Hanging chad, butterfly ballots and Katherine Harris all took the back-burner last night as a panel of Duke professors put the 2000 presidential election into a "broader context" in a public forum held at the Sanford Institute of Public Policy.
Before an audience of about 60, political science professors John Aldrich and Robert Keohane; Bruce Jentleson, director of the Sanford Institute and a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Al Gore; and Chris Schroeder, professor of law and public policy, addressed the issue of "Election 2000: What Does It Mean?"
Schroeder, serving as the discussion's moderator, set the tone of the discussion early, noting that despite a chaotic past eight days, "We are not anywhere near any perilous circumstances yet. We are not at crisis proportions."
Aldrich, chair of the political science department, put his colleague's comments into historical context, noting that since World War II, four presidential elections-the 1948, '60, '68 and '76 races-have been similarly narrow and hotly contested. He added that in the past half-century, close elections have been preceded by not-so-close elections, and predicted that "volatility will continue."
As further support, Aldrich pointed to the election of founding father Thomas Jefferson in 1800. "That election has been called the most important election in world history [as it was] the first time that there was a peaceful democratic transfer of power," he said. "But it was also one of the most bitter." He quickly reminded the audience that the Republican-dominated House of Representatives had to break a tie between Republicans Jefferson and Aaron Burr.
Jentleson brought the election to a global scale by discussing the international implications of the contested race. He said that individuals now view the United States-long seen around the world as the paragon of democracy-as fallible. "Though it has tarnished our prestige, that might not be such a terrible thing," he said.
Jentleson said the United States should use this opportunity to look past its self-proclaimed status as the "sole-surviving superpower" and "focus on doing rather than puffing up our chests as to how great we are."
Keohane suggested two possibilities for deciding the outcome of the election, both of which, he said, would bring a sense of legitimacy to the process. The first, proposed by Gore before last night's forum and seemingly rejected by Bush afterwards, was that the candidates make an agreement that a certain vote tally will be final.
The second was that the U.S. Supreme Court would make a final decision on the matter by either rendering or refusing to render a decision about the legality of recounting votes.
But he said that ultimately, legitimacy might come down to the president and not the process. "Whoever is certified, the winner must make an effort to reach in some extraordinary way across party lines," he said. Keohane even threw out the notion that in the event that Texas Gov. George W. Bush were to win, as an act of good faith, he might ask Gore to serve as secretary of state. "Gore would of course have to decline," Keohane said, "but at least the offer is made."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.