As I am writing this, the election remains in limbo. Gore is apparently winning the popular vote but the Electoral College is still too close to call: The disputed states are Oregon, New Mexico, and of course Florida (depending on which news source you choose). Obviously, by the time this program is aired on the radio, the results may be known, so I will not comment on that. However, I believe we can draw some conclusions on this election, the way it was reported and the political realities for the next several years. Let's think about these things together:

First, the Senate and the House will presumably remain under Republican control, albeit by a slimmer margin. This is not necessarily a good thing. Depending on who becomes the next president, this could produce more gridlock in government at the national level. This kind of situation could increase the already bitter and extremely partisan atmosphere that exists in Washington. Strong leadership in both houses of Congress will be needed to promote good and effective government. We will wait and see how this unfolds over the next two years.

Second, the polling that pervaded this campaign was shameful. Every day we were inundated with tracking polls, often in great disagreement. The national mood was quite fluid and when we now look at the results, especially for the presidency, they demonstrate the inaccuracy of the polls in terms of the popular vote. Only one national poll was close to the current popular vote total. The rest missed it significantly. Furthermore, the news organizations do us a great disservice with all of these polls. They do not foster concentration on the issues that separate candidates; they foster the mentality of a popularity contest.

Third, there is a real possibility we will have Gore winning the popular vote where he clearly is in the lead, and Bush winning the electoral vote. Although this has happened three other times in our history (1824, 1876 and 1888), this is not healthy for our democracy. The president who wins the electoral college in this kind of situation can lack the legitimacy that is needed to govern and that is not a good thing. Especially in the kind of world we now live in, the president who is not only leader of the US but also leader of the world's most powerful and influential nation must have legitimacy or its influence will be significantly reduced. In that sense, it would perhaps be more healthy for our democracy if Gore won Florida and therefore the presidency.

Fourth, the manner in which the national media handled the situation in Florida was absolutely shameful!!! A few moments after 8:00 p.m. EST, CNN and then the rest of the major broadcasts called the state of Florida for Gore. However, because the panhandle of Florida is in CST, the polls there were still open. Furthermore, as the results poured in it became clear that they were wrong. So, they retracted their prediction and made Florida too close to call. Then, at about 2:00 a.m they called Florida for Bush but then about an hour later again retracted the call and made it too close to call. Based on the initial news item, Gore then called Bush to concede the victory to Bush, but less than an hour later rescinded his concession when the news organization retracted their call. We are therefore facing a recall in Florida and a degree of uncertainty that could last for days. In one sense, this debacle is the fault of the news organizations. One of the results of this mess is that I hope the American people will demand a higher degree of accountability from the news organizations, both in terms of these absurd tracking polls and the manner in which the news media determines who wins each state's electoral votes. In short, this was not the national news media's finest hour.

Back to top

The Mideast Peace Process

The instability of the US government at this time, in the short run, is not healthy for the Middle East situation. Too many political figures can take advantage of the stability in the US. Look for saber rattling from Saddam, from Syria and the radical terrorist organizations.

The approach of the United States government in all of this has been shameful. The UN passed a resolution recently condemning Israel's excessive use of force in containing the PLO rioting unleashed by Arafat. The US abstained from the UN vote, for fear that a veto of this one-sided resolution would reduce US influence with the Palestinians. Furthermore, at a recent meeting between Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat at the US ambassadors' Paris residence, Albright rushed after Arafat when he walked out of the meeting and ordered the gates closed so he could not escape. But escape he did, demonstrating that she is more in need of peace than he is. Finally, Clinton's involvement in Israeli politics has in effect made Israel his responsibility when he intervened in Israeli politics to help unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and install Barak. This was shameful!

The OSLO accords, another Clinton achievement, created an armed Palestinian camp within territories ceded to the PLO. Arafat agreed under terms of the accord to use his Palestinian police to prevent terrorist attacks on Israel. But when he did not get his way at Camp David recently, he went home and unleashed the riots and violence that we are now witnessing. Arafat rules the Palestinian areas as a dictator, presiding over a high- handed and corrupt PA administration that could very easily control the violence. He chooses not to!!

In this mess, Iraq and Iran are using the conflict to portray themselves as the true champions of the Palestinian cause and hence leaders of the entire region. The current crisis has eroded the international sanctions against Iraq. The end of Iraq's isolation is especially worrisome, given that even before the outbreak of violence more than a month ago, Hussein has made a series of startlingly belligerent speeches. He is now perceived as striking a blow at America, which is excoriated as the protector of Israel.

Furthermore, Iran continues to provide the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah with weapons and money. It also gives money and possibly weapons to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran is trying to walk a fine line to achieve two objectives open themselves up to the West to get more trade and money, while still remaining militant in its support of the PLO. Can they do both? If one fails (opening to the West), will they choose to even more forthrightly commit to the PLO? This is hardly a stable situation.

The US government must bear major responsibility for this crisis. Only history will tell the details of this debacle, but the Clinton administration has performed poorly in trying to mediate this ancient struggle. In doing so, it has strengthened the hand of Arafat and enhanced the position of both Iraq and Iran. This is not their finest diplomatic hour!!

Back to top