Of Mandates and Unity

“Mandate” and “unity” are the two watchwords that have emerged following President Bush’s reelection.  The conventional wisdom seems to be that Bush has a mandate and has called for unity in American governance.  The cynic in me believes that the calls for unity are phony–the kind of thing a victor says after an election, but does nothing to achieve it.  Given the current political climate in which we live, it’s difficult to see how Bush can claim a mandate or unify the nation.

Bush doesn’t have a mandate.  Bush did receive more votes than any presidential candidate in history, over three million more than Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry.  However, Kerry’s vote total–the most ever for a Democratic candidate, four million more than Gore received in 2000 and more than any candidate ever received in an America presidential election except Bush–represented more “no” votes than anyone else in history.  Further, and after more than three years of effort, Bush was only able to win two states (Iowa and New Mexico), that he lost in 2000.  Further, he lost New Hampshire, which he won four years ago.  This compares poorly with Ronald Reagan’s 49 state win in 1984, and Johnson’s 44 State win in 1964.  The popular vote difference between Bush and Kerry was largely driven by increases in states he already had locked up and expanded because of many state constitutional amendments on dealing with gay marriage.  Bush’s win was clear, but it wasn’t a mandate. 

This is important because if Bush governs as if he really received a mandate–and he certainly did so in his first term despite the circumstances surrounding his election–then we should expect an acceleration of the conservative, “we-are-better-Americans-than-you-are” political activities that have driven wedges through the nation for a generation.  The pressure will certainly be on Bush to produce a more conservative agenda.

The unity watchword is interesting to me for two reasons:  first, it assumes that the nation was unified prior to the election.  It wasn’t and it’s difficult to remember when the country was ever unified other than in war time.  Second, it assumes that unity is in the Bush’s political interest–it isn’t.  Bush governed his first term without unity and accomplished much of his agenda.  With expanded congressional majorities and an enormous debt to repay to social and religious conservatives, it is unlikely that Bush can be a unifier even if he wanted to.  The debt he owes to the religious and social conservatives who marched on the ballot boxes can’t be repaid with tax cuts and privatizing social security.  Bush’s debt has to be repaid with conservative judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, expanded efforts to outlaw gay marriage, reductions in the size and scope of domestic programs, and generally expanding the role of religion in civic life.  Along those lines, Bush will have to contend with aggressive members of the House and Senate who will want to take their expanded majorities out for a legislative joyride to the outer reaches of political conservatism.  Unity requires moderation, which is anathema to religious and social conservatives.

Bush can’t be a unifier without alienating a sizable portion of his support base, so don’t look for anything different in a second Bush term.  If anything, Bush is likely to slam his foot on the political pedal that drives American government.  That, of course, is bad news for progressives and liberals.

©  Michael K. Fauntroy
November 5, 2004