WORK:

Today is 12/13/2000, 35th day of the George W. Bush vs. Al Gore Presidential Election Controversy.

I woke up to find the U. S. Supreme Court had ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision to conduct a state-wide recount of the undervote violates the U. S. Constitution.

The U. S. Supreme Court further Ruled that there is no Constitutional way to conduct any more counts in Florida because the December 12 deadline for naming electors had passed. But it left some "wiggle room" for Gore's attorneys to exploit if Gore orders it.

I have been following Gore's efforts to 'get all the votes counted' very closely, but as usual more from the Point of View of a Writer than anything else. And I have learned something about writing from studying the TV Coverage of these events.

A writing student who can wrap a mental grasp around the following points will never again have a problem choosing a POV character, a protagonist, an antagonist, or delineating a Conflict that embodies a Theme and comes to a Resolution that satisfies a broad range of readers.

Each real individual person grows up assembling a mental model of the Universe based upon a personal philosophy. Everyone has a philosophy, even those who don't know the meaning of the word.
No two people (except maybe in adjacent alternate universes) develop identical philosopies.
By about age 10, everyone has developed that internal model of the universe and is hard at work developing a philosophy. From that philosophy there emerges a sense of what is "right" -- what is "fair" -- how things are, and how they ought to be.
By about age 16 or so, people develop a sense of responsibility - a need to make it right. Some people don't arrive at this until the age of 29, some get there around 21, others make it much younger and others much older. This developmental stage is largely related to the dawning of an awareness that you want to raise children in the world, that your parents have made a world which you have to live in (which is inadequate to your needs) and that it's now up to you (personal responsibility) to see to it your children don't have the same problem.
Story happens where the protagonist goes on the aggressive -- takes responsibility, acts to impose their will or standards or philosophy upon their own "world" -- or sometimes the worlds of everyone.
In High School, or sometimes not until College age, people form social groups based on the similarities of their philosophies.
As a personal philosophy firms up within an individual and then soaks down into the subconscious and is forgotten, the only motives that person can divine within anyone who disagrees with them are hostility, stubbornness, intransigence, stupidity, greed, fear of losing, pride, being a "sore looser" or a "bully," power mongering, manipulativeness, slyness, collusion, conflict-of-interest, or worst of all perhaps, "Politics." Think of every negative characterization you can imagine for a villain and add it to that list. People who have a different philosophy are "alien," "strangers at the gate," Evil, Enemies because their motives are bad.

Look at what has happened in the Presidential Election 2000 in Florida, and the opinions expressed on the various sides.

This entire country, even the U. S. Supreme Court, has been thinly-sliced along the Political Party Affiliation line, and we are evenly divided on philosophy. This has produced what any writer should recognize as a "Model Perfect Conflict" from which thousands of novels can be fashioned.

See my January 2000 and February 2000 Book Review Columns for a discussion of this major megatrend of sheer trendlessness. This trend could turn out to be very significant to writers trying to sell their work to this trendless audience. Publishers depend heavily on trend-watching to decide which manuscripts to buy and which to pass up. Therefore many of my book review columns focus on how to discern trends in publishing.

Now, think about the essential arguments between Republicans and Democrats during this Florida Controversy.

Republicans say dimpled chads can't be counted as votes, and that all the "undervote" has actually been counted by the two runs through the punchcard counting machines. Hand-counting with no standard other than "intent of the voter" is biased, subject to human error, and against the U.S. Federal Statutes -- possibly against the U. S. Constitution -- because a voter in one county would have his vote evaluated differently than a voter in another county.
Democrats say that the machine's inventor and patent holder (called into court as a Witness by the Republicans) insists that in a close election the only way to get an accurate tabulation of the results is to hand-count the undervote -- counting punctured dimples as votes but not mere dimples, only ones where there's at least a pin-prick of light showing. (I caught that part of the court trial before Judge Sauls on TV so I know what the experts said because I heard it myself, carefully filtered through my own personal philosophy of course.)
The Florida Supreme Court (mostly Democratic) says the Democrats are right and that no matter what, no matter how, those undervotes MUST be included in the tally -- if it takes extending a deadline, court-ordering the Secretary of State to include votes that are reported after the deadline despite the law, or even ordering all the counties in the state to re-count their undervote but not their over-vote, no matter what it takes we must get an complete tally of these votes because Florida's tally decides the President for the Nation.
The U. S. Supreme Court (5 Republicans to 4 Democrats) says the Republicans are right -- the U. S. Statutes and Constitution require all the votes to be counted by the same standard interpretation, and at this point in time there is no way to achieve that under the U. S. Constitution.

The media is reflecting the public opinion (remember the media are always trend-followers, they don't lead -- because to lead means to take unpopular stances and wait for people to catch up. The media stay in business by delivering audience-share to their advertisers. They don't dare take the lead in anything, even fiction.)

The media is saying (see USA Today for 12/13/00 Ruling reveals depth of divide on the court -- 5-4 split puts justices at risk of being seen as 'simply politicians in black robes' By Joan Biskupic USA TODAY ) that the U. S. Supreme Court has acted in a Partisan manner from Partisan motives which may undermine the credibility of the High Court which is (by the U. S. Constitution) supposed to stand outside politics.

As I was hunting for the above link, Yahoo posted that Gore will make a concession speech tonight. He may not use the word 'concession' but rather just say his campaign is over. Everything I write from this point on will no doubt be colored by that awareness.

So the question becomes "Did the respective Supreme Courts actually fracture along Party Lines and decide in favor of their Own Side because it's their Own Side?"

Or is there actually something else going on here that a writer could exploit for thematic material?

Remember the numbered list above. People first develop a personal philosophy, then they join groups that agree with their philosophies. Then they forget they even have such a thing as a philosophy nevermind what their philosophy actually is, while still using that subconscious philosophy to decide what's right.

