So the election is over, and the pundits have been, well, pundit-ing with impunity about what a Republican victory means. It would be nearly impossible to factor in all the reasons for a GOP sweep of Congress, and we won’t try. It’s more important to look toward future governance.
Be careful, Grand Old Party. Do not assume, as the Newt Gingrich-led caucus did in 1994, that a razor-thin margin of victory against favored Democrats in a few states — in a country remarkably split down the very middle on most public policy issues — means you have a mandate. There is no mandate in a 51-49 vote.
Pundits have been cautioning this same sentiment, but most of them have used “bad strategy” as the rationale. It would be politically unwise, they say, to force an agenda with which half of the country disagrees. Doing so could cause a GOP backlash in 2004.
We have a slightly different take on this counsel. Republicans must not run over the Democrats in enacting ideologically driven policy because, very simply, it would be poor governance to do so. If the populace is to believe GOP acceptance speeches and campaign messages, then it needs to govern from a position of moderate compromise.
Here, then, is a shining opportunity for Republicans to prove they are reasonable, just and enlightened leaders.
As a postscript, we offer similar advice to Democrats, especially in the Oregon and U.S. senates, both of which are split nearly in half. Democrats must not hold up all legislation in parliamentary red tape simply because they can. Politicians look pathetic when they act surly after losing. Be bigger leaders, everyone, and help find compromise for a bitterly divided electorate.