|
Jewish World Review Dec. 20, 2000 / 23 Kislev 5761
Philip Terzian
It is an interesting fact that concession speeches are often more successful, and
memorable, than victory statements. What else do we remember about Adlai Stevenson? This should
not be surprising. Failure and disappointment inspire introspection and eloquence; winners are
admonished to restrain their joy and relief.
There is an element of insincerity as well. While Gore managed to make fun of himself, and
speak in generous tones about George W. Bush, his genuine emotions had to have been concealed.
As he spoke, I was reminded of a passage in Harold Nicolson's diaries. Franklin Roosevelt had
just died, and Nicolson was listening to Winston Churchill's memorial tribute in the House of
Commons: "I did not think him very good -- nothing like as good as when he made the funeral
oration on Neville Chamberlain, which was truly Periclean. Which all shows that when one really
does mind deeply about a thing, it is more difficult to write or speak about than when one is
just faintly moved by pity or terror."
Now, Washington is awash in sentiment, not pity or terror. The vanquished Vice President is
surrounded by goodwill -- I thought poor Chris Matthews on MSNBC would burst into tears at the
end of Gore's statement -- and the triumphant George Bush is exhorted to be merciful. There's a
double standard, of course. I don't recall Bill Clinton, who was elected president with 43
pecent of the vote, being advised to invite Republicans into his government, or work closely
with the right wing of the congressional GOP. But that's the culture of Washington: Democratic
victories are glorious restorations; prevailing Republicans are treated like usurpers.
All of which President-elect Bush will take in stride. If there is one lesson I have
learned in a lifetime in the nation's capital, it is that the received wisdom of the moment is
almost invariably wrong. Bush will tip his hat to the gods of bipartisanship, but will govern
on the principles that got him elected. And given the short memories of most politicians, and
the public generally, the mood of the nation will be transformed by late January.
At the moment, by contrast, we are told that the institutions of American democracy were
wounded in Florida, and will not be easy to heal. But I have my doubts. Both ends of the
political spectrum are perpetually aggrieved -- listen, if you can, to Jesse Jackson and Pat
Buchanan -- but the governing establishment always reverts to form. Who, now, is animated by
the furies of the primaries? Will the unions embrace campaign finance reform which, if
comprehensive, would surely diminish their capacity for mischief? I would be happy to bet on
whether the legislatures of America's smaller states will ratify a constitutional amendment
abolishing the electoral college. And while everyone is excited at the prospect of voting for
president by computer -- a typical American technological fix -- no one is pondering the
thought of power surges, or hackers in basements, or the old admonition: garbage in, garbage
out.
Or consider, for that matter, the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who welcomed the rulings of a
bitterly divided (4-3) Florida Supreme Court were astonished by the judgment (5-4) of a
bitterly divided high court in Washington when it ruled against their favorite. It all depends
on whose bitterly divided court you prefer. The status of the U.S. Supreme Court has been
"diminished," says Th New York Times, and another objective observer, Rep. Charles Rangel,
D-N.Y., is "shocked by the partisanship ... [in] the lofty halls of the Supreme Court."
Democrats took particular comfort in Justice John Paul Stevens' intemperate dissent.
Is this news? Dissents, by their very nature, are embroidered: It's the loser venting his
spleen. And it is not as though the court's decisions are never fractured. Did the Times worry
about the stature of a bitterly divided court when it settled Roe v. Wade in
1973? The Supreme Court has weathered greater challenges than Charlie Rangel. When the Hughes
Court struck down the NRA in 1935, and other New Deal measures, FDR sought to "pack" the court
-- and was rebuffed by congressional Democrats. Many Americans were enraged when the Warren
Court banned mandatory prayer in public schools in 1963, but the court is still in session, and
prayer remains forbidden.
No, Al Gore struck all the right notes in his statement, nodding at the pain of political
reality, and acknowledging the truth that passions are easily aroused by events, but cannot be
nurtured indefinitely. One blessing of democracy is a short attention
12/18/00: Presidential legacies are not so obvious to contemporaries
|