On the theory that purgatory is, if nothing else, better than hell, I suppose I should be grateful the United States hasn't gone to the devil yet. At the end of one of the most astonishing, bewildering, exhilarating and nauseating evenings in American political history (I'm writing at 5 a.m. on Wednesday), Al Gore still has not lost. He's trailing W-boy by roughly 1,800 votes in Florida, and there's reportedly been a small screwup in one Florida county that may just make up that 1,800-vote difference. The Florida vote will go to a recount later on Wednesday, and there are absentee ballots still to be counted, which doesn't sound good. But then, if there's anything the punditocracy should have learned from this confounding and confounded night, it's that we should refrain from making all these predictions. Who among us, after all, predicted that Al Gore would win the popular vote and yet quite possibly lose in the Electoral College? That the Democrats would pick up four contested House seats in Cali fornia (and almost get a fifth they weren't really gunning for) and still fail to retake the Congress? That Ralph Nader would bomb at the polls (getting roughly 2.5 percent of the national vote) but still win enough votes to deny the Democrats the White House?
This last point was something that a number of rightly apprehensive progressives repeatedly predicted. Consider the numbers: Gore is trailing Bush by 1,800 votes in Florida, where Nader's vote, though just 2 percent of the total, is 97,000. In New Hampshire, Bush beat Gore by 7,200, votes while Nader pulled down 22,150. In Oregon, with roughly 80 percent of the vote in, Gore is trailing Bush by about 22,000 votes, while Nader has won 54,000. I mention these last two states because even if Gore loses Florida, the combination of New Hamp shire and Oregon would have gotten him to 271 electoral votes—good enough for a two-vote victory in the Electoral College.
Which is to say, while we still don't know who won on Tuesday, we can sure identify one of the biggest losers: the Green Party. By running dismally on the presidential line and yet managing to ensure W.'s almost-election, it has appalled, infuriated and sickened the vast majority of American progressives whose support is critical if it is to have any shot at survival, let alone growth. Worse yet, in the last 10 days of the campaign, Ralph Nader made a point of holding rallies in states where he had no chance of getting 5 percent but could still damage Gore. One such state, which he visited just a few days ago, was Florida.
But the self-destruction of the Green Party is mighty cold comfort weighed against the specter of the Bush Frat-boy Restoration. To be sure, Bush's margin, should he win, and the Republicans' margin in Congress are all but nonexistent. The GOP will likely have no more than a 51-49 majority in the Senate and a margin of a few votes in the House. The Demo crats are so close in the Senate, in fact, that there's bound to be avid interest in the health of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms during the next two years (each would be replaced by an appointee of a Democratic governor). In what will otherwise be a grim political interval, the Thurmond-Helms Watch may provide fun for the entire family.
What this means is that Republicans will control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for the first time since 1953—the height of McCarthyism, for the nostalgic among you—yet will have their freedom circumscribed by the narrowness of their majorities. With Democratic gains in Tuesday's election, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill will now be only three or four votes from a filibuster-proof 60 in the Senate, though W. has vowed to veto it. There's also now a clear majority in the Senate (though not 60 votes) for prescription-drug coverage.
Anything truly radical that W. proposes, meanwhile, will itself be blocked by a Democratic filibuster. A tax cut on the super duper scale he's proposed—showering nearly half its largesse on the wealthiest 1 percent—will be dead on arrival. Privatiz ing Social Security will probably remain a pipe dream, though you never know how the Democrats' own market maniacs will respond if it's done discreetly.
Other changes, less high-profile but dangerous for the poor, may have better prospects. In 2002, Congress must revisit the food-stamp, child-care and welfare programs; there's a real chance, says Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, that what are now entitlements to individuals will be transformed into block grants to states—which could mean major cutbacks in the aid available to the working poor.
Los Angeles Congressman Henry Waxman, the Democrats' leading architect of federal health and environmental standards, fears that Bush will also "try to make Medicaid into a block-grant program, which could eliminate any guarantees of adequate medical care for the very poor, even in nursing homes. There could be no federal standards for eligibility and no entitlement to services, just a pot of money for the states to use as they see fit. If your state hits its limit, you could end up on your own."