George:

If Will Lyster's fulminations illustrate the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that George W. Bush hopes to attain, we are in for four very long years.

Our economy is not "failing." No economy could possibly sustain the growth rate of the past eight years. It appears, at this point, that we are in a slowdown, but that is a relative term. We are not in a recession -- we haven't had one of those since W.'s daddy was in charge. Inflation remains almost non-existent. Productivity gains, which have been spectacular over the last 8 years, are still positive. Job growth, which has also been spectacular over the last 8 years, is still positive. The stock market is reeling, as investors finally have come to realize that no industry -- even the computer industry -- can sustain 40% growth rates forever. Now investors have to be satisfied with only 20% growth rates. We should all have such problems. The job losses in the Charlottesville area in recent months have come from places like Comdial, which (according to their own admissions) is suffering because their technology is obsolete, not because of any failure of the national government. But companies that have been able to bring on modern technology have been booming, and will continue to do well in 2001.

Our health care system does not "suck." It is the best in the world. The health care system has two problems -- costs are rising faster than inflation, and we have not yet worked out a way to reliably provide health care to the poor. The Republican answer to rising health care costs is to give more power and less accountability to HMO's. I know of few doctors who think that is a good idea. I know of few patients who think that is a good idea. The Democratic suggestion (courtesy of Hillary in 1994) was a system that gave more power to the government. You may remember the Republican ads, screaming, "You won't have the right to choose your own doctor!" The alternative, pushed by the Republicans, is more reliance on HMO's. Now, if you are a member of an HMO, you don't have the right to choose your own doctor. Am I the only person who thinks it is ironic that the Republican "private enterprise" solution has led to the same problem that they found unacceptable in the Democratic alternative?

Our educational system is, and remains, a problem. But it is a problem for state and local governments, not federal governments. The dirty little secret in the 2000 campaign -- which neither side wanted to talk about -- was that education is NOT a federal concern. At one point, it seemed like W and Al were running for School Board Chair rather than President. In our federal system, the only power that the federal government has over education is to write checks. So if you want to fuss about the quality of education, fuss at state and local officials.

Our military is NOT a "disaster waiting to happen." We have technological superiority in every military sphere. The only basis for such a claim was a much-ballyhooed complaint on the state of "readiness" of our forces about 8 months ago, in which it was found that a significant percentage of the army's divisions were not ready to fight -- in many cases because they were on peace-keeping missions in Kosovo and elsewhere. It is always important, when you are evaluating claims like this, to look at WHEN the claims are being made. If a general is called to testify at a budget appropriations hearing, he will talk about how we don't have the troops/ guns/bombs/planes/missiles/submarines to do the job. If he is called to testify at a Congressional oversight committee hearing, he will tell you that we have the best fighting force in the world. The claims of unreadiness were made in the appropriations cycle. Enough said. There are some real problems with the military -- Congress forcing them to buy planes and helicopters that they don't want, for example. The real problems are geo-political -- what kind of missions do we want our military to be equipped and trained for? The likelihood of an invasion of Germany by the Russians through Fulda Gap is now rather remote; the greater likelihood is of problems like Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and endangering our oil supply. The Soviet Union cannot return to "its former state," at least not until it gets its economy under control. No one -- not even the most pessimistic Republican partisan -- believes that we are headed back to the days of mutually assured destruction as a governing principle of our relationships with Russia. China has been a "major problem" in the eyes of Republicans since the days of Joe McCarthy. Sometimes it really has been; most of the time it has been a nuisance. And it is certainly true that the Middle East is a bloody mess, just as it has been under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.

Will then attacks "Liberals" as responsible for the fact that we have a poor working class, a "miserable" education system, repression of blacks, and an economy that he claims is "about to go south."

Let's take those one at a time.

Yes, we have a working class that has not shared in the prosperity of the last 8 years. How could government solve that problem? Perhaps we could raise taxes on the rich, and provide additional benefits to the poor. But I bet Will wouldn't want that. Perhaps we could insist on a livable wage for all employees, but I haven't noticed Will being involved in the protests and pickets on that issue. Perhaps we could use government funds to subsidize industries that may do better in the New Economy, and encourage industries like tobacco to die off. Doesn't sound like a solution that a Republican would favor.

For years, the Democratic answer to bad schools -- at a local or state level -- has been to try to increase funding for the schools. The Republican answer has been to say that the schools won't get better just by throwing money at them (which is certainly true, but it led to the logical question -- will schools get better by throwing LESS money at them?). Now, the Republican answer is "accountability" -- test all of the schools and all of the kids. Flunk the kids who flunk the tests, and close the schools that flunk the tests. What has never been answered -- and I have asked -- is the next logical question: "When a school has been closed down, what happens to the kids who went to that school? Do we stuff those kids into the overcrowded schools in the next district over? Do we bus them to the successful schools so that whatever those more successful schools are doing will rub off on them?" You will search in vain for an answer to that question in any campaign speech of George Allen, Jim Gilmore, John Hager, Mark Earley, or Paul Harris for an answer to that question.

It is a good question -- "why is the black man still repressed?" And it is surely a more complex question than I can answer in detail here. But as I look at those who have helped the cause of the African-Americans over the last 50 years, it sure hasn't been the party of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Or, for that matter, the party of Will Lyster, assuming that he does not want to be tied to the race-baiting politics of those two avatars of his party.

Will's definition of a "uniter" is illuminating. "Work with him and he will work with you." I have read in the past few days columns by Republicans like Gary Bauer, calling on Bush to stay true to his conservative base -- to nominate Supreme Court justices who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, to ban by executive order funding international family planning groups that support abortions abroad, to open wilderness areas to oil and gas drilling by executive order, to introduce legislation to ban partial-birth abortions, to cut taxes, to make school vouchers a federal requirement, and to speed work on a missile defense system that has been shown can't distinguish a warhead from a balloon. This is the Republican agenda for 2001. That is why Nader was wrong -- there is a vast difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.

If W. wants to seek compromise on Social Security, or on Medicaid funding, there can be some common ground, and he can be a "uniter" rather than a "divider." But if his idea of "uniting" is to try to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who favors overruling Roe v. Wade, which about 70% of the American people support, I trust that Democratic Senators will refuse to "unite" with him. If he loses sight of the fact that the majority of the voters in this country did not share his vision, and tries to impose it anyway, he should not blame the Democrats if he doesn't get what he wants.

I will pray daily for George W. Bush. I didn't vote for him, but he will be my President. I will pray that he, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, takes "wise decisions and right actions," and that he is able to unite a fractured electorate. I will pray that he will be willing to compromise rather than simply demanding that others give in to him. I will pray that he will be willing to treat with respect people like Jesse Jackson, and I will pray that Jesse Jackson will be willing to reciprocate. Most of all, I will pray that George W. Bush will be counseled to moderation, and that he will not listen to the rantings of some of his friends.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, December 16, 2000).