Patriotism Over Party

George W. Bush now becomes the nation’s 43rd president after a history-making legal battle. President-elect Bush is in the unenviable position of having to prove himself to many Americans skeptical about the circumstances of his election. But he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and indeed the nation should give him that.

In the great tradition of postelection political reconciliation, first Al Gore and then Bush spoke to the nation last night, calling for an end to the rancor of the presidential campaign and its extended aftermath and asking the American people to come together for the common good.

Gore was magnanimous after his loss. Quoting Stephen Douglas on his loss of the presidential election to Abraham Lincoln, Gore said, “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism.” He displayed touches of gentle humor: The vice president, who retracted a concession to Bush on election night, said, “I promised I wouldn’t call him back this time.” Later, Gore conceded the race for the final time.

Of Tuesday night’s bitterly divided 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively ended recounts in Florida and assured Bush an electoral college victory, Gore sought reconciliation. “While I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome.”

Bush--speaking symbolically from the Democratic-dominated Texas House of Representatives--promised to serve as president of all the people. “I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation,” he said. . . . “Whether you voted for me or not, I will do my best to serve your interests, and I will work to earn your respect.” The sentiments were certainly welcome. After the last five tumultuous weeks, most Americans are ready for a period of calm and political detoxification.

In time, the anger fueled by the Florida imbroglio will pass for many Americans. With African Americans--Bush advisors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice notwithstanding--the incoming president faces a special challenge. Many of the uncounted Florida ballots come from largely black precincts, and that fact follows a history of violence and intimidation aimed at keeping African Americans from exercising their voting rights. What happened in Florida cast a revealing light on what deserves to be seen as a national scandal over error-prone voting procedures that can effectively disenfranchise large numbers of voters of all racial, ethnic and class backgrounds and in any state.

Thanks to Florida’s strong public access laws, all ballots, whether officially counted or not, could soon be available for inspection, and any number of private groups, academics and newspapers are preparing to take advantage of that right. But even if independent examination finds that Gore outpolled Bush and should properly have been awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes, the certified outcome of the election won’t change, although Bush’s authority may be circumscribed if it emerges that Gore would in fact have won Florida and thus the presidency had all the ballots been counted. For many, Bush would be an accidental president.

In any event, Bush will rightly have the full constitutional powers of the presidency, and he is entitled to the respect that office carries. His greatest challenge is to demonstrate that he should receive more than the goodwill that naturally goes with the office. Bush must show from the outset that he commands the political and moral authority that any president must have to succeed.

Bush’s advertised talents as a healer and unifier are sure to be put to the test. The elections that produced a virtually even national popular vote for president also installed a Congress split down the middle, 50-50 in the Senate and with the barest of majorities for the Republicans in the House. Fire-breathing zealots like Bush’s fellow Texan, House Republican Whip Tom DeLay, can insist all they want that conservatives are now free to ram through their agenda, but the rest of the Republican congressional leadership and Bush surely know better. To pass any significant legislation over the next two years will require a bipartisan consensus, and a pragmatic moderation will be the cement holding that consensus together. That will be the case as well when the Senate is asked to confirm Bush’s appointments. Presidents traditionally have pretty much of a free hand in choosing their cabinets. But in other areas where the Senate’s advice and consent is required--nominees to the Supreme Court, other federal judges, the regulatory agencies and ambassadors--close scrutiny and sharp questioning can be expected. President-elect Bush can preempt prolonged and quarrelsome confirmation hearings by choosing solid persons of achievement but avoiding those who would surely provoke bitter partisan battles.

Social conservatives and others with right-leaning agendas are frank about their expectations once Bush is in the White House. They hope for a rollback of many of the executive orders issued by President Clinton--for example, protecting millions of acres of public lands by designating them national monuments. They want ideologues appointed to key sub-Cabinet positions, especially in areas involving civil rights, family planning, federal funding of some medical research and lawsuits that the government might pursue against, say, tobacco companies. And they are already lobbying against bringing Democrats or moderate Republicans into a Bush administration.

Bush’s victory speech Wednesday suggested that he’s keenly aware that hard partisan moves would jeopardize moderate support in Congress. Bush will enter the White House unable to claim any kind of mandate and with his victory secured by a single vote on the U.S. Supreme Court. Often during his campaign Bush spoke about the need for humility. The circumstances of his clouded victory suggest there is much to be humble about.

In his speech, Bush wisely recognized the task ahead. He said he will meet with Gore next week in Washington “to do our best to heal our country.”

”. . . Republicans want the best for our nation. And so do Democrats. Our votes may differ, but not our hopes. . . . Together, guided by a spirit of common sense, common courtesy and common goals, we can unite and inspire the American citizens.”

The United States resolved this serious political dispute in a peaceful way, Bush reminded, still “one nation, indivisible.” It was, in all, a gracious coda to a campaign most Americans are relieved to see finally end.