Yes, what you say is true as to the content of the campaign, but it would be quite difficult to establish that this issue was key to a large segment of Bush voters. Or any issue. In an initiative campaign, the vote outcome is more closely focused on an issue, but in an election the voters choose a candidate to support, and not necessarily because of that candidate's stand on any particular issue. The election picks leaders who are then tested for their leadership and in the next election either reelected or rejected based on the voters' perception of overall performance. The idea of a successful candidate having a "mandate" on anything other than the power to exercise leadership is just not, in my view, an accurate portrayal of how our version of democracy works. There may, of course, be exceptional circumstances where a single issue so clearly dominates that we can safely conclude that the public has spoken on that issue, but this would truly be a rarity.
Allan Ides
"Eastman, John" wrote:
Allan Ides wrote (on May 24)
John, with very rare exceptions, elections do not solve policy disputes. They choose leaders who often push agendas other than the ones in their announced platforms. If the public doesn't like a leader's performance, they vote her out at the next election.
Allan,
Sorry I've been a bit AWOL in responding.
I agree that politicians sometimes (often?) push agendas that they did not campaign on. But what should we make of a politician who does exactly what he campaigned on? Bush said repeatedly, including during his nationally televised debates, that if elected he would nominated judges like Scalia and Thomas. He campaigned again on the issue in key Senate races in 2002. Does that not suggest that the filibuster is now being used to block the effects of the political process?
(Someone else asked in another post about my evidence for the claim that President Bush campaigned on the confirmation issue in 2002 -- it was all over the media at the time, so I didn't think it necessary to provide citations. But I list a few here:
Oct. 30, 2002 -- President Bush held a major East Room announcement of a new initiative to have the Senate vote up or down on nominees within 6 months. See, e.g., Robert S. Greenberger, "Bush Offers Plan to Speed Approval Of Judges, but Democrats Balk," Wall St. J. A6 (Oct. 31, 2002)
Trent Lott announced shortly before the election that his first move should the voters elect new Republican Senate would be to call for votes on more than 80 stalled nominations. See Nick Anderson, "For Both Parties, a Time to Dream of What Could Be," Los Angeles Times A11 (Oct. 30, 2002).
During a visit to Colorado just before the election, campaigning for Senator Wayne Allard, President Bush "thanked Allard for [helping to] secure appointments for conservative federal judges." Susan Greene, "Bush Pushes for GOP," Denver Post A1 (Oct. 29, 2002).
Even Nan Aaron, Alliance for Justice President, acknowledged that Bush campaigned hard on the issue: "Undaunted by the Senate's rejection of two of his most problematic
nominees, the president and his emissaries on the campaign trail pledge
to continue nominating more of the same: ultra-conservatives beholden to
special interests and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary
Americans. Said Bush confidante Karen Hughes recently to an Iowa
audience: "I can assure you [the president] is not going to back down in
terms of the kinds of judges he picks." Washington Post A20 (Oct. 29, 2002).John C. Eastman
Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
