Mandate? What Mandate?

You have got to love politics (in the sense of "I love my crazy Uncle Larry who is convinced martians live in his big toe"). After a contentious and hard fought election, you have Republicans noting that Bush won with the largest vote advantage of any president in history including Reagan and you have Democrats noting that based on the percentages, it was the narrowest win since Woodrow Wilson in 1918. C'mon people. In politics, a win is a win is a win. Clinton considered himself to have a "mandate" in both of his elections when he won with less than 50% of the popular vote. The word "mandate" has been taken from its real meaning - i.e. "I won SO incredibly big that anyone who opposes me is committing political suicide" - to become a wishy-washy uncertain meaning taken by everyone who wins the office - i.e. "I won and that is all that matters! So ignore any facts to the contrary, whether it be that more Americans voted against me than for me or that as an incumbent I barely won as a war president."



The realities (and these would hold true no matter who was in the office):

1. A win is enough to legitamize one's policies
2. Any winner must be ready to compromise on Day 2 of his presidency, because Congress is two houses of super-sized egos that want their own pet projects put first. Whether with Democrats or Republicans, compromise is a must-have.
3. "Mandate" means nothing if you don't stay faithful. Reagan and Clinton were both hamstrung in their second terms by major scandals.
4. 4 years is a lot shorter than you think. Before you know it, the Bush "Mandate" will be history and a new man or woman will be raising their right hand to take the oath. Power is fleeting, and moreso in the American democracy than anywhere else.