The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
A mandate to govern America President George W. Bush, winning a majority of the popular vote, a majority of the 50 states, and a majority in the Electoral College (his final total is 286-252) is claiming a clear mandate to govern and bring forth his platform. At a news conference he claimed: "I earned capital in the campaign ? political capital ? and now I intend to spend it." What is his platform? Apart from continuing the war on terror and increasing the effectiveness of military and other intelligence, he pledged to lower taxes on small business, restructure social security, put a cap on malpractice awards (greatly supported by doctors and opposed by Democratic-loving trial lawyers), continue education reform, and cut the deficit in half. The plan is ambitious, but few doubt the resolve of this President. But has he earned a mandate? A study of the popular votes since 1940 shows Bush's total right up there in results with Roosevelt's 55 per cent in 1940 and 53 per cent in 1944, Eisenhower's 55 per cent and 57 per cent in 1952 and 1956 and Lyndon Johnson's 61 per cent in 1964. In fact, Bush's margin of victory is the largest, percentage-wise, since 1988 and his vote total the highest ever. Most Republicans in Congress will undoubtedly support the President's plans, most particularly since they have a commanding majority in both the House and Senate. The more-or-less leaderless Democratic Party is thrashing around looking to blame someone for their losses, moaning that not enough of the young or blacks or Latinos came out to support them, and of course blaming the Christian Right. The more rational ones are advocating that the party should stop courting the Liberal left and somehow get back in touch with middle America and Conservative voters who are becoming more and more Republican. They are certainly right and even the much maligned exit polls show an astonishing 80 per cent of those who ranked values as important voted for President Bush. Another factor is new suburbs in the cities are filling up with working families who are voting Republican. Letters to the editor of newspapers can sometimes give an insight into what is driving public opinion. A couple of interesting ones appeared in a very pro-Democratic U.S. paper. One was headed "Christian Values Didn't Fit With Democratic Party." The writer states he is a working man who has never made more than $27,000 per year, pays a lot for health insurance, and would greatly benefit from government Health Care and other Democratic economic proposals, but can't vote for them because he's a Christian. The writer believes that the Democratic Party has adopted social policies that are against the Christian religion. He claims the Republican Party, the party of "the rich" does not represent his economic interests, but is the only party his faith will allow him to support. Another letter is from a Conservative who is delighted with the election result, but worried about a future with no opposition, badly needed in a democracy. He gives some advice to the Democratic Party which sounds pretty astute to this writer. First he suggests they "Cut the wackos loose. When mainstream Democrats embraced Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911 they sent a clear message that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. These delusional, conspiracy-minded extremists are not helping you. Run away from them as fast as you can." The state by state election results certainly display to an observer that the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has really lost touch with many areas of the Nation. Kerry lost every state in the South and most in the Midwest and West. He didn't even campaign in most of these states providing zero help to to those Democrats running for Congress. In Canada, all parties campaign in every Province, knowing full well that they owe it to their supporters in provinces they have little hope of winning. A look at the popular vote by county shows that even in states won by Kerry, he lost most of the counties in rural areas, even in California, Oregon, Illinois, and New York. His party has certainly lost touch with rural America. Does President Bush have a mandate? In our country, federal and provincial parties seldom get a majority of the votes except in Alberta and sometimes in B.C. and Quebec. The Party with the most seats is expected to govern and present their platform to Parliament or the Legislatures. Unlike the U.S. when every election in most states asks the voters to vote "yes" or "no" on amendments or referendums, this is not the case in Canadian elections where even minority governments are given a mandate to govern. President Bush has earned a four year mandate to govern the World's most powerful nation.
