Editorial: Trying to bridge the divide

Thursday, Dec. 14, 2000 | 9:43 a.m.

President-elect George W. Bush and the man he defeated, Vice President Al Gore, have taken the first steps to help bring together Americans who have been torn by the protracted battle for the White House. In nationally televised addresses on Wednesday, they both lived up to this tough task, which wasn't made easier by the fact that it took five weeks to declare a winner. During that period there was plenty of acrimony between the two candidates as they fought it out in the courts, but based on their Wednesday remarks, they took pains to put the tough campaign behind them.

Gore delivered a moving, personal concession speech that was gracious -- it seemed even more so in light of how extraordinarily close victory was within his grasp, as he received 267 electoral votes to Bush's 271. Bush, for his part, reached out to Democrats, promising to bring a new tone to Washington, working in a bipartisan manner that would pay respect to the differences between the two parties.

While Bush surely will be comforted by Gore's kind words, the reality is that Bush has a tall order ahead of him in erasing the many divisions that emerged during the post-election dispute, which have resulted in some hard feelings for Democrats and Republicans. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's final decision on Tuesday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Democrat, predicted a Bush win would "incite a massive civil rights rebellion." CNN's website reported that Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, had said if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor, it would mark the court "as the most interventionist" since the 1857 Dred Scott decision, an infamous ruling that denied citizenship to escaped slaves from the South.

Meanwhile, many prominent Republicans bellowed just as loudly, often using harsher invective. Considerable contempt was heaped on the independent judiciary, especially the Florida Supreme Court, for its decision to order recounts. "This judicial aggression must not stand," Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the Republican whip, thundered last week. Former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp often has been a moderating voice within the GOP, but as the New York Times reported Saturday, even he couldn't resist impugning the integrity of the Florida court's recount order. "America has witnessed a judicial coup d'etat by the Florida Supreme Court unprecedented in modern history," Kemp said.

Sadly, absent from this outrage was a recognition that judges, just like politicians, can have honest disagreements over how to interpret the law. Some highly partisan GOP operatives have yet to figure out that having a contrary view doesn't necessarily mean that the opponent has nefarious purposes in mind. For that matter, this type of hyperbolic, mean-spirited discourse is part and parcel of Washington politics today -- from both sides of the partisan aisle.

It is hoped, however, that this ugliness, which can undermine faith in our democratic institutions, doesn't continue. While some of these passions should be muted now that this divisive election is over, that still shouldn't mean that both Republicans and Democrats have to paper over their differences. Indeed, a robust debate over some of the issues facing the nation should occur, including a dialogue over how to improve Social Security, reform Medicare, overhaul our campaign finance laws or adopt a patient's bill of rights. There could be an opportunity to craft meaningful compromises on such important legislation, but given the contentiousness of the presidential election, and the partisan warfare that has raged in our nation's capital over the past decade, it's an understatement to say that Bush has his work cut out for him during the next four years.