NYCivic

What We Learned from the Election

By Henry J. Stern
November 3, 2004

The national election is everyone's concern today. The trends it showed are both encouraging and disturbing. The good news is that both candidates reaffirmed America's commitment to fighting terrorism, wherever it occurs or is being planned. The bad news is that social conservatism emerged as a major political force in Midwestern and Southern states. Gay marriage was a flashpoint issue, but if that had not arisen, Karl Rove would have found something else. It could have been partial birth abortion, gays in the military, marijuana, capital punishment or any other issue where liberal viewpoints commonly accepted in some parts of the country are indignantly rejected in others.

The voters in eleven states amended their constitutions to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, a viewpoint which has been widely held, in theory if not always in practice, for millennia. The unjustified fears stirred of any official sanction for same-sex relationships resonated in support for the reelection of the president, who many people felt could be more depended upon to maintain what remains of the existing social order.

Democrats will have to think carefully what they will offer the public in 2008. This year they had the advantage of running against an incumbent who had begun a war, perhaps justly, but had not been able to end it. The Democratic candidate was the better debater, and during the campaign he became a stronger speaker. One could see him improve over the months. He did have credibility issues relating to his four-month Vietnam service, punctuated by three Purple Hearts, but still, he volunteered and he was in combat four months longer than the president, who had military issues of a different nature.

Kerry's impassioned anti-war testimony in 1971 caused some lingering doubts in 2004. He was televised too widely too early in his career, but who knew? By comparison, W did not become a public figure in his own right until he was well into his forties. As the son of another president, he started high on the greasy pole, while Kerry used his own varied talents to ascend and prosper.

The political problem the Democrats face is shown clearly on the map of the United States, with the states in blue and red. Apart from the Northeast, the upper Midwest and the Pacific Coast, America is almost entirely made up of red states. And even if Kerry had barely taken Ohio, he would still have been three million votes behind in the popular vote. In 2000, Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush, but lost, as you know, in the Electoral College. We narrowly missed the reverse result this time, with Bush winning the popular vote but losing in the electoral count. Some people thought that would be a fair outcome, erasing what they saw as the injustice of 2000. It would have been fearful symmetry, but quite unfair for a candidate of either party to receive three million more votes than his rival and end up being counted out because his supporters lived in the wrong states.

Eventually, candidates and their handlers will have to think hard about what to do and say when people just don't want what they have to offer. Do they change their positions to meet the public's taste, or stick to their guns and go down with the ship? That dilemma is why so many public officials dissemble about what they believe and what they will do. As a result, they are not widely believed. However, all a candidate needs is one more vote than his opponent.

Senator Kerry was in numerous situations where his record caused a problem, since he cast thousands of votes in his twenty years in the Senate. In the light of history, Kerry's vote in 1991 not to authorize Bush 41 to get Saddam out of Kuwait was a mistake. At the time, the United Nations favored the intervention, and a wide coalition was assembled. It met the "global test." But Senator Moynihan and 42 of 50 Senate Democrats voted to deny 41 the authority to free Kuwait. Among the eight hawks who voted with the Republicans on that issue was Senator Al Gore, whose opinions may have changed over the years, as he drifted from Clinton's right to his left.

The Senate and House are more strongly Republican than before, so New York City has no reason to be optimistic about its counterterrorism funding desires, or new federal assistance for transportation, housing or other urban needs. Perhaps our Republican mayor can help; he has done so in the past, quietly but effectively. New Yorkers' political views and votes may be noble, but there is often in life a price to be paid for one's convictions.

We will watch to see if any New Yorkers are appointed to be senior members of the president's team. From our worm's-eye view, it appears unlikely, unless Governor Ridge wants to retire and return to his big blue state. Some names are just below the surface. But none of us knows what is really going on in the hearts and minds of the decision makers. We cite Rule 11 — Let it unfold.

As we watched the final pas de deux on TV this afternoon, John Edwards seemed aggressive and frustrated, while John Kerry appeared comfortable in his role and expressed gratitude to his supporters. On the other side, avuncular Dick Cheney was as cheerful as he ever gets, and the president spoke well and reached out to "those who voted for my opponent." It was, like his inaugural, a Peggy Noonan-type speech. If his attitude and his actions live up to his expressed intentions, his second term should be better than his first.

Already, a couple of hours ago, a French official said publicly that the American election brings "a new start" in the Middle East, whoever won. People have a way of coming to terms with reality, even if it is not quite the reality they sought.

Reader responses