1 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Function of Popular Vote Denied, March 14, 2004
This review is from: The Disputed Presidential Election of 2000: A History and Reference Guide (Hardcover)
Despite the control inherent in an election by the Electoral College, or in the case where the Supreme Court decides how a conflict like the 2000 election will be solved, and indeed, who will be President, the idea of electing a President (in theory, by majority) is thwarted from either process. When candidates spend 1-2 years selling themselves through selling their ideas, the Presidency comes with an automatic authority that cannot be exercised otherwise, and that is usually abruptly ended at the conclusion of a term. For all practical purposes, that is an illogical severance for a public who may continue to take stock in the guidance offered by any President. It is the flaw in not being able to continue a Presidency beyond the two term period, and it underestimates the appreciation of the public in having to redirect their attention to different, and entirely new candidates who may not resonate with the American people as former ones do. It could be called political abandonment in some cases, and is recognized in every small election where popular chairs, chiefs, and executives are persuaded to continue in a post beyond the time they would typically leave, or in the event that a term is finished. Not only is it intellectually illogical, it can be emotionally illogical if the public has gained any attachment to the philosophy expounded. This may have been the case with Clinton, and to a lesser degree with Gore.
The losses can be seen by looking at the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or even with Diana, in nations where monarchs reign, when people are comfortable with the guiding hand of an offical leader they do like, and feel comfortable with. Reviewing the list of monarchs since 800 a.d. in Great Britain, and reviewing the upheavals in that nation because of frequent changes show the problems of transitions, and their effects by counting the wars that occur as a result of those changes. While America has no wars, one could view negative politics and assassinations like that of JFK as political wars equivalent to those of other countries, nearly by instinct.
Contrasting that to America, perhaps one of the few nations with term limits for a President but not for Congress (itself a totally illogical pattern) that ignores the value of leadership potential.
With respect to the lack of stability American people have felt as a result of the management of the George W. Bush administration with the loss of jobs, political and economic disputes, it cannot be said that the new "group" of leaders offers an acceptable equivalent to that which was in place at January 1, 2000. Some might suggest that these oversights constitute political abuse, not political leadership. America is much the worse for having worn these political clothes the past 3 years. In fact, they are nearly worn out by most standards that America has traditionally prized. With the lack of progress for middle America during this time, it might be said that America needs nearly the same healing that it required after 9/11, but where that occurred abruptly, our own political damage took the long way home, dragged over the rubble of each Iraq dry, desert crevice, and every American has the bruises to show for it. Is that any way to treat a country? With friends/leaders like these,......
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
