate. A week ago he was on the verge of getting one closer to Ronald Reagan's. But the exit polls show that 17% of voters decided in the last week, and most of those went for Mr. Gore.
His chief strategist's premature victory lap--"we win in a walk"--didn't help in the turnout fight. Mr. Gore also worked harder than the governor right to the end. And several GOP sources believe the failure to respond directly to the Gore demagoguery on Social Security was a mistake. Mr. Gore won seniors nationwide by 50% to 47%, a three-point improvement over 1996. In vital Pennsylvania, the veep won among voters age 65 and over by 60% to 38%. They were the difference in the state.
Mr. Bush must also now regret that he left himself open to the last-minute leak of his 24-year-old drunk-driving arrest. It seems to have been one doubt too many for some voters who were already wary of making a change in good times. Republicans can call this a late hit, which it was, but Mr. Bush should have let any such matter of public record be known 18 months ago, as many people advised.
This is all the more painful because a larger mandate would be invaluable in helping Mr. Bush govern a polarized nation. For such a close election, the differences revealed in exit polls are remarkable. Blacks voted 9-to-1 for Mr. Gore, but 60% of white men favored Mr. Bush. (The one hopeful ethnic sign for the GOP was Mr. Bush's 35% showing among Hispanics, 14 points better than Bob Dole.)
Men are still from Mars and women from Sweden (favoring bigger government). Bush voters want a tax cut, Gore voters like more government spending. Big-city voters came out in droves for Mr. Gore, but rural and exurban voters went nearly 60% for the Texan.
This latter is one sign of the widest American fault line of all, on the culture. If Mr. Bush wins, he will owe his presidency to America's cultural conservatives--married voters, regular churchgoers, abortion opponents, gun owners and those who are appalled by Mr. Clinton's moral legacy.
Mr. Bush's better showing among white Catholics--he won them 51% to 45%, while Mr. Dole lost them 53% to 37%--is probably also a reflection of this cultural divide. By 2 to 1, voters said the main legacy of the Clinton era would be scandal over leadership. Without Monica and the rest, Mr. Gore would have won easily.
The paradox of a Bush presidency would be that such a polarized electorate chose a man who campaigned on "bipartisanship" and getting things done. More perverse yet, he'd have to work with a narrower GOP majority in the House and a Senate divided by a single vote. And just for torment's sake, the most powerful Democrat in Washington would be Senate leader Tom Daschle, a protege of George Mitchell, the man who helped ruin George W.'s father. Mr. Daschle returns with more power and less inclination to deal.
And yet for all that, a mandate is also in part what any president makes it. Mr. Gore would have an even tougher time governing after his populist, "good vs. evil" campaign. Three of every four voters said they thought Mr. Gore would say anything to win. And 60% said he attacked Mr. Bush unfairly (only 49% said that of Mr. Bush). That's hardly a solid base for voter or GOP trust.
With his inclination and Texas record, Mr. Bush stands a better chance than Mr. Gore of stitching together bipartisan coalitions to get at least something done--cutting estate taxes, say, or some education reform. His bigger plans for Medicare and Social Security reform would take a political miracle.
But the greater likelihood is for more gridlock and more of that Clintonian contribution to our politics, the perpetual campaign. An electorate that can't make up its mind has no one to blame but itself.
Mr. Gigot is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
