{"title":"A Republic, If We Can Keep It","authors":"Tod Lindberg","doi":"10.5860/choice.50-1585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"THE AMERICAN POLITICAL system has thrown off some truly anomalous results in the past decade. We have gone from the historic 1994 election (a 50-seat swing in the House of Representatives bringing to power a Republican leadership promising \"Revolution\"), to an historic presidential impeachment and acquittal, to an historic 2000 election in which voters divided as evenly as imaginable in their preference for Democrats or Republicans. We are practically awash in the historic these days. Commentary in the weeks after the 2000 presidential election told us to watch events closely, since we would never see their like again in our lifetime. This may be true, but it may also miss the larger point. For those who found themselves disturbed one way or another by the outcome and aftermath of the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore -- or as the Clinton impeachment drama unfolded, or as the Republican Congress tried to enact its Revolution -- the uniqueness of each event and the unlikelihood of a recurrence may be a false consolation. We may not run into these particular oddities again, but it may be that we are in the midst of something bigger -- a pattern of oddity. One can certainly try to explain away these and lesser instances of strange politics. For example: The fact that a former professional wrestler was elected governor of Minnesota -- and that one Sunday in 1999, the governor decided to make a triumphant return to the ring as referee in the World Wrestling Federation Summerslam -- well, it is certainly strange. But it is also perhaps colorful, in the great American tradition of eccentricity, and not especially noteworthy except in the context of that tradition. Anyway, Jesse Ventura won office with a narrow plurality in a three-way election. How significant is this? Or, for another example, the fact that voters in Missouri cast their ballots in the state's 2000 Senate race for a man who died three weeks earlier -- because the governor promised to appoint the man's widow to the seat -- is macabre, and perhaps uniquely so. But the \"widow's pension\" has a long pedigree in American politics, even if it is not exactly a noble one, and it hardly seems fair to single out this instance as especially noteworthy. Americans are sympathetic to the bereaved, after all. The late Mel Carnahan's election may have been no more than a particularly florid expression of that. And if it's a bit odd that the son of the forty-first president sought to become the forty-third in a race that ultimately hinged on the vote count in the state in which the candidate's brother served as governor -- even as the wife of the president of the United States was unprecedentedly winning election as a United States senator -- well, family has always been important in politics, no? But if instead of trying to explain away these possibly isolated instances of oddity, we take the sum of them -- then add to the mix a failed revolution, an impeachment and acquittal, and the closest and most litigated presidential election ever -- we could probably be forgiven for reaching the conclusion that this has been a distinctly volatile period in American politics. And we might want to ask if the country has run into anything like this before, and if so, whether any such previous periods have enough in common with our own to point to something that might help account for these strange days. ONE NEEDN'T SCRATCH at this volatility too deeply before some of its paradoxical qualities become apparent. For example, the American electorate split evenly in the 2000 election -- not only in the presidential vote, but also in that voters elected a House and Senate nearly equally split between the parties. But are voters themselves really so bitterly divided? Certainly, elite partisan and ideological opinion is. Those who associate the advance of their ideological interests with the progress of the Republican Party are at loggerheads with those who associate the advance of their ideological interests with the progress of the Democratic Party. …","PeriodicalId":82330,"journal":{"name":"Policy review","volume":"20 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.50-1585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL system has thrown off some truly anomalous results in the past decade. We have gone from the historic 1994 election (a 50-seat swing in the House of Representatives bringing to power a Republican leadership promising "Revolution"), to an historic presidential impeachment and acquittal, to an historic 2000 election in which voters divided as evenly as imaginable in their preference for Democrats or Republicans. We are practically awash in the historic these