Inaugural success

ACCORDING TO President Bush, the festivities surrounding his second-term inauguration tomorrow give people a chance to celebrate democracy as well as his personal victory. "And I'm glad to celebrate with them," he told reporters last week.

ADVERTISEMENT

Translation: All those people quibbling about the propriety of so much partying in a time of war and historic natural disaster in East Asia or who object to the lavish $40 million price tag and the special interests that are supplying much of it are so many grinches trying to steal democracy.

There is something to this view. Certainly Democrats run the risk of being seen as feeding on sour grapes if they try to deny Bush his moment out of pique.

And while Bush's win last November was narrow by historic standards -- one of the closest ever for a second-term winner -- he enjoys a victory margin of more than 3 million votes. This is far better than his 2000 margin: a Supreme Court-engineered victory in the Electoral College even though he lost the popular vote by more than half a million.

Still, aspects of the inaugural are disquieting. For instance, historians have noted that the ceremonies have frequently been muted in time of war, notably by Woodrow Wilson in 1917 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945. Two Democratic congressmen have informed colleagues that Roosevelt gave a short speech in the White House and served guests "cold chicken salad and plain pound cake."

Also, Republicans cannot be expected to pass up this opportunity for extravagance, but it would be helpful if there was some meaningful acknowledgment of the calamities afflicting a signficant fraction of humanity in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere.

But most troubling from the perspective of domestic policy is those who are funding the fun in Washington. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, passed after enormous public pressure, limits political contributions to $2,000 and bans direct "soft money" gifts. But the big givers have found other routes, writing huge checks to "independent advocacy groups," the parties' national conventions, and now the inaugural events.

Apparently overcome by the need to keep up appearances, Bush has this year restricted inaugural contributions to no more than $250,000. This is a big step up from the $100,000 limit he imposed four years ago but still far less that the seven-figure checks some supporters wrote during the campaign.

Interests, whether individuals or corporations, make such contributions for a reason, and it is a reason that is not healthy for the nation. In the future they should be limited to throwing their own parties, with an official inaugural ceremony and ball paid for with public money and modest public contributions. That would be a better start for any president.