The results of this historic election are now final.  The Republican Party has maintained control of the House of Representatives and regained control of the Senate, for the first time since Senator Jeffords defected to the Democratic caucus (albeit remaining an independent).  This is a monumental achievement, since normally the party that controls the presidency loses in the off-year election.  In fact, this is the first time a Republican president has gained congressional control in 100 years.  (For the Democratic party you need to go back to 1934 to see a president’s party expand its number of Congressional seats.)   How should we think about all of this?

• First, this victory makes a major statement about President Bush.  He had a choice: He could have stayed home and not risked his popularity by going out on the campaign trail, engaging in overt partisanship and potentially being blamed if his party lost.  Instead, he expended his political capital trying to transfer his popularity to GOP candidates in close races.  It worked!  One of the major characteristics of leadership is to take risks.  Bush did that and demonstrated again that it is easy to underestimate him.  Furthermore, the results forever ended the label of “accidental president.”  The election demonstrated more than his personal support.  A striking feature was the success of Republican incumbents at all levels.  Not a single Republican governor running for reelection lost.  The only incumbent Republican senator defeated was a Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, whose divorce and remarriage was major issue of ethics and morality.  (In fact, I would argue that Hutchinson deserved to lose.  He was hypocritical and the voters knew it.)  In the House races, only two Republican members were defeated.  In short, Bush’s success gives the GOP protracted control of a unified government for the first time since 1954.  Finally, despite what so many have said regarding Bush’s presidency, he has demonstrated he is a solid leader with remarkable abilities to lead and set the country’s agenda.

• Second is a word about the Democrats.  The Democratic Party grossly misjudged the President and the political culture.  They believed they could make the economy the issue.  They believed they could energize their political base and get out the vote and win.  They believed they could run a campaign without defining who they are and what they would do if elected.  The result was an electoral catastrophe for the party.  The strange paradox of this election is that the Democratic Party looked partisan. Witness the disastrous Wellstone memorial service in Minnesota.   There is no doubt that this rally, which was manifestly partisan and shameful as a memorial service, titled the election against Mondale and probably energized the Republican base even more.  In short, the Democratic Party has an identity crisis.  What exactly does it stand for in the political culture of America?  Currently, there is a major debate going on for the heart, soul and mind of the party.  Those on the left are crying that the party needs to be more progressive.  Those of the center are arguing that the party needs to be more moderate.  Did they lose because they were perceived as moderate accommodationists or because they were perceived as out-of-touch liberals who lost the suburban vote?  It is highly instructive that after Dick Gephardt said he would not run as House minority leader that Nancy Pelosi of California has emerged as the leader.  Pelosi is one of the most liberal leaders of the House.  So, at least it seems in terms of Congressional leadership, the party is shifting to the left.  We will need to see if this is symptomatic of where the party is headed.

• Third, it was a disastrous election for the Clintons.  Their personal appointee as head of the party, Terry McAuliffe, made it clear that Jeb Bush was their number one target.  He was making it personal - to humiliate the president and show that in Florida the Democratic Party is king.  Bush defeated his opponent by 13 points!  Further, Erskine Bowls ran against Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina but lost.  Other Clinton people and advocates equally lost.  It was a humiliating night for the Clintons.  They had campaigned hard for the party in every key state, including Florida.  They campaigned for governors, senators and representatives.  Their candidates lost.  The Clintons made it very clear that they wanted the Bush presidency humiliated and defeated.  They did not make that happen.

• Finally, what difference will this election make?  Several key thoughts:

1. Perhaps one of the most significant changes will be in the Senate Judiciary committee.  As you know, Senator Leahy has not allowed any of Bush’s major judicial appointments to get to the Senate floor for a vote.  This will change.  There may be a Democratic filibuster, but not for all of them.  I think Bush has an extraordinary opportunity to remake the judiciary.  Perhaps, also, he will be able to name one or two members to the Supreme Court.  This could be one of his greatest legacies.
2. There could be a vote on the partial-birth abortion bill.  The House has consistently passed this but the Senate leadership would not allow it for a full Senate vote.  This might change.
3. I believe that President Bush’s tax cut will be made permanent, and changes in the estate tax and capital gains tax could be forthcoming.
4. I believe that Al Gore may have been hurt by the election.  He campaigned heavily in Florida, using the 2000 presidential election as his mantra.  He had no effect.  But I believe than Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts might be a more formidable candidate in 2004.  He is very articulate, smart and not as impulsive as Gore.  Additionally, Hilary Clinton’s hand could also have been strengthened.  She could emerge as a powerful alternative to other candidates.  The point?  The Democratic Party has been severally hurt by this election.  They have no direction and they have no leaders.  There is now a struggle to define the party and for someone to assert leadership.
5. This is also a strategic time for the Republican Party.  Now that they control the government, they must perform.  If the Party does not bring about tax relief, a successful war on terror, a decisive end to the Iraq problem, and move on other key issues like Social Security and welfare reform, 2004 could be a difficult year for the Party.

See articles by George F. Will, E. J Dionne, Jr., Terry M. Neal, David S. Broder, Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post (7 and 8 November 2002).

Back to top

ATHEISM AND THE BOY SCOUTS

Darrell Lambert has been in scouting for 10 years.  Last year he attained the highest rank of Eagle Scout.  Now a college freshman, he works with a troop in Port Orchard, Washington across the Puget Sound.  Every scout pledges a duty to God in the Scout Oath.  That is why Lambert is in difficulty: He is an atheist and has been one since he studied evolution in the ninth grade.  For that reason, the Seattle Council has given him an ultimatum - abide by the Boy Scout Law that affirms the value of reverence [for God] or be dismissed.  How should we think about this?

