Winners and losers are supposed to shake hands and say the game is more important than the result. Al Gore, in conceding defeat, may have met this standard, but the circumstances -- our circumstances -- called for something much stronger and more principled. PNS commentator Peter Dale Scott authored "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK." Some of the is the historic allusions in this article are quoted in his new long poem, "Minding the Darkness." Scott's website is http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott.

In conceding defeat, Al Gore made a gracious and humorous speech. But it was what he didn't say that pinpointed the limitations of his leadership and the frustration of his followers.

His speech did have its elevated moments, particularly near the end, when he remarked that defeat may "shake the soul and let the glory out." But the words, as he noted, were his father's.

More symptomatic was his choice of "partisan feeling must yield to patriotism," quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' words after he lost to Abraham Lincoln. Douglas, the notorious compromiser on the question of slavery, engaged in a series of debates with Lincoln. He was considered masterful on the platform, but as one observer noted, "There was nothing in all Douglas's powerful effort that appealed to the higher instincts of human nature."

The same can be said of Gore's concession speech. He might "strongly disagree" with the 5-4 Supreme Court decision, as he said. If, as one suspects, he felt anger, he kept that to himself. Like much of the U.S. press, he responded to a nightmare with denial.

The Supreme Court's decision used the 14th amendment to ratify the disenfranchisement of thousands of Florida blacks and Jews. Chief Justice Rehnquist, so vocal about the need for equal protection of all voters in this case, was a precinct worker in 1964 delaying black voters by requiring them to read and interpret a passage from the Constitution.

Would Gore not have shown more faith in this country and its Constitution if he had condemned and vowed to combat the practices which kept thousands of blacks in Florida from voting in this election?

If his promise to help "bring Americans together" is to have any meaning, should he not have asked the new president-elect to join with him in pledging to reform both corrupt voting practices and bloated campaign financing? After all, these (especially the latter) helped land us in this mess in the first place.

Instead of the inglorious Stephen Douglas, Gore could have offered the vision of Thomas Jefferson who, in 1816, wrote: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

But in truth Gore has been as much the beneficiary of our monied corporations as Bush. Both men's policies, as well as their campaign funds and personal fortunes, derive from multinational oil companies.

Thus it was no accident that neither opposed Clinton's "Plan Colombia," a dangerous intervention in Latin America. This plan, which could become our next Vietnam War, is opposed by most nations in Europe, as well as in the affected part of South America. It should have been at least as important a campaign issue as prescription drugs for seniors.

But Gore, the environmentalist, supports "Plan Colombia," even though it serves a government which has granted a controversial drilling contract on Indian lands in the rain forest to a U.S. oil company, Occidental Petroleum.

Cynics have been swift to point out that Gore holds a large personal interest in this company, inherited from his father. But whatever the motives for Gore's silence, it is clear that both men's hopes for America have receded from Jefferson's goal of "silently lessening the inequality of property." The absence of appeal to higher instincts was only too obvious from the outset of this dreary electoral campaign.

The election's sordid and controversial outcome should disillusion all those who love freedom, but this disillusionment should not give way to cynicism. On the contrary, by casting such a clear light on corrupt practices, it has created an unprecedented opportunity for significant electoral reform.

It is certain that those whose votes were denied last month will demand, with unprecedented determination, to be counted two years from now. The clamor for democratic reforms will be so loud it might even be heard in Congress.

The philosopher Ricard Rorty has reminded us of Walt Whitman's comment, "Democracy is a great word whose history remains unwritten because yet to be enacted."