People who agree with them about what's right are accepted, and people who disagree are rejected and labeled The Enemy, The Adversary, The Opponent, The Villain, The Antagonist, A Partisan, A Politician, or other perjorative.

Then the motives of the rejected are divined to be all sorts of nasty and negative ones -- pride, conceit, fear, ambition, etc. The Enemy is assumed to act out of a desire to destroy rather than to do what's right.

Since "we" are acting out of a deep, internal imperative to DO RIGHT, obviously someone trying to stop us from doing right must be acting out of a motive to DO WRONG. That's only logical.

So Democrats who are deeply committed to the idea that all voters must have their votes counted perceive Republicans as trying to prevent all voters from having their votes counted.

Republicans, who are deeply committed to the idea that all voters must have their votes counted equally to all other voters perceive the Democrats as trying to make some votes count more heavily than others.

The controversy heats up into a battle rather than hunkering down into a problem-solving session because each "side" imputes a motive to the other side that seems only logical. "How could you do what you're doing if you didn't believe what I think you believe?"

What if the imputed motive is incorrect? What if The Enemy is looking at the facts of the situation and coloring or evaluating those facts according to a different philosophy? And what if The Enemy shares the same actual goal -- getting all the votes counted and abiding by the Philosophy that "The Majority Rules."

That is what I see -- a conflict not of Partisan Politics, but of the Underlying Philosophy that makes people choose to be Republicans or Democrats.

Each of those Philosophies is perfectly respectable. The Founding Fathers created the two party system around stated philosophies which are legitimate, honorable, and right.

There are two kinds of Partisans -- people whose thinking mechanism chews on facts and comes to one conclusion -- and other people whose thinking mechanisms chew on facts and arrive at different conclusions. Same facts, different philosophies, different conclusions. But if both philosophies are respectable, then both conclusions are simultaneously right.

Neither side is Evil, neither side is Irresponsible, neither side is Wrong.

I wonder if the "Politicians in Black Robes" were being Partisan at all? I wonder if they disagree not because they are taking sides along Party Lines but because they each have independently and personally evaluated the facts according to their own sense of right and wrong developed in their teens and arrived at what seems to be the right conclusion.

In other words, the Justices don't hold these opinions because they're Republicans, but they are Republicans because they hold these opinions.

The Florida Justices don't hold these opinions because they're Democrats. They are Democrats because they hold these opinions.

It seems to me that a writer who can bring a Protagonist through the agony of confronting the existence of their own personal Philosophy (long sunk into the subconscious and transformed into a sense of Right and Wrong) can show us a protagonist who can understand that an antagonist's motives may be as laudible as the the protagonist's own motives.

Acknowledging the Enemy's motives as laudible is the first step to making friends with your enemies.

This was one theme that made Star Trek: The Original Series into a classic. Remember The Devil In The Dark -- the Horta -- a mother protecting her children, not a ravening beast killing senselessly like an Evil Vampire?

Once the Horta's motive was understood, the miners could make a treaty with her to get her children to do the digging for them. Partnership with your adversary is far more creative and fruitful -- politically, economically and entertainingly -- than a battle to the death.

So the lesson in handling Point of View is to see the Antagonist from the Protagonist's eyes (as a Villain) and then to see the Protagonist from the Antagonist's eyes (as a Villain). The Election 2000 coverage gave us a myriad examples of how to do that and many hours of practice doing it.

Choose the Protagonist from among the characters in your mind who are imputing nasty motives to those who oppose them. The actual protagonist of any story is the character who learns he or she was wrong about the antagonist's motives and objectives. Having an accurate assessment of the antagonist's motives is a necessary condition to resolving the conflict (without setting up endless sequels).

Thus the Protagonist "wins" (a requirement for sale in most genres) by being the one to learn and grow and change and embrace The Enemy.

The most satisfying endings are the ones where the Protagonist grows and changes and because of that growth and change resolves the conflict that existed at the beginning of the story. One way to insure this requirement is met in your story is to allow the Protagonist's idea of the Antagonist's motives to evolve and change via a growing insight into that long-forgotten philosophy developed in childhood and then relegated to the subconscious.

Any book on psychology will show you that internal conflicts are resolved by digging the forgotten material out of the subconscious and looking at it in the light of day -- with the conscious mind.

When your Protagonist digs out his/her own buried conflicts, understands how this conflict has been the source of their reigning philosophy, then understands how the Antagonist's philosophy is likewise based on a buried conflict -- the Protagonist then has the "edge" in the conflict with the antagonist.

The Protagonist is, by definition, the character whose internal and external conflicts are resolved at the end of the story.

The Protagonist gains power over the Antagonist by accurately assessing the Antagonist's true motive. From that point on your story rolls downhill with a gathering momentum right to the resolution of the conflict between Protag and Antag.

So write an Election 2000 story of your own, that is not set during an election. Create a Situation with a set of facts which can be easily evoked for the reader -- facts which would seem familiar even if found in an unfamiliar environment.

For example, on Septimus Prime the Rinsinsee want to make the world safe for The Great Forrest. The newly arrived humans want to make the world safe for their cattle and sheep. The Rinsinsee see the Evil Humans as trying to kill The Great Forrest. Find your protagonist, antagonist, conflict, resolution and theme, and write a 20,000 word story resolving that conflict plausibly and satisfyingly for at least those two people, if not that entire world.

If you don't write sf/f, but some other genre, see the Essence of Story Syllabus for how to transform one genre into another.

Define both Conflict and Theme as a function of Point of View and divine your way to the Resolution of that Conflict whether the antagonist's chad is hanging or not.

You may post your exercise to the Writer's Circle and notify writers-l that you have an item to be evaluated.