• First, Lambert has not denied ignorance of this policy and Law.  Indeed, he admitted to sometimes mouthing the parts about reverence and God when reciting the law and oath.  Other times he actually said the words.  None of it really mattered to him.  He never took it seriously and in fact, he lied.  This is a rather critical issue, for if he was a man of integrity, he should have resigned instead of faking his beliefs.  Since he lied, this impacts the other parts of the Law that focus on being loyal and trustworthy.  He was not and therefore violated more than the Law on reverence.  Furthermore, as Mark Hunter of the Chief Seattle Council argued: “Advocating a belief in a Supreme Being has been a core value of the Boy Scouts” for 96 years. 

• Second, there seems to be little doubt that the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude Lambert.  The Scouts won a ruling before the US Supreme Court two years ago that essentially allowed it to set standards for membership.  (Then the issue was homosexuals as scoutmasters.)  So far, the courts have agreed with the Scouts.

• Third, I believe there are two very important lessons to be learned from this case.  (1)  When the Boy Scouts fought over the issue of having gays as scoutmasters, history has proved them correct.  What the recent scandals in the Roman Catholic church have shown is that having homosexual leaders work with young boys results in pedophilia.  The Scouts are right in demanding that homosexuals not be scoutmasters.  (2)  The case of Lambert equally demonstrates the power of evolution as a theory.  It was his study of evolution in the ninth grade that converted him to atheism.  That is a critical point.  Evolution is not taught as a theory; it is taught as a fact, which it is not.

I trust that the Chief Seattle Council will be upheld in this case.  Duty to God and the Scout Law is admirable.  Darrell Lambert violated both and by lying as he served he demonstrated he is not a man of character or integrity.  He does not deserve to serve as a Scout volunteer.

See article in the New York Times (3 November 2002) and “Breakpoint” (6 November 2002).

Back to top

SADDAM HUSSEIN AGAINST THE WALL

Last week the UN Security Council in a 15-0 vote passed a resolution demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm or face “material breach” of an agreement and military action.   For the first time since the Gulf War, Saddam is in a box.  He has watched President Bush attain a significant victory in the national elections and receive an overwhelming vote of support from the UN.   He also faces a man who will not back down.  How should we think about this?

• First, as David Ignatius has argued: “Saddam Hussein faces a stark choice: Disarm or die.  In truth, they both amount to the same thing.  Hussein is finished, and many Iraqis seem to understand [this].”  Having insisted for years that he does not possess any weapons of mass destruction, how can he now say that he has them and then turn them over to the UN inspectors?  Yet, if he does not, he faces the US, who will launch a military attack to disarm him.  If he insists on defiance, that defiance will be open and for the entire world to see.  Intelligence sources tell us that there are factions within Hussein’s government telling him to comply with the UN resolution.  But it is doubtful he will do this.  To reverse course, admit he has the weapons and then disarm, will all amount to a disastrous loss of face - a very serious issue in Middle Eastern politics and to the Arab world.  To lose face would result in a potential crumbling of his authority and loss of honor.  He would then be very vulnerable. 

• Second, there is some credible evidence of a slow-motion disintegration of his regime.  There is discussion within the government to comply, albeit this is apparently a minority.  Second, prominent Iraqis are said to be preparing for the end - getting their money and their families out of Iraq.  Third, some prominent Arab businessmen are said to be positioning themselves for a regime change and the postwar boom that would probably follow.  A whole new infrastructure and economy would need to be built for expansion, not to feed the megalomania of Saddam alone.  Finally, as Ignatius also reports, “officers of key Republican Guard units are said to be weighing their options.”  President Bush and others have made it clear that if Saddam unleashes chemical or biological weapons during a war, they will be held accountable, even for war crimes.  This is a powerful message that is not going unheeded. 

• Finally, the tragedy in all of this is that we do not know what Saddam’s strategy is either.  It is very difficult for me to believe that he will simply capitulate.   Losing face for him is unbearable.  Losing his weapons is inconceivable.  This is what has given him power and leverage.  To lose it all would make him a petty dictator with nothing.  So, it seems logical to assume he will fight and kill Americans, Israelis and others on his way down.  Suppose he sees imminent defeat.  It is probable that he will launch a missile attack against Israel.  If he does, Israel has already announced it will retaliate.  Should Israel retaliate, the other Arab nations will be hard-pressed to do nothing.  At least, those other Arab nations will condemn the US and Israel.  Saddam would hope that the other Arab nations would come to his rescue.  That is doubtful but it would turn into a propaganda disaster for the US.  What the long term effects of that disaster would be are not positive.  Further, Israel fighting Iraq alongside the US would obviously feed the ranks potentially of al Qaeda.  In short, although the US will defeat Saddam, we may do so at a terrible cost for the future.  That is why the US, if it does defeat Saddam, must rebuild Iraq quickly and get it into the civilized nations of the world where there is trade, prosperity, education and a better life for the Iraqi people.  If not, we will be in this part of the world for a very long time. 

The US is entering into one of the most delicate periods in its history as it relates to the Middle East.  We will either be a hero or a villain.  Saddam will go but what and who will replace him is hardly certain; it is most definitely risky.

See David Ignatius, The Washington Post (8 November 2002).

Back to top