The cover story in the latest issue of Time magazine discusses the nightmare scenarios that could play out if the November 2 election's results are disputed across America. Many anticipate that they will be, once again delaying the declaration of a presidential winner for weeks on end.
Representatives from both major parties and presidential campaigns are preparing armies of poll-watchers and lawyers predicated on the notion that the other side will stop at nothing to gain the White House for the next four years. Their postures are similar to two military superpowers pursuing policies of mutually assured destruction, seemingly insensitive to the impact their games might have on the rest of us.
All of this has made me think about the presidential election of 1960. Election night that year surfaced reports of widespread voter fraud in both Illinois, where the family of Democratic presidential nominee John Kennedy had forged ties with the Democratic Party machine in Cook County, and in Texas, from which Kennedy's running mate Lyndon Johnson hailed. Many of Republican nominee Richard Nixon's advisers urged him to challenge Kennedy's razor-thin margin of victory.
But Nixon refused to do it. He didn't want to subject the country to weeks of uncertainty about who their next president would be.
Who knew that Nixon could be capable of such selflessness? As is often true when we put aside our own selfish desires, Nixon's decision may also have worked to his advantage. Not only did he lend legitimacy to Kennedy's presidency, he also helped his national reputation, immunizing himself from the effects of his 1962 loss in the California gubernatorial race and making it possible for him to win the presidency in 1968 and 1972. (Of course, he undermined his own success by fostering a very selfish, self-absorbed atmosphere of poisonous politics and paranoia that resulted in his 1974 resignation.)
The point is that Nixon did the right thing when he refused to challenge the 1960 results.
Like most Americans, I cringe at the prospect of court fights over the results of this election. I believe that such bickering will have a corrosive effect on our country and the social compact that holds us together as a nation. So, I'm praying for a decisive election, no matter who wins.
But if God doesn't grant us that result, I'm hopeful that the two major candidates, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, will have the maturity and the commitment to the good of the country to call off the dogs and accept whatever results eventuate. We need grown-ups in the White House. And, among the outs, we need people willing to accept defeat and work together for America and the world. There will be ample time for electioneering in the post-November 2 world. But immediately following the election and until another (and I hope, delayed) partisan political season begins, political leaders need to address the weightier business of governance.
So, what about it, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, will you pledge to accept the results of each state's first certified results no matter who wins?
Will you agree not to tie up the 2004 elections in the courts?
Will you refuse to go to the Supreme Court?
Will you show the same statesmanship and respect for America that Richard Nixon demonstrated in November, 1960?
I hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment