Bore versus Wuss

Presidential polls in the US is less about crunching numbers and more about competing visions. When Democratic party candidate Al Gore and his Republican counterpart, George Bush, grappled with their fight-to-finish televised debates in the last leg of the race, the election emerged more clearly than ever before as a choice between a liberal and a conservative. The contest is so ideologically transparent and the battle cry so passionate that it would be no exaggeration to characterise the entire race as a great crucible of modern democratic style class warfare. And it is the offensive use of the class weapon by Gore and its defensive use by Bush that provides the advantage to Gore. Whether it was environment, healthcare, education, crime, foreign policy or some other topic, Gore aggressively claimed the role of the governmental activist. Bush, who never really understood the maxim that `offence is the best form of defence’, went about whining like a wuss, "the era of big governments is over”. While Gore’sposition is crystal clear to the electorate, despite his tendency to exaggerate and embellish and fib a bit, in the case of Bush there is ideological obfuscation, although he is winsome and charming.

This is the classic debate that has divided Democrats and Republicans since the New Deal of the 1940s. President Bill Clinton gave a new Machiavellian twist to the divide by shifting the left position more towards the centre, thus making it more attractive for everyone. He, even before Tony Blair, defined the “third way” in politics — a unique position where market ethics meshed with social liberalism. The Republicans were, however, quick to coopt the strategy. By turning moderate on social issues and giving a clarion call to all minorities — Blacks, Latinos, Asians and Jews alike — Bush thought he would yank the centrist plank from under Clinton’s feet. This left Gore with two choices, either continue to hold to the Clinton legacy, in which case he would also have to contend with its amoral record, or move leftwards into a classic old Democrat position and risk alienating the centrist voters. Gore, though most people thought he was a bore, proved to be intelligent: He drove a hole into the Republicanstrategy by picking a minority Jewish vice-presidential candidate in Joe Lieberman and then cleverly moved leftwards only on social issues. On the economic front, he proved to be the most innovative. In a populist undertone he claimed that whereas the Republicans provided tax breaks only for the rich, the Democrats were doing so for the entire middle class.

As for the numbers, like a typical betting game it is the nature of the horse race in presidential polls that keeps the public enthusiasm going with regular opinion polls and close up televised debates. Most political observers agree that the US Presidential Race 2000 is perhaps the closest one ever in the last half century. While Bush had an initial advantage, which turned to a lead soon after the Republican convention, Gore swung public opinion his way soon after the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. The presidential debates similarly found both equally poised. But ultimately, if battles are fought more on visions and agendas, Gore, having defined himself much more clearly ideologically speaking, has the clear advantage.