Recent commentary from National Journal:
Legal Affairs: Let's Make the Federal Hate Crimes Law Broader -- Much Broader, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (September 19, 2000)
Why not add to the list of hate crimes those motivated by indifference to life or health?
Media: Wallflowers in Paradise, by William Powers (September 19, 2000)
Could be that only the ever-so-reluctant press can do something about entertainment-biz violence.
The Campaign: On the Air -- RATS, Ratings, Hypocrisy, and Tiny Tim, by Carl M. Cannon (September 19, 2000)
Politicians are beginning to point out that television is the emperor wearing no clothes.
Social Studies: Don't Pardon Ex-President Clinton -- Commute His Sentence, by Jonathan Rauch (September 13, 2000)
An ex-President jailed? The spectacle would be wrenching, the symbolism right out of some banana republic.
Legal Affairs: Boy Scouts Vs. Gays -- The System Is Working Just Fine, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (September 13, 2000)
A thousand points of pressure are being applied to the Scouts to yield to the emerging social consensus.
Media: Reality Politics, Anyone?, by William Powers (September 13, 2000)
Perhaps the presidential campaigns could take some cues from CBS' new reality-TV series.
Political Pulse: Clinton -- Just Doing His Job, by William Schneider (September 13, 2000)
President Clinton is sending a message: this campaign is not about me.
The Campaign: A Sitting President Cannot Disappear, Nor Should He, by Carl M. Cannon (September 13, 2000)
Thank goodness Bill Clinton rode to the rescue and helped set the tone for the campaign.
More from National Journal.
Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.
Political Pulse:A Duke-Out Over ... Paradigms
September 19, 2000
This was supposed to be an issueless presidential election, remember? It was supposed to be about personality and character. But look at what happened after Labor Day. First we got a big issue speech from Republican George W. Bush on Medicare. Then we got a big issue speech from Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, on the economy. How did substance get in here?
The two candidates are offering dramatically different paradigms, or models, for governing. For Bush, the paradigm is competition. Take Medicare, for instance. Bush told voters in Scranton, Pa.: "We trust you to make decisions for your families. You can choose a basic health care plan that meets your needs, or you can choose a little more of a 'Cadillac plan' for your needs. Nothing like a little competition to create excellence in the system." Or take Social Security. "It's time to have new leadership in Washington, D.C.," Bush said in Illinois, "new thinking that trusts younger workers to manage some of their own hard-earned money." More competition, more risk taking, less government -- that's a paradigm that appeals to men. Sure enough, men favor Bush by a 7-point margin, according to the Gallup Poll.
Gore's paradigm is the safety net. He wants to secure it. "First, let's make Social Security financially sound into the second half of this new century, and make Medicare financially sound for at least another 30 years," he said when he announced his economic plan in Cleveland. Gore also wants to extend the safety net. His plan calls for "the lowest level of poverty in recorded history," "double the number of families with savings over $50,000," home ownership for seven out of 10 Americans, 10 million new "high-tech, high-skill jobs" and "three-quarters of all high school graduates attending college, and half going on to graduate."
Plus, Gore wants to put aside $300 billion, just to be "safe." He pledged to "set aside some money for a rainy day, to be absolutely certain that we never spend money we don't have." A bigger safety net, less risk, more government protection -- that's a paradigm that appeals to women. Sure enough, women favor Gore by 15 points.
Amazingly, this campaign is turning out to be a big debate on fundamental issues. Why is it happening this year? There's no big crisis. But there is a big surplus -- trillions of dollars. When you've got big money, you have to make big choices. Like the choice between public and private investment, which is the central issue in this election. Bush wants to give most of the surplus back to taxpayers, so they can invest it in their own futures. Gore wants the government to invest most of the surplus to provide for public needs. That's about as basic a choice as you can get in politics.
But there's another reason this campaign is turning out to be about big choices: It serves the candidates' strategic needs.
Voters know two big things about Bush. One, he seems to be a man of limited intellectual capabilities. Two, he's got a lot of money behind him. Put the two together and what do you get? A front man for the big-money boys. So Bush needs to show voters he's big enough for the job. One way he does that is with big, bold proposals, like a fundamental restructuring of Medicare, a radical change in Social Security, and a big tax cut. "It's time for new leadership that understands that the surplus is the people's money," Bush said on Labor Day.
Gore looks like a man who's totally driven by politics, who would say or do anything to get elected. Remember how he pandered to Florida voters on the Elian Gonzalez issue? How he tried to reinvent himself as an "alpha male"? Gore needs to show voters he's trustworthy, and trustworthy leaders don't take big risks. "I will not go along with a huge tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and wreck our good economy in the process," he pledged last week.
If the voters aren't sure a candidate is trustworthy, what can the candidate do to reassure them? He can put it in writing, which is exactly what Gore did in Cleveland. "I don't want you to have to read the tea leaves, or read between the lines of a press release or position paper, to know what a Gore-Lieberman Administration would mean for families," Gore said. "Instead, you can just read my plan -- a detailed economic plan that spells out, line by line, how we can make prosperity work for America's families."
Bush was leading in the polls as long as voters were not paying much attention. That's changed. The percentage of voters who say they have given "quite a lot" of thought to the presidential contest went from 47 percent in July to 60 percent in September, according to the Gallup Poll.
Something else has changed, too. All year Gallup has been asking voters which matters more to them, the candidates' leadership skills or the candidates' stands on the issues. Until July, leadership skills outweighed issues in importance. Since the conventions, issues have become dominant. Issue voters have always preferred Gore. But there are a lot more of them now, as people have begun to pay attention to the campaign -- and as the issue differences have gotten bigger and bigger.
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |