The Election of 2000 is over

Here is what I wrote in October 2001 about the Presidential election of 2004. (This is from a book on Bush v. Gore edited by my colleague Bruce Ackerman):

The meaning of the 2000 election-- and hence the legitimacy of the Bush presidency-- has yet to be determined. If the Democrats win both houses of Congress in 2002 and then regain the presidency in 2004, they will have delivered as solid a rebuff to Bush's legitimacy as is possible in the American system of government. We the People will have rejected the Supreme Court's imperious decision to hand Bush the White House. In hindsight, the election of 2000 will have been judged a mistake, and-- for reasons that I will explain shortly-- the more mistaken it seems, the more it will throw into doubt the legitimacy of how Bush obtained power in the first place.

On the other hand, if George W. Bush wins a second term in office by a decisive margin, this will bestow legitimacy on his first term retrospectively, and will tend to confirm the wisdom of the Supreme Court's intervention, if not the precise reasoning of Bush v. Gore. The election of 2000 will be considered at most a tie, which gave Bush the opportunity to establish that he truly did represent the will of the People. Because there was no constitutional harm, there was no constitutional foul.

With the ashes of the World Trade Center still smoldering as I write these words, the country is likely to give George W. Bush every opportunity to demonstrate his qualities of leadership. If he makes the most of that opportunity, he will be rewarded with reelection and the mantle of legitimacy. But as every politician understands, a great deal can happen in four years. No one knows how long the current crisis will last, how well the new president will lead, or whether economic and domestic problems will eventually overtake concerns of foreign policy.

Make no mistake: the meaning of the 2000 election-- and the legitimacy of the Bush presidency-- are still very much up for grabs. Unplanned and unexpected events will test the mettle of both parties and shape the meaning of the Bush presidency. If the Democrats play their cards right, and the Republicans are foolish, the Republican Party will be punished for overreaching and the verdict of history will be that the election was illegitimate or at least dubious. Bush v. Gore and black disenfranchisement will be viewed as blemishes on the American system of justice that were corrected by a wise citizenry. On the other hand, if the Republicans rise to the occasion and the Democrats misplay their hand, George W. Bush will win the White House in 2004 and establish his legitimacy. Bush v. Gore will be seen as badly written but irrelevant, and black disenfranchisement in Florida will be excused or conveniently forgotten.

I still think this is largely correct. Bush demonstrated his political legitimacy through the combination of the 2002 and 2004 elections. I do believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore still remains a stain on their reputations. However, because Bush was not able to appoint any new Justices until he won an electoral majority, the stain is somewhat less severe than it would otherwise have been. Less severe, but not wholly eliminated: Incumbents have natural advantages in getting reelected; black disenfranchisement and Bush v. Gore guaranteed that George W. Bush, and not Al Gore, would receive the benefits of incumbency going into the 2004 election. Nevertheless, Bush made the most of the opportunity he was handed to demonstrate that he had majority support. Although he did not win by a decisive margin, he did win an absolute majority in a close election, while increasing Republican representation in both the House and the Senate. And we must remember that, prior to that, he had also increased Republican representation in Congress in the 2002 election.

I'm not happy about the turn of affairs, but I consider myself a member of the reality based community, and that means that I accept recalcitrant experience even when I don't like it.

That the 2000 election is finally over does not mean, however, that Bush v. Gore and black disenfranchisement were perfectly ok. Rather, it means that not every injustice is remedied in an imperfect world, and that the Democrats have to regroup and move on. I think they can do this, particularly because I believe that voters will tire of this President more quickly than most people expect. His approval ratings in the fourth year of his presidency suggest that many were already quite tired of him, but simply not yet willing to change horses in midstream.

It may seem strange to put it in this way, but the Democrats now have the singular advantage of powerlessness: They have four years to think deeply about what they believe and the direction the country should take while the Republicans, who now control everything, have complete responsibility for getting us out of the mess they have created. The Democrats are set upon a journey in the wilderness. From such journeys salvation often comes.