It is important to remember why we are here: we are here to win the next election, and then govern with the mandate that is earned of victory. We are here, not to rerun the election of 2000, but to run the election of 2004, and to secure the blessing of liberties: not for those ghosts of the November past - who are, after all, beyond our reach, even if some of them are us - but for all of the Novembers yet to come. The ghost of Elections past can only tell us what we have lost, it cannot warn us of what we must do in the future.
We must make a strong stand on constitutional legitimacy as a bed rock issue. Legitimacy is founded on an unquestioned trust, which needs no excuses, nor does it need snarling attacks to hold it in place. And legitimacy was dubious even before the final blow fell. It was weakened by corrosive waves of money; it was weakened by a debate which, on the eve of recession, did not dare utter the word. It was weakened by a press that would not total the numbers on proposals, and say that while the President may be powerful, he is not yet capable of repealing addition, subtraction and multiplication.
The election of 2000 was not an isolated incident, but, instead, the culmination of a long era of politics, where, piece by piece, bit by bit, the underlying solidity of institutions was undermined. It was not the current Executive alone which accomplished this, nor even the Supreme Court, nor even the whole of the Republican Party, nor even still both political parties together. It required the acquiesence of many millions, both of those who voted and those who did not.
It was a failure of the whole nation, and to overcome it will be the work of a whole nation. While we need the votes and support of those who felt theirs were robbed in 2000, we also need the support of those who feel that their votes were robbed by a system that would not offer them a candidate they could vote for. Half of the electorate did not vote in 2000 - their votes stolen just as effectively: by apathy, ignorance and other obstacles. We are here to restore all of the lost votes, not merely some few in one election, how ever decisive they may have been.
And in our hearts, we know this, which is no small part of why there has been an explosion of energy in 2003. It is why that energy will build, and not ebb, in 2004.
- - -
We are here to end that era, the era of fratricidal politics, the era of excuses. We are here to end the era of blame, where with each failure, a forest of fingers appears to point the blame at others. We are here to win an overwhelming victory, which is a light shining in the darkness, which the darkness cannot overwhelm or overcome.
It is also important to remember that the nation was deeply divided in 2000. If a few thousand votes had shifted in Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Pennsylvannia and New Mexico - Florida would not have mattered, Gore would have been buried and we would have accepted Florida in due course as being moot. If a few thousand votes had shifted in New Hampshire, Florida would not have sufficed to put Bush in the White House.
It is important to remember that the nation was deeply conflicted in 2000, giving Gore far more votes than his rival, and yet returning a House which was dedicated to stopping Gore's policies and preventing his agenda. The Supreme Court may have given the White House to Bush, but it is the voters who gave the House of Representatives to the Republicans, and split the Senate evenly. The inescapable conclusion is that many voted for Gore with one hand, and then voted with the other to weld a ball and chain around his neck.
It is important to remember that the nation was deeply deceived in 2000, thinking that the prosperity could continue, when in fact it only the most drastic action would have recession. Thinking that it did not matter who became President, thinking that politics could be decided by trivialities, or by technicalities. An illusion which has been laid to rest.
Against this background, it is clear that what happened in the wake of Election Day was not an exception, but merely a continuation. Not the cause of the current crisis, but a symptom of a larger one. A nation where all vote, and votes alone are the source of political strength, would not tolerate being told that they do not have the right to vote. A nation which has been told the truth in an election would not tolerate the elevation of one who does not have a mandate to govern. A nation which is unified would demand that in times of such division, that the new Administration would governing with particular care to do only that which there is the broadest consensus to do.
Democrats must no longer run against the system - even if we are running against the people who are abusing it. The anger is subsiding and in its place is emerging a dedication to ideals. While I understand the anger, for it is an anger that has burned white hot in my chest - it is the ideal which must be stronger, because it is the ideal, and not the anger which gives the government the just consent of the governed.
We all know how much the Republicans profited in an era where "news" seems to consist of attacks, and even the mildest dissent subjected to merciless assault, that there can be no national consensus, because there is no national conversation. We have been seeking to restore that conversation. This does not mean allowing attacks - such as Calvin Woodward's to pass unnoticed - on the contrary, they must be relentlessly responded to and pointed out to ridicule. But it does mean making the reponse clean and professional. To the credit of the Democratic Party, the responses to the AP were by and large civil and direct.
- - -
Lincoln's second Inaugural began "with malice towards none, with charity for all, we begin the task of binding the nation's wounds". When General Clark was asked about Iraq recently, he said "let us invite even the Baathists to renounce their former loyalties"
Let us dedicate ourselves to this very American, and very Christian, proposition that redemption is possible, repentence is met with forgiveness, and that justice, not vengence, is the business of the State. Yes, some will be punished, and others pardoned, and so sentenced to a life of shame - but it is the good of the nation which must guide our judgement. As much, at times, we will be tempted to exact an eye for an eye.
There are those who hunger for vengence, but as Cardinal Richelieu once said "Revenge is an expensive luxury, statesmen cannot afford it."
And that is why we are here, to back a man who must be more than a politician, but a statesman. So let us go forth and do likewise - let us take the fiasco surrounding the Election of 2000 as one example, among many, of why it is imperative that we reassert, reestablish and reaffirm those liberties which our nation was established to uphold. Let us not demand "How did you vote in two thousand?", but, instead "How will you vote in twenty oh four?"