Recent commentary from National Journal:
The Campaign: The Sweet Science Is Only Sweet If You Win, by Carl M. Cannon (September 26, 2000)
Try following the presidential race like a prize fight. You can score each week for either Bush or Gore.
Legal Affairs: Gore's Shameless About Posing As a Populist, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (September 26, 2000)
Gore has been one of the most assiduous solicitors of special interest money ever to seek the presidency.
Social Studies: Want to Elevate Politics? Accentuate The Negative, by Jonathan Rauch (September 26, 2000)
Stigmatizing attack ads dumbs down campaigns and hobbles challengers -- exactly the wrong thing to do.
Media: Money on the Brain, by William Powers (September 26, 2000)
The money media (print division) may have a wealth-obsessed heart, but they have a brain, and it works.
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.
Political Pulse: A Duke-Out Over ... Paradigms, by William Schneider (September 19, 2000)
Amazingly, this campaign is turning out to be a big debate on fundamental issues.
The Campaign: On the Air -- RATS, Ratings, Hyprocisy, and Tiny Tim, by Carl M. Cannon (September 19, 2000)
Politicians are beginning to point out that television is the emperor wearing no clothes.
More from National Journal.
Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.
Political Pulse:How Al Turned the Corner
September 26, 2000
In a few short weeks, Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore has gone from sure loser to front-runner. Which means that millions of Americans have changed their minds. What happened?
A month ago, Republican George W. Bush was 17 percentage points ahead of Gore, according to a Gallup Poll. Now Gore is 7 points ahead of Bush. That's a small lead, but it has held up for more than a week of daily tracking. Given the large number of people interviewed, one can say with statistical confidence that, for the first time all year, Gore has moved into the lead.
All of this bears an eerie parallel to 1988. Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts came out of his convention with a 17-point lead that year. Vice President George Bush turned the campaign around at his convention a few weeks later, despite the presumed catastrophe of selecting Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana as his running mate. Bush moved into the lead shortly after Labor Day and never lost it. What a terrible irony for the Bush family: Vice President Gore is doing to Gov. Bush what Vice President Bush did to Gov. Dukakis 12 years ago. But what exactly is it that both Vice Presidents did?
All year long, Gallup has been asking people what is more important when they vote, issues or leadership qualities? Voters looking for leadership favor Bush. Remember the mantra of Bush's acceptance speech at the Philadelphia convention? "They have not led. We will."
When voters say they are looking for leadership, what they have in mind is a new leader. Someone who's not Bill Clinton. Someone who is not like Bill Clinton. The desire for new leadership drove this campaign for most of this year. In fact, it was the premise of the Bush campaign: He would portray Clinton as a flawed, and failed, leader. "When I put my hand on the Bible," Bush said in speech after speech, "I will swear, not only to uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."
But over the course of the year, the leadership market has collapsed. The number of voters who cite leadership skills as their top priority has dropped from one-half to one-third. As President Clinton faded from the scene, the demand for new leadership became less and less of a dominating force in the election.
In August, Gore unshackled himself from Clinton. He picked a scathing critic of the President as his running mate. He demonstrated his own commitment to family values with a dramatic kiss. And he declared his independence when he said in Los Angeles, "I stand here tonight as my own man."
When the market for new leadership tanked, Bush lost his lead. But what propelled Gore into the lead? Go back to the Gallup Poll question. Voters who say issues matter most favor Gore. "I am here to talk seriously about the issues," Gore said in his acceptance speech.
The issues market has boomed over the course of the year. What issues? Peace and prosperity, to begin with. Just as in 1988, Americans overwhelmingly agree they've never had it so good. There are problems, of course -- prescription drug costs, Medicare, Social Security, health care. But those are the Democrats' territory. Gore has a double-digit lead over Bush on all of those issues.
What issues are left on the Republican agenda? The Cold War is over. Crime is down. Welfare is reformed. The budget is balanced. Abortion rights and gay rights split the GOP. With Lieberman on the Democratic ticket, Gore is pre-empting the morality issue.
Bush is trying to run on education. But voters give Gore the edge in that area. Bush's big issue is taxes. But tax cuts aren't selling. And voters now rate Bush and Gore about equal on taxes. This race has been transformed from a personal vote to an issues vote. And that change has turned things around for Gore.
What's left for Bush to run on? He can attack Gore's credibility. It would be a nasty campaign -- similar to his father's in 1988. Would it work? His father had peace and prosperity on his side. It's not clear whether his negative campaign would have worked without them.
Bush's only remaining choice is to challenge Gore's positions on issues such as Medicare, education, and taxes. That means promoting conservative solutions to those problems -- market-oriented approaches involving more competition and choice -- and drawing a contrast with Gore's "big government" approach.
Thus, we have a new Bush ad claiming that "Al Gore's prescription drug plan forces seniors into a government-run HMO," while "Gov. Bush gives seniors a choice." The model is the campaign Republicans ran against President Clinton's health care reforms in 1994. On Medicare, taxes, education, and Social Security, Bush is promoting the same theme: He offers more choice; Gore offers more government. As another Bush ad puts it, "Al Gore: federal HMO. George Bush: seniors choose." Bush has finally become the pro-choice candidate!
Bush's new issue strategy carries a risk. If he loses, the message to the Republican Party is ominous: It can't win any longer by selling a conservative message. The issue agenda has changed. It's the same lesson the Democrats had to learn after losing in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Three strikes, and you're out.
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |