Dress Rehearsal for 2000
By Michael Linse
Staff Writer
|
The Harvard Salient |
October 21, 1996 |
ice presidential
debates do not decide election outcomes, especially if they take
place while the first game of the National League Championship Series
is being televised on a competing network. Nevertheless, the October
9 get-together between Al Gore and Jack Kemp was an important
indication of things to come. Let's face it: Dole will lose and give
Clinton another four years of being this century's least
consequential president. It's time for voters to get excited about
the 2000 presidential campaign. The chief players will be Kemp,
proponent of deep cuts in taxes and regulations, and Gore, proponent
of anything a majority of Americans will support.
It is controversial whether Americans are over-taxed and over-regulated, but most Americans will always vote for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. As you've already guessed, those are the four terms Gore used most in the Wednesday night debate. Kemp's position on these issues is completely irrelevant, because if Gore paints him as the bad guy often enough, Gore can distinguish himself as the hero who will "save" these vital programs, and the votes are his. It is unnecessary and inconvenient for Gore to discuss the costs of these programs, the trade-offs between government programs and the taxation and regulation of the economy, because most of this discussion is over the head of the average American anyway.
Even though (or
maybe because) Gore addresses the audience as if he's out to capture
every four-year-old's vote, he is a very effective demagogue, a fact
that did not escape Kemp's attention: "The only thing [Clinton and
Gore] have to offer is fear: fear of the environment, fear of the
climate, fear of Medicare, fear of Newt, fear of Republicans, fear of
Bob, and probably fear of cutting tax rates." Unfortunately, it
probably won't help to point out that Gore is a demagogue, because he
is just that good.
He obviously knows that Medicare and Medicaid are facing serious problems, but instead of acknowledging that they need to be restructured, he fuels and feeds off of the hysteria that the American electorate has developed about these government programs. The problem, of course, is that somebody who gets elected on the idea that Medicare and Medicaid are untouchable cannot touch them when in office, which will only exacerbate the problems in the years to come.
Like every effective demagogue, Gore holds nothing too sacred to be used to support his own political ambitions. Thus in Earth in the Balance he chooses to save the planet no matter whether scientists are skeptical of doomsday prophecies such as global warming or not. His book is particularly disturbing in its constant assertion that the fight for the environment is a continuation of the struggles against Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. Who could possibly oppose such a noble cause? The book is a grand exercise in self-righteousness and reflects exactly the attitude with which Gore enters a debate. He has the weight of morality on his side, and thus empowered, he fights for the American people.
t is unfair
simply to call Gore a stiff. He is far more dangerous than that. He
is a splendid demagogue, and, in the end, it will be up to Kemp to
make his rational arguments outshine Gore's righteousness.
uch was made of
this summer's internal conflict in the Republican party between
pro-life religious conservatives and pro-choice leaders over the
abortion plank in the GOP platform. Presidential nominee Bob Dole
wanted a statement of tolerance included in the abortion plank, to
demonstrate the Republican Party's openness towards pro-choicers in
light of its staunchly pro-life position. Massachusetts Gov. William
Weld refused to speak when he was told that he would be prohibited
from making his case for a pro-choice Republican party. Very little,
however, was heard about a similar conflict going on within the
Democratic party.
But conflict over abortion is a bipartisan phenomenon. In 1992 the Democrats refused to allow pro-life Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey, a highly popular second-term incumbent with a very liberal record, to address their convention. At this year's convention, Rep. Tony Hall of Ohio was allowed to speak on Tuesday afternoon on behalf of the 80 (his estimate) pro-life Democrats in Congress. Yet his remarks received relatively little coverage, while Weld's silence was praised as a principled stand by the media.
Abortion presents an enormous difficulty for both parties. Many members of Congress have deep personal convictions that conflict with the majority of public opinion. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri was a staunch pro-lifer until he decided to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 1988. A majority of House Democrats voted in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban, and both Gephardt and Minority Whip David Bonior of Michigan voted to override the President's veto of the bill.
The issue becomes difficult for two reasons. The first is that very few people actually reason through their views on abortion. It is likely that from the earliest stages of independent thought, an individual is pulled in a particular direction, whether by parents, by religion, or by popular culture. Even those who do actually ponder the implications and the ethics of their position do not fully consider the other side's arguments.
It has been very easy for the Democratic Party to paint the pro-life movement as a group of religious zealots hell-bent on taking away women's rights and forcing them into back-alley abortions that would threaten their lives. Likewise, pro-life Republicans brand the pro-choice movement as a band of radical feminist, irreligious, murderous barbarians. None of these characterizations is accurate. But they have removed abortion from the realm of reasoned debate.
The second misconception about the issue arises from the erroneous equation of abortion rights with women's rights. Many Republicans, including Gov. Weld, think that by proclaiming themselves pro-choice they are thereby pro-woman. They are then free to disregard the need for prenatal care, ignore job discrimination, and endorse policies that hurt women by saying, "But I'm pro-choice." Unfortunately, this equation rings true in the minds of too many Americans. It was this mistake that led people to believe that the pro-choice Bob Packwood was pro-woman but that the pro-life Bob Casey was not.
The Democrats rely heavily on women's votes. Their primary electorate is overwhelmingly pro-choice. No pro-life Democrat can even think about running for national office in this climate, although there are many pro-life Democrats in the party. A lot of them were so-called Reagan Democrats who crossed over when they felt their party had fallen into the grips of the cultural left. They are found in union households and are largely Catholic. One has to look no farther than Boston to see prominent leaders who are across the board liberals and pro-life. The best known is probably UMass President William Bulger, the former president of the State Senate.
Many of the principles that lead one to adhere to the Democratic party's platform also lead to a pro-life position: protection of the weak, opportunity for all, compassion for the less fortunate. The Democrats deserve credit for giving the pro-life wing of their party even a small voice when the large pro-choice faction in the GOP was silenced to put on a face of party unity. Pro-life Democrats are not going away. They will be an important force in the party into the next century. Governor Casey has formed an organization to push for reforms that bolster the family, which include opposition to abortion. Perhaps the emergence of a vocal pro-life wing in the Democratic party will foster a fairer, more reasoned national debate on this issue. If neither party can accuse the other of being the anti-choice/anti-woman party because of its abortion position, then there will be little political gain in doing so.
mericans are not
as pro-choice as they seem when actually confronted with the facts of
abortion, as evidenced by the overwhelming public approval of the
partial-birth abortion ban. The Democrats would do well not to ignore
this growing group just as the Republicans eventually have to face up
to the fact that a majority of their party is pro-choice, in keeping
with the general libertarian bent of the party since 1980. Just as
the pro-life plank conflicts with the overall laissez-faire nature of
GOP philosophy, the pro-choice position is incompatible with most
Democratic views. This philosophical conflict will shape much of the
future of both parties. It would be both wrong and unwise for the
Democrats to cede the moral high ground on this issue permanently to
the Republicans.