days. Commentary in the weeks after the 2000 presidential election told us to watch events closely, since we would never see their like again in our lifetime. This may be true, but it may also miss the larger point. For those who found themselves disturbed one way or another by the outcome and aftermath of the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore -- or as the Clinton impeachment drama unfolded, or as the Republican Congress tried to enact its Revolution -- the uniqueness of each event and the unlikelihood of a recurrence may be a false consolation. We may not run into these particular oddities again, but it may be that we are in the midst of something bigger -- a pattern of oddity. One can certainly try to explain away these and lesser instances of strange politics. For example: The fact that a former professional wrestler was elected governor of Minnesota -- and that one Sunday in 1999, the governor decided to make a triumphant return to the ring as referee in the World Wrestling Federation Summerslam -- well, it is certainly strange. But it is also perhaps colorful, in the great American tradition of eccentricity, and not especially noteworthy except in the context of that tradition. Anyway, Jesse Ventura won office with a narrow plurality in a three-way election. How significant is this? Or, for another example, the fact that voters in Missouri cast their ballots in the state's 2000 Senate race for a man who died three weeks earlier -- because the governor promised to appoint the man's widow to the seat -- is macabre, and perhaps uniquely so. But the "widow's pension" has a long pedigree in American politics, even if it is not exactly a noble one, and it hardly seems fair to single out this instance as especially noteworthy. Americans are sympathetic to the bereaved, after all. The late Mel Carnahan's election may have been no more than a particularly florid expression of that. And if it's a bit odd that the son of the forty-first president sought to become the forty-third in a race that ultimately hinged on the vote count in the state in which the candidate's brother served as governor -- even as the wife of the president of the United States was unprecedentedly winning election as a United States senator -- well, family has always been important in politics, no? But if instead of trying to explain away these possibly isolated instances of oddity, we take the sum of them -- then add to the mix a failed revolution, an impeachment and acquittal, and the closest and most litigated presidential election ever -- we could probably be forgiven for reaching the conclusion that this has been a distinctly volatile period in American politics. And we might want to ask if the country has run into anything like this before, and if so, whether any such previous periods have enough in common with our own to point to something that might help account for these strange days. ONE NEEDN'T SCRATCH at this volatility too deeply before some of its paradoxical qualities become apparent. For example, the American electorate split evenly in the 2000 election -- not only in the presidential vote, but also in that voters elected a House and Senate nearly equally split between the parties. But are voters themselves really so bitterly divided? Certainly, elite partisan and ideological opinion is. Those who associate the advance of their ideological interests with the progress of the Republican Party are at loggerheads with those who associate the advance of their ideological interests with the progress of the Democratic Party. …
在过去的十年里,美国的政治体制产生了一些真正反常的结果。我们已经经历了1994年的历史性选举(众议院50个席位的摇摆让共和党领导层承诺“革命”),到历史性的总统弹劾和无罪释放,再到2000年历史性的选举,选民在民主党和共和党之间的倾向几乎是可以想象的平均水平。这些天,我们几乎沉浸在历史的洪流中。2000年总统大选后几周的评论告诉我们要密切关注事态发展,因为我们这辈子再也不会看到类似的事情了。这可能是对的,但也可能忽略了更重要的一点。对于那些发现自己被乔治·w·布什(George W. Bush)和阿尔·戈尔(Al Gore)之间竞争的结果和后果——或者随着克林顿弹劾大戏的展开,或者随着共和党控制的国会试图实施“革命”(Revolution)——或多或少地扰乱了的人来说,每件事的独特性和不太可能重演,可能是一种虚假的安慰。我们可能不会再遇到这些特殊的奇怪现象,但我们可能正处于更大的事情之中——一种奇怪的模式。当然,人们可以试图为这些奇怪的政治事件以及其他较小的事件开脱。一位前职业摔跤手被选为明尼苏达州州长,而且在1999年的一个星期天,这位州长决定以世界摔跤联合会夏季大满贯的裁判身份凯旋而回——嗯,这当然很奇怪。但它也可能是丰富多彩的,在伟大的美国传统的古怪,并不是特别值得注意,除非在这个传统的背景下。总之,杰西·文图拉在三方选举中以微弱优势当选。这有多重要?或者,再举一个例子,密苏里州的选民在该州2000年的参议员竞选中投票给了一个三周前去世的人——因为州长承诺任命此人的遗孀担任参议员——这一事实令人毛骨悚然,也许是独一无二的。但是,“寡妇养老金”在美国政治中有着悠久的历史,尽管它并不是什么高尚的事情,而且把这个例子单独挑出来特别值得注意似乎并不公平。毕竟,美国人对失去亲人的人是同情的。已故的梅尔•卡纳汉(Mel Carnahan)的当选可能只是对这一点的一个特别华丽的表达。第41任总统的儿子试图成为第43任总统,而这场竞选最终取决于候选人的兄弟曾担任州长的州的票数——尽管美国总统的妻子以前所未有的方式赢得了美国参议员的选举——嗯,家庭在政治中一直很重要,不是吗?但是,如果我们不试图解释这些可能孤立的奇怪事件,而是把它们加起来——然后再加上一场失败的革命、一场弹劾和无罪释放,以及有史以来最接近、最具诉讼色彩的总统选举——我们可能会得出这样的结论:这是美国政治中一个明显动荡的时期。我们可能会问,这个国家以前是否遇到过类似的情况,如果是这样,以前的任何时期是否与我们自己的时期有足够的共同点,可以指出一些可能有助于解释这些奇怪日子的东西。在它的一些自相矛盾的特质变得明显之前,我们不必太深入地探究这种波动性。例如,在2000年的选举中,美国选民的分配是平均的——不仅在总统选举中,而且在选民选举众议院和参议院时,两党之间的分配也几乎相等。但选民本身真的有如此严重的分歧吗?当然,精英党派和意识形态的观点是。那些把自己的意识形态利益的进步与共和党的进步联系在一起的人与那些把自己的意识形态利益的进步与民主党的进步联系在一起的人是对立的。…