On the Right - Reflections at 0600 - contested election - Humor - Brief Article - Column

National Review, Dec 4, 2000 by William F. Buckley Jr.

NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 8

The human-interest stories will be told to grandchildren. . . . Dozed off at 2:30, Gore ahead. Woke at 3:30, Bush declared winner. Dozed till 4:30, Gore has conceded. Woke at 5:30, Gore has unconceded. Took sleeping pill. Hmmmm. Will I get free sleeping pills if Bush is elected? If Gore is elected, will I double my consumption of sleeping pills?

So it goes. USA Today tried a roundup. What they said was that most whites, marrieds with children, weekly churchgoers, and pro-lifers voted Bush, while their opposite numbers mostly voted Gore. They added: Issues-oriented people favored Gore, personality-oriented folks favored Bush. Another generalist opines that the great dividing line is between men and women. Men go for Bush, women for Gore. Isn't it time to look back again at the Nineteenth Amendment? Since we're in the business of repealing things, maybe we should repeal the Thirteenth and Fourteenth. (Wake me at six, dear.)

What does the election absolutely prove, never mind the froth above? It absolutely proves that 100,000 stout-hearted Republicans should move to Florida. (Note for those who waver in their resolve: There is no state income tax in Florida.) The figures (Youth Vote for Gore) certainly raise the question whether it was a good idea for middle Americans to have children.

And while we're at it, since we learn that churchgoers tended to vote Republican, maybe it would be a good idea to require attendance at church on Sundays. With the Democrats' gift for improvisation, they might counter by suggesting that attendance at church should be required not only on Sunday, but also on Saturday! You see the slight maneuver there, "church" on Saturday? You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to beat Democratic strategists.

Then there is the pro-life question. Why not insist not only that the fetus be allowed to live, but be allowed to vote? Obviously, the vote would need to be exercised by the mother, who would act as regent for the child, pending maturity. The GOP could greatly profit from this increase in its constituency, and the Choice people would have the corresponding disadvantage of a forfeited vote every time choice was exercised, which seems only fair.

These are controversial proposals, but should be faced with that courage and strength of purpose and faith in the future that . . . who did say that? Was it Dan Rather? But that's confusing, like Clinton.

Clinton brings to mind a second reform. Perhaps he should be required to endorse alternating tickets in alternating election years. Like Churchill, when told in 1940 that the Italians had declared war on the Allies. Fair enough, he said, they fought on our side the last time around. But it's not right and not good politics to criticize the Italian vote. Those Italians who are white, married with children, are weekly churchgoers and pro-life, voted for Bush predominantly, so we would not want to mess with that. On the contrary, the Italians should be encouraged to have more children, and some should move to Florida to do their duty.

And, in Florida, they should look into the matter of the Hispanic vote, which went Democratic. How will it go in Florida if a President Bush recognizes Castro's Cuba? Perhaps an impeachment movement could be prepared. If President Gore makes it to the White House, impeach him!- which the Republican House could manage, and the GOP senators could . . . but no, there are not enough of them to convict.

The only thing for it is: Wipe the slate clean and schedule another election. But require, by amendment to the Constitution, that it end by midnight on Tuesday. No votes counted after that. People have to get to sleep.