Many pundits are wondering about
the ability of our new president to govern given the extreme
closeness of Election 2000. After all, not only was the
presidential election a toss-up, the Senate is 50-50; the House is
closely divided; and, less than six in 10 voters
are convinced that the man going to the White House actually won
the election. This situation will certainly test the
political skills of the man who says he is a "uniter, not a
divider." Fortunately for the man from Austin,
there is plenty of common ground for our new president to build
upon. Ironically, the strongest evidence of common ground
comes from the campaign of the Democratic challenger.
As Election Day drew near, Al Gore shifted his rhetoric on taxes.
For months, he had been trying to convince voters that his plan
for targeted tax cuts were better than the larger, across the
board, tax cuts proposed by George W. Bush. Voters weren't
convinced, so the vice president decided to try another approach.
Down the stretch, Gore came up with a new line. He claimed
that both he and his opponent were offering targeted tax cuts and
that the only difference was who they targeted. While Bush
voters may dispute the accuracy of Gore's line, it was a very
effective piece of rhetoric and helped the Democrat gain ground on
the issue.
The real significance of Gore's tactical shift on taxes and other
issues is not how it affected the election, but what it tells us
about the mood of the country.
Vice President Gore switched gears on the tax issue because
Americans liked the idea of tax cuts for everyone more than
targeted tax cuts. One reason for this preference is a
lingering distrust of politics and politicians. When they
hear candidates talk about targeting tax cuts, most voters assume
that means someone else's taxes will be cut.
It's hard to overstate this level of distrust. A few years
ago, when president Clinton and Republican congressional leaders
got together to announce a plan to balance the budget, cut
spending, and cut taxes, only 1 percent of voters believed them.
In fact, when asked, voters were twice as likely to think that
their own taxes would go up rather than down.
Another message coming from
Gore's tactical shift on taxes is that the political insiders
misunderstood the public on this issue. All throughout the
campaign, we heard that voters weren't motivated by tax cuts any
more. Actually, voters still want tax cuts, but they just
don't believe any politicians will deliver upon this particular
campaign promise. During the height of the campaign, just
four out of 10 Americans believed that taxes would be cut even if
Bush won the White House and Republicans controlled both the House
and the Senate.
Looked at from another perspective, seven out of 10 Americans say
that they want taxes and spending to go down over the next five
years. However, seven out of 10 also say that they expect
taxes and spending to keep going up.
The pundits missed another aspect of the tax debate.
Washington politicians typically say that voters are motivated by
greed when they favor tax cuts. The pols also assume that
there is a conflict between the public desire for tax cuts and for
balanced budgets. In reality, voters view both tax cuts and
balanced budgets as complimentary tools that both help to slow the
growth of government spending. Voters overwhelmingly prefer
lower government spending over balanced budgets as a policy goal.
So, the public favors tax cuts, they're cynical about politicians
and the Washington insiders misread the public mood. Sounds
a lot like when Ronald Reagan was president.
In fact, that leads us to the real lesson of Campaign 2000.
The Clinton administration did not succeed in repudiating the
Reagan legacy. Instead, the Clinton administration ended up
ratifying the Reagan Revolution.
When Bill Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is
over," he wasn't stating his policy preference.
Instead, he was bending to a political reality created by the
Gipper. From that moment forward, both Republicans and
Democrats began to fight over their policy differences within the
political framework created by America's voters and articulated by
President Reagan.
In a sense, Clinton played the same role that Dwight Eisenhower
played in ratifying the New Deal. When Ike took office in
1952, he was the first GOP president in 20 years. Rather
than trying to undo the New Deal, he accepted it along with the
underlying premise of a more active federal government. Once
that premise was off the table politically, the next presidential
election was a squeaker with John Kennedy edging Richard Nixon by
less than a single percentage point in the popular vote.
When Bill Clinton became president, Democrats had won that office
only once in the previous 28 years. He initially tried to
challenge the Reagan premise that voters were tired of an
ever-expanding federal government. Voters then gave the GOP
control of Congress and Clinton accepted the new limitations on
government. As a result, the next presidential election was
a squeaker
because both Republicans and Democrats have now accepted the
underlying premise of the Reagan Revolution as political
reality.
The bottom line is that the public is demanding improved
performance from government at a lower and less intrusive cost.
They're used to getting more for less in the private sector and
now want the same from the political sector of society.
Where will this lead us? That's unknown, just as the
election of 1960 could never have foreshadowed the '60s.
However, we do know that there is a lot of common ground among
voters. Even on issues as politically sensitive as Social
Security, the voters are coming close to speaking with one voice.
Just about everyone agrees that current retirees and those about
to retire should be fully protected under any reform plan.
At the same time, a solid majority agrees with the premise that
workers should be given more control of their own retirement
plans. Again, we don't know how this will work out
politically, but we do know that there is common ground to build
upon.
So, the challenge for our new president will be to build political
unity out of the common ground that exists among the public.
If he succeeds, he and his party will also succeed. If he fails,
it may be a long time before Republicans gain control of both the
White House and the Congress again.
