Mandates and Such
From NRO's The Corner by Andy McCarthy:
If memory serves, didn't President Clinton win the '92 election with about 42% of the vote? The only place he had a majority was the electoral college; by popular vote he had a plurality. In rough numbers 6 in 10 Americans (who voted) voted against him; compared with 5 in 10 Americans who voted against (and for) President Bush in '00.
Now, don't get me wrong, I realize it is an important distinction that no individual candidate in the '92 election got more popular votes than Clinton. But that's not really what Judge Calabresi is talking about. He is talking about the nebulous concept of a "mandate" for the president to act, which, if I understand him correctly, is some sort of warrant the legitimate scope of which depends not on Article II of the Constitution but on how decisively the public overall has indicated its approval, measured by the election results. How robust is the "mandate" of a president whom 6 in 10 people have voted against?
Of course, I remember a lot of grousing about Perrot skewing the election results in '92, but I don't recall anyone contending that, either in theory or as a matter of practical reality, Clinton was somehow less than the full-fledged president. Regardless of the 42%, he won the election fair and square, in the electoral college, and was thus not only entitled but obligated to exercise 100% of the power.
The executive's job is to execute, a function that is largely reactive since you can't predict with certainty what's going to happen tomorrow, much less 2, 3 or 4 years out. When the World Trade Center got bombed or when a budget had to be implemented based on then-current economic circumstances, Clinton could not have been expected to exercise some lesser percentage of his powers to reflect that, by a substantial margin, more people had voted against him than for him. His "mandate" -- because he was lawfully in the job -- was to do the best he could with all the powers available to him and stand for re-election on that record. That, I suppose, is what he did -- and thereby won reelection . . . once again with more people voting against him than for him (51% to 49% or so), and with no one arguing that this made him less of a president.
Can you imagine what elections would be like if voters were expected to evaluate not what the candidate believes he should do but what he believes the quantum of his "mandate" from the last election permits him to do regardless of what his judgment dictates and his powers permit?
Matt's Chat
Well, if you are a Lefty and your Tree Man lost; apparently, the answer is yes. But again, I suspect that when the shoe is on the other foot, Lefties would support HillaryCare on the table without a "mandate."I actually remember having a conversation with former liberal friend of ours about mandates and such...usually, when you point out that the President won every recount and the Electoral College and show them a copy of the Constitution, you win the argument. "Selected Not Elected" Heh. That's a good one.
