CIAO DATE: 2/00
A Strange Campaign Is Born
On The Issues
December 1999
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
The 2000 presidential campaign is taking shape without any defining issues. The personal qualities of the candidatesand the public perception of those qualitieswill therefore be unusually important.
Its December 1999, less than a year before the next presidential election. Do you know where your country is?
The United States has changed a lot during the Clinton years. For one thing, the ideological war seems to be over. The country has gone through a Thirty Years War between liberals and conservatives, fought on two fronts. One was the culture war, initiated by the Left, that came out of the Great American Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. The other was the war on government, initiated by the Right, that started with the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. Both came to a head during the Clinton years, with the health-care debacle, government shutdowns, the Oklahoma City bombing and, for a climax, the year-long struggle over impeachment.
Who won? Its hard to say. Both sides claim defeat. After the failure of health-care reform and the catastrophic 1994 election, the Left acknowledged defeat in the war on government. The era of big government is over, President Bill Clinton proclaimed, as he pulled Democrats to the center on economic issues. Defeated and demoralized liberals stood by Clinton, even after he scorned their cherished ideals by signing welfare reform.
After the failure of impeachment, the Right acknowledged defeat in the culture wars. They saw the publics willingness to stick with Clinton as proof that the 1960s have corrupted American culture with an ethic of self-indulgence. Now, under the banner of compassionate conservatism, George W. Bush is pulling Republicans to the center on social issues. Defeated and demoralized conservatives seem ready to follow him.
Voters Firmly in the Middle
In reality, both wars were fought to a stand-off. The voters are firmly in the middle. They dont want any big expansion of the federal government, like Clintons health-care reform. But they dont want to cut back things the government does well, like Medicare, Medicaid, education, and environmental protection. They favor traditional values, but they are tolerant of diversity and nonconformity. It has taken the parties thirty years to figure this out.
Going into the new century, Americans are both war-weary and satisfied with the way things are going in the country. Theyre not looking for a big change of direction. The evidence: Clintons continued high job-approval rating, and the prevailing view that the country is on the right track. But they are looking for a change of leadership. The evidence: Bush has been leading Al Gore all year.
Theres something strange about the 2000 presidential campaign. Actually, several things. Start with the fact that weve already lost five, count em, five candidates before a single vote has been cast. (Can you name them? Hint: J.K., L.A., D.Q., B.S., and E.D.) Then theres the fact that running for president seems to be the latest celebrity craze (W.B., C.S., The D.)
No Dominant Issues
But whats really odd is that there dont seem to be any earth-shaking issues out there. Presidential campaigns are usually dominated by big issues, like inflation and the hostage crisis in 1980, taxes in 1988, the economy in 1992, and balancing the budget in 1996. But according to last months poll from the Pew Research Center, No single issue currently dominates the public agenda.
Supporters of different parties cant even agree on what the top issue is. To Republicans, its the economy. To Democrats, its Social Security and Medicare. To independents, its education. Fewer than 20 percent of Americans cite any one of them as the top priority for the next president.
One reason, certainly, is that things are going well. The economy is booming, crime is down, and no one threatens us. According to the Time-CNN poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans feel times are good. About the same number felt that way just before the 1984 and 1996 elections, when Americans voted overwhelmingly for continuity, and in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was succeeded by his vice president. (Take courage, Gore.) Its nothing like 1980 and 1992, when that figure was down in the 30s and voters threw the rascals out.
What Do Voters Want?
If Americans are satisfied, and there are no big issues roiling the electorate, what are voters looking for in a president? The Gallup poll asked them.
At the top of the list: Someone who has vision for the future, who is a strong and decisive leader, who knows how to get things done in Washington, and who has good moral characterall qualities considered very important by 80 percent or more. Strikingly, only about half the voters say its very important to have a president who agrees with them on the issues. Whats that about?
Its about a change in the voters definition of leadership. Consider the fact that theres something new this year called SelectSmart.com, which allows you to shop for candidates on the Internet. You answer questions about your issue positions, and the program comes up with the candidate who matches your answers best. Just like Christmas shopping. Only thats not the way most voters are shopping for a president. Theyre not looking for someone who agrees with them. Theyre looking for someone who can get things done.
Reagans leadership was ideological. Clintons was political. The voters seem to have had enough of both. Thats Gores problem: He looks and sounds too much like a politician. In a New Hampshire town hall forum, Gore described himself repeatedly as a fighter: I would like to have your support because I want to fight for you as president and fight for all the people.
Whats all this fighting about? To repeat, the ideological wars are over, and voters are war-weary. What about education and health care? Voters see them as problems to be solved, not issues to be fought over. Enough of Clinton and the Republican Congress trying to position themselves for maximum political advantage. What voters want now is a problem-solversomeone with an innovative approach, whos willing to try anything.
Bill Bradley espoused that view at the New Hampshire forum, observing that when FDR was president and we were in a Depression, he said, Im going to try this, Im going to try that, Im going to try something else and see what works. People want a leader whos ideologically open and flexiblea plus for a GOP maverick like John McCain, who has challenged his own partys leadership on campaign-finance reform, tobacco regulation, and the war in Kosovo.
Most of all, people are looking for a leader whos not driven by politics. Maybe thats what they see in Bush, who acknowledged a few months ago that he wouldnt be crushed if he doesnt become president. Hed just go fishing. That sort of laid-back, take-it-or-leave-it attitude is rare in politicians. Its certainly a far cry from Clinton.
A presidential candidate not driven by politics? What could that be? It could be a superannuated fraternity president like Bush. Or a nonconformist like McCain. Or a visionary like Bradley. Or maybe even a policy wonk like Gore, whos doing everything he can to shake off the image of a professional politician, including dressing like a country-and-western singer.
Whats emerging in the United States today is an entrepreneurial political culture, driven by a constant need for innovation and marketing. Its open, freewheeling, individualistic, nonideological, and sometimes out of control. More or less a combination of Reaganite economics, Clintonian culture, and Jesse Ventura politics.
William Schneider is a resident fellow at AEI and a political analyst for CNN. He is also a contributing editor to the opinion page of the Los Angeles Times, where a version of this article appeared on November 7, 1999.