WE STAND CORRECTED

We misread the electorate. Now Washington must prove it can govern.

Opinion for metropulse.com

We stand corrected.

We believed the country’s frustrations would produce a different election night. We believed the anger we heard, the concerns we shared, and the priorities we considered urgent reflected the prevailing national mood. With Democrats now projected to take control of both the House and Senate, we must acknowledge something uncomfortable: We did not read the electorate correctly.

That does not mean our convictions have disappeared. It means our convictions were not a reliable forecast.

As senior citizens who have watched the ups and downs of American elections for more than half a century, we should know the difference. We have celebrated victories, endured defeats, and seen confident predictions collide with voters who had other ideas. Experience ought to teach humility. This morning, we are getting another lesson.

Election confidence should never have become an afterthought

We remain convinced that Washington mishandled the debate over the SAVE America Act and the public’s desire for credible election safeguards. Its central proposal—to require documentary proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections—deserved a serious, practical debate rather than another round of partisan trench warfare.

There was measurable public support for stronger requirements. A UMass poll reported in April found 51% support for the SAVE America Act and 64% support for government-issued identification at the polls. Those numbers are not interchangeable: Supporting voter identification is not necessarily the same as endorsing every provision of a particular bill. But neither should Washington dismiss the underlying demand for confidence in elections.

In our view, the folly was failing to turn that demand into a workable settlement: clear citizenship verification, accessible documentation for eligible Americans, transparent administration, and safeguards that voters could understand.

Supporters needed to address implementation honestly, too. Election officials and other critics raised concerns about documentation burdens, costs, and changes to registration procedures. A serious reform effort would answer those objections, not pretend they did not exist.

But disappointment does not authorize us to manufacture an explanation for defeat.

The image of apathetic American citizens being overwhelmed by organized mobs of unregistered noncitizens may capture some voters’ fears. It is not an established account of what happened last night. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, and the available evidence does not substantiate claims of large-scale noncitizen voting. We cannot responsibly turn suspicion into a verdict on an election.

Demand investigations where there is evidence. Demand prosecution where wrongdoing is proved. Demand better safeguards where weaknesses are demonstrated.

But demand proof, too.

What our years should have taught us

We remember the anxiety surrounding Bush and Gore in 2000: the waiting, the arguments, the feeling that the country’s direction rested on an agonizingly narrow margin.

Our lesson from that experience is not that every close or disappointing election must be illegitimate. It is that a republic needs procedures people can trust even when the result breaks their hearts.

That obligation belongs to winners as much as losers.

Winners should resist treating victory as permission to humiliate their neighbors. Losers should resist treating defeat as proof that their neighbors—or the system itself—must be corrupt.

We can be disappointed without becoming reckless. We can insist on accountability without abandoning restraint.

Foreign interference and threatening politics

The thought of hostile governments trying to influence American voters appalls us. No foreign adversary has earned a voice in deciding who governs this country.

But we must be precise about what is known. The reporting reviewed for this piece does not establish the claim that America’s enemies collectively urged voters to elect Democrats. Indeed, October reporting described warnings from senior Democratic intelligence lawmakers that Russia was targeting Democrats and supporters of Ukraine. That does not settle every question about foreign influence; it does show why sweeping partisan claims require evidence.

Iran openly advocated voting Democratic and publicly announced it and we are in a state of war with them at this time

Our standard should be straightforward: Foreign interference is unacceptable whether it benefits our preferred candidates or harms them.

The same principle applies to political intimidation. We are appalled by threats, fantasies of punishment, and rhetoric that treats fellow Americans as enemies to be crushed. Our demand of the incoming Democratic leadership is unequivocal: Reject intimidation, including when it comes from your own supporters.

We owe the country the same standard on our side. A threat does not become acceptable because the person issuing it votes as we do.

A congressional majority is not a functioning government

Democrats are projected to control both chambers beginning in January. That gives them congressional responsibility, not unlimited power—and certainly not an excuse for substituting partisan theater for results.

Our alarm is that Washington may enter another cycle in which confrontation becomes the product rather than the obstacle.

Several paths lie ahead.

• Democrats could use their majorities to pursue negotiated legislation and demonstrate that oversight and governing can coexist.
• Congress and the administration could retreat into investigations, veto confrontations, and competing declarations of outrage.
• Both parties could discover that campaigning against dysfunction is easier than accepting the compromises required to end it.

These are possibilities, not predictions. The choices have not yet been made.

But our expectations are clear. Investigate actual misconduct, not political disagreement. Negotiate where agreement is possible. Explain differences honestly where it is not. Stop treating every concession as surrender and every opponent as an existential enemy.

If paralysis continues, the public will be entitled to ask what changed besides the committee chairs.

Nor should Republicans conclude that losing congressional control relieves them of responsibility. Obstruction is not a governing philosophy. Neither is permanent retaliation.

Country before vindication

We are worried about America’s future. We will not disguise that worry with cheerful language we do not believe.

But neither will we confuse love of country with a demand that our side always prevail.

We are Americans: patriotic, proud, and old enough to understand that no party owns this nation. We want our institutions to work. We want lawful votes counted accurately. We want eligible citizens able to participate. We want our adversaries kept out of our elections and threats kept out of our politics.

Most of all, we want the people entrusted with power to remember that they serve a country, not merely a constituency.

We misread the public mood. We acknowledge it.

Now we will judge the new Congress by what it does—and hope, sincerely, that it serves America well.