11/08/00 5:50 p.m.
Against “Consensus”
Yesterday, Americans didn’t vote for bipartisanship, or consensus.

Kate O’Beirne is NR’s Washington editor.

he conventional wisdom is that if Bush squeaks out a victory he should form a "consensus government."

But after eight years of an unedifying gridlock blame-game in Washington, a closely divided electorate deserves to see what Republican governance looks like. Yesterday, Americans didn't vote for bipartisanship, or consensus. Exactly the opposite. Enthusiastic Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly for their parties' candidates. There are few Gore Republicans, or Bush Democrats. Independents split evenly between two candidates with major differences on social and economic issues.

Voters were far less divided in 1992. In fact, eight years ago, 57 percent of the electorate voted "not Clinton." Ross Perot's significant support wasn't reflected in Clinton's cabinet. Nor should it have been — President Clinton had won, and despite a loss of congressional seats, had a Democratic Congress to help advance his agenda. His agenda.

With a Bush win, Republicans will now have the same opportunity. The next two years can fairly be seen as a probationary period for Washington's new majority party. Its mandate is to end the gridlock by fighting to enact their agenda on taxes, education, health care, and the military. They should give voters what they deserve-a real choice, with no excuses. Republicans will be accountable to voters in 2002 and 2004. Then, the public can make another judgment, based on a measurable record.