Recent commentary from National Journal:
Media: Off the Money, by William Powers (June 7, 2000)
Those performing stock analysts who can rattle markets everywhere sometimes have dirty little secrets.
Legal Affairs: Gore and the Buddhist Temple -- a Phony Scandal?, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (June 7, 2000)
The charge that Gore knowingly went to the temple to shake down monks and nuns is demonstrably false.
Political Pulse: Can Rick Beat Hillary? Maybe, by William Schneider (May 31, 2000)
Democrats want to nationalize the New York Senate race; the GOP wants to personalize it.
Social Studies: Two Cheers for the Clinton Doctrine. (OK, Maybe Just One), by Jonathan Rauch (May 31, 2000)
The people want humanitarianism on the cheap, and that is what the Clinton Doctrine gives them.
Media: Style as Substance, by William Powers (May 31, 2000)
China trade debate coverage has been dominated by lumbering masters of the Henry Kissinger school of prose.
More from National Journal.
Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.
Political Pulse:Al's Campaign Can Be Born Again
June 7, 2000
What do voters see as the biggest difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore? Is it (a) issues, (b) experience, (c) likability, or (d) leadership? Likability, you say? Is that your final answer?
Too bad. Because the biggest difference voters see between Bush and Gore is leadership. When the Gallup Poll asked recently which candidate has stronger leadership qualities, respondents gave Bush a 20-point edge over Gore. That's the leadership deficit, and it explains why worried Democrats gathered in Nashville, Tenn., last week, seeking reassurance from Gore's staff that the Vice President's campaign is on track. It isn't.
Bush is positioning himself as the candidate of bold new ideas -- the forward-thinking innovator who's not trapped in the stale thinking of the past. He has called for developing a missile defense modeled on Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal. Along with such a defense, Bush would reduce the nation's nuclear arsenal to "the lowest possible number consistent with our national security." Gore has accused Bush of being "stuck in a Cold War mind-set" because his missile defense plan would provoke a confrontation with Russia. But Gore is really the one playing the conservative role. Gore's message is that mutually assured destruction and arms control have worked for 50 years. Why fool around with some "risky" new scheme? It's Bush who's saying, "Hey, it's a whole new world. We can try something different."
That's true even for Social Security, the "third rail" of American politics. No party nominee has dared suggest tampering with Social Security since Barry Goldwater touched it in 1964 and got fried. Bush's Social Security plan is intended to appeal to baby boomers and young voters who have little faith in Social Security and a lot of faith in financial markets. As well as in their own ability to manage their futures. Gore is again playing the conservative. Social Security has worked for 50 years. Why fool around with some "risky" new scheme? Which helps explain why there is an enormous age difference in the vote this year. Younger voters go for Bush. The only age group Gore is carrying right now is seniors.
Leading Democrats are getting worried about the Gore campaign. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Bush has used the three months since Super Tuesday to re-position himself in the center and lay out his agenda, while Gore has stayed on the attack. The attack-dog role has made Gore look very ... vice presidential.
One Democrat worried about Gore is President Clinton, who is reported to be eager to get involved in the campaign. But his involvement could make Gore look even more vice presidential. Gore has to show voters that he's his own man. Which is tough for a Vice President, whose job is to be somebody else's man.
Can Gore turn this campaign around? Sure. In May 1980, Jimmy Carter was leading Reagan. In May 1988, Michael Dukakis was leading George Bush. In May 1992, Bill Clinton was running third behind President Bush and Ross Perot. But what does Gore have to do? The same things Vice President Bush did in 1988 when he was running as the underdog.
After the July 1988 Democratic convention, Dukakis led Bush by 17 points. The next month, Republicans held their convention in New Orleans. That convention was widely regarded as a disaster. The press went into a frenzy over Bush's naming of Dan Quayle as his running mate. But guess what? The press missed the story. It was during that "disastrous" convention that Bush started to pull ahead for the first time. And he stayed ahead for the rest of the campaign. What exactly did the Republicans do at that convention to change the dynamic of the campaign?
Most voters wanted two things in 1988: continuity of policy and change of leadership. The same two things they apparently want this year. In 1988, Dukakis tried to offer continuity: "This election is not about ideology. It's about competence." The Republicans made short work of that claim, using their convention to accelerate a relentless attack on Dukakis' ideology. "Should society be allowed to impose the death penalty on those who commit crimes of extraordinary cruelty and violence?" Bush asked in his acceptance speech. "My opponent says no -- but I say yes!" Gore needs to figure out how to expose an ideological agenda behind George W.'s "compassionate conservatism."
In 1988, Bush used his convention speech to send a message: I'm my own man. His acceptance speech was larded with un-Reagan-like messages: "I don't hate government"; "I want a kinder, gentler nation"; "a thousand points of light."
In 1988, voters had trouble seeing the Vice President as a strong leader. Bush turned that perception around at the convention. He stood by Quayle and defended his choice. In the dramatic climax of his acceptance speech, he sounded like a leader: "The Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no. And they'll push again, and I'll say to them, 'Read my lips, no new taxes!' " Gore's convention speech this summer will be the defining moment of his career. He can't wimp out, as he did in the Elián González brouhaha. He needs to show voters who the real son of a Bush is in this campaign.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.
More from National Journal.
More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly.
William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C.
For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com.
All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |