It is difficult to find much to add to the saturation of commentary on the almost surreal election “overtime” period, but I will hit a few points that stood out for me.

The most instructive aspect of the conflict in Florida was the U. S. history and civics lesson, primarily a refresher, as follows: (1) this country is (or was founded as) a federal republic, not a majoritarian democracy, of which the Electoral College is a central feature, (2) Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution makes the selection of Electors a state legislative responsibility, which not only makes this a political process, but a partisan one, as the Founders intended, (3) the notion that we can avoid partisanship through the arguing of legalities before the courts is a myth of the same type that permeated the Clinton impeachment hearings.

In a previous issue (Sept. 2000), I commented briefly on “The End Of Democracy Debate” and the degree to which we have abdicated the political process to the judiciary on many of our most critical policy matters. Lincoln cautioned us on this in his first inaugural address, warning that a people who so abdicate “will have ceased to be their own rulers”. The U. S. Supreme Court, using appropriate judicial restraint, gave the Florida authorities every opportunity to get it right and, in the end, had no choice but to overrule an overreaching Florida Supreme Court. My only wish was that Article II had been invoked by the majority opinion, requiring the Florida Legislature to do its job.

I will take some other lessons from this experience, primarily from those on the political left in this battle. Only the left, with its saturation by postmodernist “no truth” dogma, could factor into every deliberation sufficient cynicism to discredit the motives of every duly elected official involved with this process. Only the left, with its disdain for the objectivity of the law and the strict construction of the Founders, could dismiss the authority of the Florida Legislature as the “ultimate partisan act” and a “blatant attempt to go around the will of the voters”. This is highly irresponsible rhetoric. Only the left is dominated by the view that power trumps principle and that the rule of law is a license to manipulate the law to your best advantage, regardless of the by-product. And the worst of it is that we are led by a complicit media to believe in the moral equivalency of the posture of every demagogue, regardless of the merit of their argument, to the detriment of civil discourse in the body politic. If you want a primary reason why people are turned off by the political process, start right here.

When I asked readers to send their top priorities for the new President, I had no idea it would be mid-December before we knew the outcome! In any event, I received some thoughtful responses, and I appreciate the participation. Given the odds on the Florida results, most of you assumed a Bush Presidency. To summarize the responses, almost all placed Social Security and Medicare reform as a high priority, with strengthening our military, reducing the size of the Federal government, campaign finance reform, adopting successful education models, banning partial birth abortion, health research funding, and “bringing the country together” prominently mentioned. And I agree with my friend Red Griffin that a thorough cleansing of the Oval Office would be in order! Interestingly, not one response listed tax cuts as a priority, which was surprising given its emphasis in the Bush campaign.

For whatever it’s worth, here are my thoughts on setting the tone for the Bush Administration, which is already off to a great start with the cabinet appointments. First, bringing the country together will be a function of governing consistently with the tenor of the campaign. I don’t buy the “no mandate” rhetoric, which is a ruse designed to undermine and co-opt Bush on his central priorities. The terms “bipartisanship” and “reaching out” have already become shopworn. The election, however closely and bitterly contested, is over. Bush won. As John F. Kennedy said the day after his election in 1960, “the margin of victory was narrow, but the responsibility is clear”. Leadership is about taking people from where they are to where they have never been, as Kissinger said, and I would add that it is also about defining the governing priorities, not waiting for the people to tell you what they are. Second, Bush should forget “deal-making” with the Democratic Congressional leadership. His father is an expert on that, to his regret. The case for his policies and governing philosophy must be made, a la Reagan, directly with the American people. As James Carville has noted, the Democrats will respond to fear above all else, and this anxiety should be exploited. In saying this, I don’t underestimate the difficulty of finding consensus in a divided legislative branch, but the American people want and will respond to conviction and moral authority. It is here that Bush has a mandate.

As to specifics, an across the board marginal income tax rate cut should be at the top of the list. It is sound economic policy, the timing now is even better than early in the campaign, and, contrary to liberal orthodoxy, it has strong moral grounds. Next, Bush has touched the “third rail” of Social Security reform without political penalty and can now proceed to lead a transformation of this system toward privatization. After launching these two initiatives Bush should begin to build the case for school choice and the extinction of racial preferences in civil rights policy. It’s time we moved these two issues out of the judicial system and back into the legislative process. Did I mention partial birth abortion? He should send the message early that a bill banning this procedure would be welcomed and eagerly signed. These steps along with the reversal of a few dozen Clinton executive orders would represent an excellent start. Beyond that, I like what my new Congressman John Culberson said about his test for support of legislation—it must include the words repeal, restore, abolish, or cut.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) was founded in 1995 under the leadership of Lynne Cheney and Joe Lieberman to promote improved academic standards and greater accountability in the higher education community. Ms. Cheney, long one of my heroes for her tireless work in education and the arts, now serves as ACTA’s Chairman and has been an outspoken advocate for active governance on the part of university trustees and alumni in attacking the status quo of lower standards and lax accountability. Last summer, the ACTA released its report, “Losing America’s Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century” which, among its shocking findings, revealed that 81% of 556 randomly chosen seniors at 55 top-rated colleges and universities received a D or F on a high school level American history test, and the average score was 53%. I’ve seen the test and I can say without equivocation that these results should be worse than embarrassing to anyone associated with these schools. And yet, complacency was the word used to characterize the response by most of the administrators.

Thomas Jefferson admonished us long ago that “if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.” And the worst place in which to exhibit ignorance in a democratic republic is in the transmission of our common heritage and founding ideas. G. K. Chesterton defined education as simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another. The Council on Civil Society has declared that a “basic responsibility of the school is cultural transmission, particularly a knowledge of the country’s constitutional heritage, an understanding of what constitutes good citizenship, and an appreciation of the society’s common civic faith and shared moral philosophy”.

A recent Portrait of America survey found that roughly one-half of American adults would vote for the U. S. Constitution if it was on the ballot today. To me, this is a frightening statistic, but not surprising, given the fact that Americans as a whole seem to have only a remote understanding of American civilization and our best and brightest have no sense of our history. How can we be knowledgeable critics of public policy or even sustain this experiment in self-governance in this environment?

“This much I think I do know—that a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish.”
–Judge Learned Hand