Liberal versus Conservative?

October 31, 2000

How can a presidential race, with so much at stake, be so close and yet so unexciting? Though we are assured that we live in a democracy, both candidates owe their status to primogeniture: the son of a former president versus the son of a former senator. Their nominations seemed inevitable, and not because the voters thought they were the ideal men for the nation’s highest electoral office. Merit is no match for privilege.

Yet both George Bush and Al Gore seem to have been trying to blow it. Bush coasted when he didn’t have a secure lead; Gore lost the lead he briefly held because of his repellent personality. One is a hopeless bumbler, the other a smarmy liar.

The bumbler now appears on his way to victory, maybe by a comfortable margin. Opinion polls usually understate Republican strength; the “dead heat” we’ve heard so much about may vanish on election day. And even a 5 per cent difference in the popular vote can produce a landslide in the Electoral College.

Since 1968 a pattern has emerged. When there is a visible ideological difference between the two parties, the Republicans win. When the Democratic candidate manages to create the impression that he isn’t much more liberal than his opponent, the Democrats win.

Richard Nixon, though a “moderate” Republican, beat the liberal Hubert Humphrey narrowly and the socialist George McGovern easily; Ronald Reagan, who exaggerated his conservatism, won hugely against Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale; the elder George Bush, mimicking Reagan’s conservatism, crushed Michael Dukakis. Only two white Southern Democrats — Carter and Bill Clinton — have won the presidency in this period, beating the “moderate” Gerald Ford, a Bush who had angered conservatives, and a Robert Dole who left conservatives cold. Both Carter and Clinton irritated the left wing of their party but gained in the voting booth.

Al Gore is a white Southern Democrat too, but his liberalism has clearly emerged in spite of Bush’s best efforts to mute the distinction. But Bush at least uses the words “liberal” and “conservative” once in a while; Gore avoids them, sensing that to define the election as a liberal-versus-conservative race would be fatal to him.

Bush wants the voters to think he’s a conservative, albeit a “compassionate” one. Gore doesn’t want the voters to identify him as a liberal. That can mean only one thing.

The news media, which lean to Gore, have helped him by avoiding ideological labels. But Gore has emphasized his ambition to enlarge the federal government, while Bush has taken a generally opposite stance, at least rhetorically. And Gore’s liberal supporters have helped Bush by attacking him for being too conservative, thereby stressing the ideological difference. (If only Bush were as conservative as he is accused of being!)

The liberals have also underlined the difference by assuring Ralph Nader’s leftist followers, in an effort to woo them back to the Democratic Party, that Gore would be their kind of president. The very fact that Nader would take votes from Gore makes the point. Very few voters are torn between Nader and Bush.

Conservatives are solidly behind Bush. They are showing little interest (alas) in three estimable third-party candidates who are serious about reducing the power of the federal government: Patrick Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Phillips.

Most conservatives feel that Bush, unlike Gore, would at least leave them alone, and that’s all they ask at this point. Gore’s aggressive personality reflects his passion for militant government; Bush’s more relaxed personality imparts the hope of a more easy-going approach to ruling.

Neither man inspires enthusiasm, but Bush is more tolerant and more tolerable. You’d rather have him for a friend and neighbor; though the conversations might not be very interesting, at least you’d get to talk once in a while. Gore would always be trying to show you how bright he was. And how right.

Maybe it’s the coalescing feeling that Bush would simply be easier to live with for four years that explains his recent surge. But after a long, close race it’s hazardous to try to extract a definitive meaning from the outcome. The election may still be decided by a few flukes in the final days.

Joseph Sobran

Current Column

Return to the SOBRAN’S home page