Here's a tough one for you: How many Democratic lawyers does it take to concede an election defeat? I don't know the answer to that, but obviously it's more than 500.

Here's another: How many Democratic presidential candidates does it take to concede an election defeat? Only one -- if he doesn't take it back.

News on Friday that Al Gore will refuse to concede electoral defeat to Republican George W. Bush -- regardless of the fact that since Nov. 7 all legitimate Florida vote counts have shown Gore losing this race electorally -- is nothing short of irrationality at its worst.

It's a dangerous irrationality, too, and one that could -- quite feasibly -- put the entire country at risk.

I'll explain.

For me personally, there were plenty of reasons not to vote for Gore. But one theme, one common thread, endemic to all of those reasons was that I believe Gore embodies political ideologies that are anathema to our republican form of government.

I believe the Democratic pundits, talking heads and writers who say Gore is a smart guy, a loving husband and a caring father. I have never had any doubts about him regarding these qualities and I would never question his devotion to career and family.

But unfortunately for Gore and the modern Democratic Party, they are politicians without a country. They are attempting to sell a package of leadership ideals to a nation that was never intended to be governed by them.

Generally speaking, Gore and the Democrats espouse portions of political socialism, fascism and communism -- everything but true American democracy. Consider that they believe:

• There should be a central government that is large and all-powerful

• The people should support that large central government financially

• The people should primarily exist not for themselves but for that large central government

• The people should abandon some principles of freedom, individuality and responsibility for the "good" and total empowerment of that central government

No matter how loving a father or smart a politician Gore is, I simply do not agree with his political philosophies because I believe them to be more fitting to a nation accustomed to such socialistic, central government-oriented leadership.

Furthermore, such principles were directly opposed by our founders and did not contribute to the great ascension of the United States of America as the preeminent world power in financial, military, industrial and technological prowess.

Knowing these things, Gore and the Democrats shun them anyway. That in and of itself makes me suspicious of their intentions and stated goals because those kinds of governments are established specifically by the elite, for the elite and of the elite.

Such governments would deny basic rights to the citizens while reserving them for the governing elite. Already there is too much of that going on in this country; a Gore administration would worsen such abuses of trust and power.

Granted, I can't say that many Republicans believe differently these days, but I can say that Gore's power quest is manic and that it differs substantially from the kind of leadership I see inherent in a George W. Bush.

In just one stellar example, I haven't heard Bush vow "never to concede defeat" to Gore if legitimate vote tallies end up favoring his rival. The key word there is "legitimate."

Here's something else to think about. In most other countries around the world where a despotic leader has come to power, he has done so through fraud, deceit, abuse of the law and legal system, and by vowing "never to concede." I see shades of each of these things in the Gore camp as I saw them in the Clinton administration repeatedly for eight long, tedious years. Democrats, one and all.

The cold hard fact is, Gore and the hierarchy of the Democratic Party embody the worst of Americanism. Gore's behavior, coupled with his known political bent, reminds me more of a group of politicians who prefer the Chinese model of government rather than the American model. They would be more comfortable as a ruling elite -- above the law while preserving the right to make law for others they are not subject to.

Bush, on the other hand, has repeatedly said during his campaign that such elitism neither interests him nor controls him. From a central government standpoint, that is a much better model with which to preserve traditional American freedom and values -- or, at a minimum, get back on track to reviving them.

Gore's irrational behavior last week demonstrated that he is on little more than a quest to quench his insatiable thirst for power. That's never a good quality for a leader.