To understand the point of this question, we should look at the recent Presidential elections results and current polls to see if America really is behind the President and his policies. This is not an effort to reopen old arguments about the validity of recent elections. Rather, the point is to analyze who the President can realistically claim to speak for.
The 2000 and 2004 results: A sliver of a mandate
The 2000 election was marked by the hanging chad debacle in Florida and the intervention of the Supreme Court. Bush won with 271 Electoral College votes to Gore's 266 (see the official results at the FEC). 270 out of 538 electoral votes were needed to win, and Florida was worth 25. In terms of the popular vote, Bush received 50,456,002 actual votes, or 47.87%, while Gore received 50,999,897 votes, or 48.38% of those cast. Because of the way the Presidential system works, the electoral votes trumped the popular vote and Bush became President on January 20, 2001.
In 2004, the results were slightly more favorable for Bush (the FEC official results can be found here). Again, 270 electoral votes out of 538 were needed to win. Bush secured 286, while Kerry managed 251 (with one vote given to Edwards). In the popular vote, Bush received 62,040,610 votes, or 50.73% of the population, while Kerry received 59,028,444 votes, or 48.27% of those cast. This time, Ohio and its 20 electoral votes was the pivotal state.
In 2000, the disputed Florida popular vote was unbelievably close. In the final official tally, Bush received 2,912,790 votes; Gore received 2,912,253. The difference was just 537 votes, or .009% of all the popular votes cast for Bush and Gore.
In Ohio in 2004, the vote was once again close. Bush received 2,859,768 votes in the state to Kerry's 2,741,167 votes. So while this time the overall national popular vote was won by Bush, the electoral vote was decided by only 118,601 votes, or 2.117% of the votes cast for the two candidates.
In 2000 or 2004, Bush could hardly claim much of a mandate. A huge percentage of Americans obvioulsy did not want him as their leader.
With low polls, does Bush speak for even less of America now?
According to a June 16th CNN Poll, Bush does not have tremendous support from Americans. Results of the poll included that:
- 37% approve of his job as President. The question, posed to 1,017 US adults during a telephone survey on June 14th and 15th, was, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president?" 53% said they "disapprove."
- 39% approve of his Iraq efforts. The same respondents were asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 54% answered "disapprove."
Despite these numbers, Bush continually states that "America" or "Americans" wants to do or believe in this or that. For example, during this week's radio address, the President said ("them" is the new Iraqi Prime minister and his team):
"And I told them that America is a nation that keeps its word, and America will stand with them as we work toward our shared goal: a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."
"I traveled to Baghdad to personally show our Nation's commitment to a free Iraq, because it is vital for the Iraqi people to know with certainty that America will not abandon them after we have come this far."
It's really the Administration speaking
What makes so many people who oppose various aspects of the Bush Administration frustrated is they feel that its policies, such as allowing torture, ignoring aspects of the Geneva convention, wire tapping citizens without warrants, adding Presidential statements to bills that essentially enable the executive branch to ignore the legislative branch, and conducting an undeclared war (legally, but not rhetorically) without a clear endpoint is undermining the foundation of what has historically made Americans so proud of this nation and what has led others around the planet to look to America as an example.
By claiming the mandate of the people during times of slim electoral wins, and at other times ignoring negative polls, but always claiming the mantle of the "will of America," the President is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Usually, conservatives like to label liberals as do-gooders who think they know more than the common man and who want to impose their view of how the world should work. So it's ironic, when election results and poll numbers show how few people back the President's policies, that he and his supporters continue to claim it is the national will to follow his course -- and if not the will, it's the right thing to do anyway.
Bush is in charge, he's just not speaking for the majority
President Bush is in charge. He won two elections, and he will continue to serve as the President until January of 2009. The point of this post is not to dispute his authority; rather it's to point out the fact that many of his critical views represent a minority of Americans today. And thus, what he is really saying, is that "I, and my supporters" believe in my actions and want to stay the course.
Hopefully, the governments of other nations and citizens can make this sometimes subtle distinction. Yes, the American people elected Bush according to our election laws, and yes, he is legally the head of our government. But that doesn't mean most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. -- back the President and his actions. As Americans, we need to quit complaining and either support the President by working to keep the House and Senate in Republican control, or try and get one in Democratic hands (control of either one means control of its committees, which in turn means control of investigations, of the ability to move bills out of committee, and of other powerful actions).
While the Congressional elections are statewide and not really a Presidential referendum, if the Democrats can't motivate voters to give Democrats control over the House or Senate, the Democrats will have nothing to complain about. How many times, no matter how narrowly defeated, can a Party whine? Either the Democrats win in the fall of 2006, or all those people against Bush and his agenda need to start a viable third-party without the anchor of the apparently spineless and rudderless Democratic Party machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment