Why there's no such thing as shame in America
As the world's greatest democracy inches towards an election result, Gay Alcorn looks at the long-term effects on a disillusioned nation.

THE media have covered this election aftermath as though it were a military battle. James Baker is George W. Bush's "field commander". Reporters are "on the ground" covering the "trench warfare" between the two camps which seek the White House. The Florida legislature's plans to step in if needed to hand the State's electoral votes to Bush is described as the "nuclear strategy".

As in modern warfare, public relations coups are as important as battle victories. But after the war is over, is there not usually a sense of waste, even a deep pain, about all that has been destroyed in the quest for victory?

For foreigners amazed, amused then horrified at all that has happened in the world's most powerful country since the November 7 election, it seems at this moment that the damage will be lasting and profound. The election was a statistical tie. Americans were evenly divided between Republican Bush and Democrat Al Gore, but it was a passive, rather than a passionate, division.

Americans, even more than Australians, are disengaged with politics, cynical about politicians' motives and their capacity to serve the public good. They didn't much care which man won the White House. After bucketloads of money was spent on the campaign, just 50.7 per cent of eligible Americans voted (contrast that with the last seriously disputed election in 1876, when more than 80 per cent cast a ballot).

One of the ironies is that more Americans are interested in this campaign now than they were on election day. They have watched, but what they have seen has further discouraged them about their own democracy. Perhaps it will prove temporary, but Harvard University's Vanishing Voter project found that one in 10 respondents just before the election thought that "people like you" had no influence on government. Now, it is one in four.

The public cynicism is not misplaced. The basic trust that votes will be properly counted has been mocked by the revelations that election officials knew for years that the 1960s Votomatic punch-card machines were inadequate for the task.

Americans see, too, what this contest is really about - a vicious fight to see which candidate will be the last man standing. There is no civil war to divide the nation, no civil rights struggles or Vietnam conflict. Just for power, American institutions have been trashed without regard for the consequences. Whoever screams loudest gets the airtime. "The whiff of fascism is in the air," said Democratic representative Jerrold Nadler after Republicans stormed a Miami-Dade canvassing board meeting last week, possibly influencing its decision to cancel its hand recount.

Jesse Jackson compared the recounting in Florida with the civil rights struggles in Selma, Alabama, in the 1960s. "We marched too much, bled too profusely and died too young," he sermonised. "We must not surrender."

So far, only the US Supreme Court has escaped ridicule as just another tarnished partisan institution. American judges are either appointed by politicians or elected, but the idea that their decisions are presumed illegitimate because of politics is relatively new. Bush said the Florida Supreme Court had "usurp[ed] the authority of Florida's election officials" when it ruled that Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who is the co-chairman of Bush's campaign in the State, abused her discretion by refusing to include hand-counts in the final tally.

Why, I asked a long-time Democratic lobbyist in Washington, was Harris not shamed into standing down from her position as chief election official, given her conflict of interest? "There is no such thing as shame in America," he said.

Bush's remarks about the court were moderate compared with those of House Majority Whip Tom Delay, who called the ruling "a blatant and extraordinary abuse of judicial power". The seven judges, all appointed under Democratic governors, were a "collection of liberal activists [who had] arbitrarily swept away thoughtfully designed statutes ... and replaced them with their own political opinions".

Jedediah Purdy, a Yale law student and author, wrote that when politicians join the popular ridicule of the judiciary when they are charged with deciding a case with political overtones, "they risk convincing the country that no-one is fit to govern". American democracy is robust, so we are told, and its people resilient. But even cautious commentators are fretting now about more than which of these mediocre men will become the 43rd president.

Current events have a history, said The Washington Post in a recent editorial. It's a history of unrivalled political spending, a president abusing his office and a vengeful Congress. It has led to this. "Grabbing the prize matters more than what you do with it. Deception of the voters has become an accepted tactic, the bipartisan norm against which the public has to defend," said the Post. "A reliance on televised imagery plus a low regard for truth produces a kind of demagogy that has become the background noise of campaigns ... politics has never been an innocent profession, but this is different than in the past."

Gay Alcorn is the Herald's Washington correspondent.

------------------------------end

Comment: It's a shame. Where did all the talented people go?

Regards from the Deep South of Oz...since your USA election fracas our local news affairs are postponed indefinitely...no talent here either...certain dashed nonsense about vote buying and electoral rorting in Queensland mostly! Quite tame actually. No fun at all and so predictable for banana benders.

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), November 29, 2000

Answers

Thanks, Pieter. It is always interesting to see what folks outside the fracas think. For better or worse, it is my opinion that this is democracy in action, and that folks who feel otherwise are part of a disconnect. I think only the profoundest good will come of this. There will be state legislatures reviewing election laws and changing them for the better-I think there will be an increase in voter turnout, and already for those of us who have followed closely, we have become more learned in history, about how the process works, and we can only benefit.

In a truly yin-yang sort of way, the greatest pain always results, in time, with the greatest gain.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), November 29, 2000.

All Aussies have to vote, so you can't say with any certainty that you would get any better turnout were that not the case. I am disappointed that some Americans don't "bother" to vote, but if they really don't care, I'd rather they not vote, lest they "guess" at who they want.

I think 50% is a fairly decent number when looked at from the other perspective. Half of all Americans DO bother to vote, and do seem to have some interest in the political process. I'm hoping that after this unusual presidential race, more people are prompted to vote in the future.

Pieter, if they think THIS is bad, they should see the turn out we get for local elections. Our school budget and town hall seats were on the agenda last year, and only 19% of the town came out to vote. I was so disheartened by that.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), November 29, 2000.