Being Mr Nice ain8217;t easy

The three debates between Vice-President Al Gore and Republican nominee George Bush were the most exhaustively covered events of the US pr...

The three debates between Vice-President Al Gore and Republican nominee George Bush were the most exhaustively covered events of the US presidential campaign. No subject was deemed too lowly to warrant in-depth analysis 8212; from the cut of Gore8217;s suit to Bush8217;s footwear. The candidates held forth on various issues, ranging from the death penalty to social security. Their respective agendas, carefully prepped by spin doctors, clashed on a number of issues. But, ultimately, it all boiled down to the issue of relative 8220;niceness8221;. Who had a better rapport with his wife? Who sounded sincere?

The first debate offered a conclusion that came as no surprise 8212; that Gore is the more intelligent of the two. He buried Bush under an avalanche of information. Bush took a very different tack 8212; his answers were simple, some would say simplistic, focussing on his general philosophy of trusting the people to do what is right for them. But the debates and the larger campaign were not so much a clash of agendas as of personalities. They were targeted mainly at the swing voter or undecided voter. In the closest race in recent decades, these swing voters acquire immense importance. In trying to appeal to them the two candidates chose similar tactics. In the first phase, Bush and Gore tried to sound as similar as possible 8212; thus, Bush was the quot;compassionate conservativequot; and Gore the quot;conservative liberalquot;, supporting the death penalty and emphasising strong family values.

In the second phase, they tried to distinguish themselves from each other in their approach to government. It was impossible to untangle the web of accusations and counter-accusation that flew around; impossible in fact to distinguish where the truth lay, as each candidate exposed inconsistencies in the other8217;s plans. In a campaign in which trustworthiness have been such an issue, Gore was found to have exaggerated in the first debate, and has a history of small white campaign lies to his name, with the result that opinion polls showed a fall in his popularity after the debate. Bush stuck to the safe path of saying as little of substance as possible and thus emerged with his credibility undamaged.

In the second debate Gore launched into a particularly hard-hitting critique of Bush8217;s education policy in Texas. Bush, in response, looked terribly hurt and asked Gore, quot;Are you saying I have a bad heart?quot; 8220;Niceness8221; is a complicated term 8212; it isn8217;t just a question of heart, it is also about honesty, integrity and American values. Gore is a man who thinks and talks in terms of agendas. Bush is a man who trusts his instincts. He is not one for quot;Washington political smooth talkquot;, he just wants to get the job done. These qualities came out most positively in the second debate, where he confidently fielded questions with his whimsical charm. But Bush does not have an answer for everything, indeed he does not have an answer to most things, as became painfully clear in the third debate. While this reinforced his sincerity, it did not inspire confidence.

The third debate offered perhaps the most interesting study of personalities. After a lacklustre second round for Gore, he was in his element in the final round. He spoke in a booming voice, strode around the platform, and was an imposing presence in every way. On one occasion he put Bush on the spot with a direct question and then advanced belligerently towards him when Bush tried to strike back. Bush in contrast appeared frail as never before. This new dynamic offered swing voters as good a reason as any to choose between the two. Do they want a 8216;bully-boy8217; or the proverbial underdog? Do they want a president who is only too human or one who seems superhuman? It8217;s a fundamental choice and, at this stage, a critical one.