ONE YEAR AFTER - Memory of disputed election fades

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

A Year After, Memory of Disputed Election Fades

By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Can it only be a year ago?

On Wednesday, the United States marks the anniversary of the closest presidential election in its modern history, which ushered in a bitter 36-day political and legal struggle that almost plunged the country into a constitutional crisis.

Yet the almost-tied result between Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the eventual victor, and then-Vice President Al Gore, and the dramatic legal machinations that followed which transfixed the nation for more than a month, already seem to many to belong to a different era.

``The events of Sept. 11 made all the difference and changed the world,'' said American University historian Allan Lichtman. ''Now we look at things as either being before Sept. 11 or after Sept. 11.''

The attacks on key symbols of U.S. economic and military power that killed around 4,800 people on Sept. 11 and launched the country into a war on terrorism, ended any lingering doubts about President Bush's legitimacy.

``After Sept. 11, George Bush was legitimately elected president of the United States,'' wrote New York Post political editor Deborah Orin in a recent column.

For those few who may not remember, the post-election battle came about after neither Bush nor Gore won a majority of votes in the Electoral College and the state of Florida was too close to call with Bush a few hundred votes ahead.

For the next month, the sides battled over whether and how to recount the votes in Florida. Numerous local, state and federal courts were involved, handing down decisions that favored one side or the other, until the matter was finally resolved in Bush's favor by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still, the election and especially the post-election battle showed up some of Bush's qualities that were to come to the fore again after Sept. 11.

BUSH QUALITIES SHOWN

``Bush was steeled by a sense of entitlement that protected him from criticism. He was shielded too by the devotion of those around him ... His supporters were willing to take risks, bet their careers and bear almost any burden for a Republican victory,'' wrote author Jeffrey Toobin in a recently published book, ``Too Close to Call'' about the post-election struggle.

Sept. 11 has also given the lie to several assumptions that were put forward by various pundits and experts after the election. Some of the most notable:

-- Bush would be unable to govern. Even before Sept. 11, he was able to get a radical tax cut through Congress. Since Sept. 11, he has effectively marshaled the nation and formed an international coalition to fight a war against terrorism.

``It doesn't matter how you get elected. What matters is how you govern,'' said Lichtman.

-- The Supreme Court, whose 5-4 vote for Bush was seen by many as more based on politics than the law, would suffer an indelible blow to its reputation. This has not happened and the court's decision seems more likely to go down in history as one of a long line of controversial decisions without altering its overall prestige.

-- Bush would not be his own man. He would be a puppet of the experienced figures around him, especially Vice President Dick Cheney. It has become clear that Bush is setting the tone and direction of the military campaign, while leaving the details to the experts.

-- The election did not matter. This notion, put forward by Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and others who said there was no real difference between the candidates, seems almost laughable today, with Bush leading the nation to war, guiding its diplomacy and trying to engineer its economic revival.

-- The country was irredeemably divided. The East and West coasts voted for Gore, the heartland for Bush. Minorities overwhelmingly backed Gore; whites went for Bush. Women predominantly supported Gore; men backed Bush. Yet the country united as seldom before after Sept. 11.

In his book, Toobin sensed that the tumultuous events of November and December 2000 would leave modest footprints on the American landscape.

But he said the election would not go away, ``because in any real, moral or democratic sense Al Gore should have been declared the victor ... It is a crime against democracy that he did not win the state and thus the presidency.

``The fact remains: The wrong man was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2001, and this is no small thing in our nation's history,'' wrote Toobin.

Ask most Americans now and they will say they don't care or that it all turned out for the best.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