DEMOCRACY'S BOTTOM LINE CUTS BOTH WAYS
BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX

Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) just got his walking papers. The thrice-married bombast who garnered national headlines because of his venomous attacks on President Clinton had to compete with another incumbent Republican Congressman for his seat. As he put it, “the numbers weren’t there”, and voters kicked him to the curb. While I try not to rejoice in another’s pain, I am so delighted at Barr’s loss that I could go dancing in the streets.

But if I danced I’d have to waltz with a handkerchief in my hand. One of my favorite members of Congress, Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) also got her walking papers in her district’s primary election. She was defeated by Denise Majette, a former judge and moderate Democrat who courted Jewish dollars and Republican crossover votes to defeat McKinney. And it wasn’t even close – Majette had 58 percent of the vote. Progressive Democrats will lose an important voice and a powerful leader in Cynthia McKinney. But it makes little sense to celebrate one victory and mourn the other. Democracy’s bottom line, the power of the vote, cuts both ways.

For all their partisan differences, Barr and McKinney had something in common. Both of them spoke their minds. They didn’t tiptoe around the issues; they said just what they thought. In Georgia, though, voters seemed to say they’d prefer their representatives to tiptoe on eggshells than to tell it like it is. McKinney, especially, was excoriated for speaking up. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called her out on her “propensity for reckless rhetoric, far-left views, and meddling in local politics.” Yet a careful examination of McKinney’s views suggests that her thoughts are in the mainstream of public opinion.

For example, she criticized vice-president Al Gore, saying his “Negro tolerance has never been too high. I’ve never seen him around more than one at a time.” While most would not use the same words, many feel that Gore’s loss in 2000 was partly due to the fact that he failed to fully court the black vote. Some of Gore’s African American staffers might echo McKinney’s sentiments, if not her stridency, in describing the former vice-president’s shortcomings. In fact, across the spectrum, people have criticized not only Gore’s “Negro tolerance”, but also his “people tolerance”. A kinder, gentler, more tolerant Gore might be sitting in the White House today.
McKinney didn’t lose her seat over criticism of Al Gore. Her stance on the war on terrorism, and her insistence that Palestinian suffering be considered along with Jewish suffering in the middle east, earned her editorial invective and the enmity of Republicans who meddled in the Democratic primary to influence the election of the mild Denise Majette. When McKinney suggested that New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani ought to accept the 10 million dollars offered by Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, some of her opponents went ballistic. And, when she suggested that the Bush Administration might have known more than it revealed about the September 11 attacks, some felt that she crossed the line.

Some of her allegations, though, are proving true. With our $30 billion annual expenditure on “intelligence” it would be unthinkable if the FBI and CIA had no knowledge of the terrorists in our borders. We have learned, since McKinney made her statements, that the FBI and CIA are hardly on speaking terms, that one of the alleged terrorists was detained before the attacks, and that better coordination between our intelligence agencies could have yielded a different result on September 11. We have also just learned that the New York police and fire departments are as cordial with each other as the FBI and CIA are, and that fewer lives would have been lost at the World Trade Center had things been different.

McKinney’s comments simply echoed those of many others who wondered why we did not know more about September 11. Families of the victims have asked for investigations, for more information. Other members of Congress have asked what the president knew, and when. Cynthia McKinney was castigated for asking the same questions that others did, but in a more strident and vocal way.

There was less ideological distance between Bob Barr and his opponent, John Linder than there was between McKinney and Majette, but Barr’s flamboyance contrasted with Linder’s more contained style of communicating. Voters chose the less flamboyant candidate, even though Barr had the money, the notoriety, and the national reputation.
Much as I grouse at the McKinney result, the Barr result reinforces the bottom line. The voters are the ones, intimately, who choose winners and losers in an election. Democracy, when it works (Florida 2000 reminds us that it doesn’t, always), cuts both ways.