FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

Will the new president have a mandate? The short answer is no, but the reasons are somewhat complicated, and ultimately derive from the constitutional separation of powers.

Under our constitutional form of government, the Congress, as the people's elected representatives, has the most important role in government and is responsible for providing for the operation of the federal government through legislation. The functions prescribed to Congress include the power to raise and appropriate money for federal programs, regulate commerce, provide copyright and patent protection, maintain and regulate the armed forces, declare war, establish the post office and court system, and to define and punish federal crimes. The role of the president is to act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, appoint, with concurrence of the Senate, the federal department heads, ambassadors, judges, and other federal officers, negotiate treaties (which must be confirmed by 2/3 vote of the Senate), veto acts of Congress (which can still become law if 2/3 of both houses vote for it), and propose legislation.

It is this last function of proposing legislation that the term "mandate" typically applies to. During the election, both candidates made numerous promises about what they would do if elected President--reform Social Security, cut taxes, improve health care, etc. However, most of these proposals require congressional action. The President can propose whatever he wants, but the Congress can act upon or ignore the President's proposals, and the President's only recourse is to veto unsatisfactory legislation. However, a President who has been elected with a large majority can make a valid case that the people have given him a mandate to carry out his program of legislative initiatives.

The last president who can be regarded having a mandate and successfully using it was Ronald Reagan. Reagan, a Republican, was elected with a large majority in 1980 on a platform of cutting taxes and increasing spending for the military. The Congress gave him what he wanted, even though the House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats. As one Democratic congressman explained, "the people want it, so we're going to do it."

Reagan's successor, George Bush, was not so successful. Part of Bush's problem was that he did not "sell" any agenda to the people other than preventing tax increases. "Read my lips--no new taxes," was his primary campaign pledge during the 1988 campaign and thus became his mandate. However, Bush squandered his mandate by signing into law a tax increase. Bill Clinton, who defeated Bush in 1992, proposed revamping the nation's health care system. However, Clinton, like the winner of this year's election, received less than a majority of the popular vote. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate and drew 19% of the vote. Although Clinton won the electoral vote by a landslide of 370-168, he received only 43% of the popular vote. In addition, Clinton had not clearly stated how he was going to reform health care. Thus, Clinton could not legitimately argue that "the people" supported his health care plan since only 43% of the people had voted for him, and even they had not known what his health care plan consisted of. The subsequent health care plan delivered by Clinton to congress was soundly defeated, and was a large factor in the Republicans gaining control of Congress in the 1994 elections.

This year, due to the presence of third party candidates Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, both Al Gore and George W. Bush received less than a majority of the popular vote--only 48% of the vote. The vote in the electoral college will also be very close, so neither can claim a mandate. Although at Gore claims to have "won" the popular vote, he still has less than a majority. Gore can't go to Congress and say "48% of the people support my targeted tax cut plan, so you should pass the legislation. If Bush ends up as President, he'll probably be more succesful in getting Congress to approve his program. However, this won't be because of any mandate but simply because the Republican controlled congress agrees with his program in the first place.

So, the new president won't have a mandate. But is this bad for the country? Not necessarily. A mandate is not necessary for the functioning of the government. The Congress will make laws and the president will carry them out. The reason neither Bush nor Gore will have a mandate is that we the people don't have a clear view of what we want the government to do during the next four years other than "more of the same." But that's not a problem, because we're not facing a great national crisis like the great depression when Franklin Roosevelt took office. Then, "more of the same" would have been a recipe for disaster. Now however, with the current prosperity and budget surplus, the last thing we want is for a new president to start making changes and mess things up. In fact, one could argue that the way we got to the current situation of prosperity and budget surplus is because of the gridlock between the president and congress, proving, once again, the adage "that government is best that governs the least."