[Nasional-e] A house divided

Thu Nov 7 22:48:09 2002

A house divided

There are two ways of interpreting the midterm elections held in the United
States on Tuesday, both of them valid. On the one hand, the Republicans did
very well -- perhaps not better then expected, since they held the advantage
going in, but certainly much better than the Democrats had hoped they would
do. They now control both Houses of Congress and the White House. On the
other hand, America remains a house evenly divided. When a couple of seats
here can deliver the Senate, and a few electoral votes there can put a man
in the White House, it is not much of a mandate for whoever "wins."

Tuesday's results did not change this underlying fact of recent U.S.
politics. The clash between these competing perceptions of the 2002
elections will continue to affect the behavior of President George W. Bush's
administration, the American public's reaction and, inevitably, the rest of
the world for the next two years.

Politics is about numbers and symbols, and in both respects the Republicans
came out ahead. The math speaks for itself. The GOP increased its majority
in the House of Representatives and regained the Senate, bucking a
midterm-election trend favoring the party that did not hold the White House.
The Senate victory, in particular, may help the administration in coming
battles over economic issues and Social Security.

The Republicans did not do so well by the numbers in gubernatorial races,
where the party faces a probable drop in its majority, but they won the two
that counted the most symbolically. In Florida, the Democrats failed to oust
President Bush's brother, a party priority since the electoral fiasco there
two years ago, and in Maryland the Republican candidate knocked out a famous
Democratic name, Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Bobby Kennedy's eldest
daughter.

The Florida race, especially, could not help but be seen as a local,
surrogate referendum on the current presidency. The president prevailed,
resoundingly. In fact, despite not being on the ballot, Mr. Bush was the
symbolic winner nationwide on Tuesday. He campaigned so intensively, in so
many races, that he put his credibility as a leader publicly on the line. By
and large, his favored candidates won.

It is, of course, possible to read too much into this. Elections are
generally won or lost on local issues -- jobs, education, taxes, public
transportation, health care -- and on the vagaries of personality. The
people who preferred Mr. Bob Ehrlich to Ms. Townsend in Maryland or who
helped Mr. Norm Coleman defeat former Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale in
Minnesota's Senate race were probably not expressing their views on Mr.
Bush's hardball foreign policy. Yet they didn't use their votes to reject
it, either, which means that the president is now in a position to claim --
as he almost certainly will -- a renewed mandate for his proposed war on
Iraq and other expressions of unilateralism.

It is this aspect of the elections that is of concern to America's friends
and allies. What the world was perhaps looking for was a stronger expression
of skepticism, hesitation, prudence -- call it what you will -- about the
image America has increasingly projected abroad in the 14 months since Sept.
11, 2001.

Outside observers had hoped the elections might help focus domestic demand
for clearer answers to the questions that have been mounting up: Where is
the so-called war on terrorism headed? Has it changed course? If so, why? Is
the U.S. still committed to Afghanistan? What prompted the recent emphasis
on "regime change" in Iraq? What about North Korea, a major concern of
Japan's? And what are the implications of the administration's new,
go-it-alone National Security Strategy? None of this figured significantly
into pre-election debate.

There are two possible explanations. Americans may not in fact entertain
serious doubts about the course their president is pursuing abroad, a
conclusion the election results seem to support. If the idea of invading
Iraq, for example, was an issue at all, it certainly didn't hurt the
president's party. Recent polls, however, can be read both ways: A majority
of Americans say they support an invasion under certain circumstances; yet
the number is gradually dropping. More likely, Americans may just not take
this "war talk" seriously -- not yet, anyway, or not in large numbers. That
could change at a stroke.

And that is where the divided house is important. So far, Democrats have not
noticeably challenged Mr. Bush's conduct of foreign policy, but when, not
if, opposition galvanizes, it is reassuring to know that there are still
enough of them there -- in the House and the Senate -- to apply the brakes
as needed.