There was a considerable amount of misreporting about what happened in Florida after the November 7 election, including misunderstandings and outright distortions that arose during the post-election contest. There has been even more misunderstanding of how events in Florida will affect the foreign policy of President-elect George W. Bush. Let me correct a few of the more egregious errors by the international media.
First, there is no evidence that any voters, particularly racial minorities, faced even the slightest discrimination, intimidation or any other impediment to the legitimate casting of their ballots in Florida. No fair-minded media reporters have found any such evidence, nor has an ongoing Justice Department investigation, conducted by the outgoing Clinton administration, found any violations of federal civil rights laws.
Second, the presidential vote in Florida was close, as it was nationwide, and Florida's electoral votes turned out to be dispositive. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that both major presidential candidates were determined that the state's popular votes were accurately counted.
While the procedure for doing so was far from perfect, the criticisms leveled against Florida and its counties, especially in international circles, were wildly off the mark. Many criticisms centered on the lack of national voting methods and procedures, as if the election practices of a homogeneous, medium-sized European country could be readily applied to a diverse, continental power.
Moreover, such criticisms prove too much, because they necessarily question the very federal structure of the US. Yet imagine if the Electoral College system were abandoned; a close vote in Florida could have triggered recounts all around the country, making a difficult problem far worse. Ironically, by resorting to strained legal theories and hoping for rescue by activist courts, Vice President Gore made a reliable hand recount impossible. This is unfortunate, but does not in any way detract from the legitimacy of the final outcome.
So, where does this leave the new President? The critical fact is that George W. Bush and his team will direct foreign policy. The US does not have a parliamentary system, and it will not be operating under a coalition government. There is only one president, with a constitutionally defined term of four years. These structural realities mean, by definition, that the new president will have at his command all of the enormous governmental power of the US -- political, economic and military -- from noon on January 20 forward. Whatever happened before will be of no matter after Chief Justice William Rehnquist administers the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Some commentators argue that the close Electoral College result, and the fact that Vice President Gore received more popular votes will weaken the Bush presidency, and that it will not have a clear "mandate" to govern. No one, of course, can deny the election's closeness, but that statistic is already fading from significance. The reality of international affairs means that issues that only the president can decide will be thrust before him immediately. In short, the only "mandate" he needs after January 20 will be the one he receives when he sits behind his Oval Office desk every morning. From that point forward, it will be his performance in office that matters, not what the popular or Electoral College votes were.
During the campaign, Bush's opponents complained about his lack of foreign policy experience. This assumes, of course, that experience counts for more than judgment, a dubious proposition at best. Moreover, no new president assumes office with command of every substantive policy area that he must eventually master. For now, President Bush will have to concentrate his energies on preventing the US economy sliding into recession. His success or failure on this issue will have profound global implications, and probably be more significant than superficial attempts to "engage" on less important foreign policy issues. Finally, the US is eager to look forward, and to have the new president restore honor and integrity to his office. Even supporters of other candidates agree that the departing president's personal conduct has been appalling and shameful, and the desire to look forward is a deep and intrinsically important component of America's national character. The post-election recounts and contests will be debated for decades to come by scholars and students. But for today, one thing is already certain: the Florida chapter is now history.
John Bolton is the senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. During the previous Bush Administration, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry