From the WSJ Opinion Archives
THE WESTERN FRONT
Presidential Timber
Bush's big-government conservatism may be a political winner.
Tomorrow night President Bush and John Kerry take the stage together for the final time before Nov. 2. This debate will focus on domestic issues, so it was supposed to be the one Mr. Kerry will win walking away.
We'll see. In the debate last Friday, Mr. Bush revealed that it's a mistake to assume the Democrat has the natural advantage when it comes to setting the domestic agenda. Indeed, the president appeared to do better on domestic issues than on war. This shouldn't be all that surprising for a man who sought the presidency so he could change the direction of the nation's domestic policies or a president who united conservatives with the big spenders in his party to push for good government over limited government.
Last week the president displayed a mastery of details, a willingness to hit back and a skill at using humor that far outstripped his first debate performance. On taxes, tort reform, health care, abortion and stem-cell research the president reminded the country that he can go toe to toe with anyone on issues that affect the everyday lives of most Americans.
On taxes, Mr. Bush was given the opportunity not only to paint Mr. Kerry as a tax-and-spend "liberal," but also to deliver the best line in the debate. Mr. Bush had argued that repealing his tax cuts on those who make more than $200,000 a year would hit small business owners, who pay their business taxes as personal income taxes. Mr. Kerry countered by denying that many of those small businesses actually exist: "The president got $84 from a timber company that he owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right."
Mr. Bush shot back: "I own a timber company? That's news to me." While the audience erupted in laugher, he paused before asking, "Need some wood?"
A questioner asked Mr. Kerry to look directly into the camera and pledge not to raise taxes on those who make less than $200,000. He made that pledge, but then switched to Senate-speak to outline the details of his tax cut for the middle class. Here's what he said: "Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes. I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut. I raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids. I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents . . ."
But here's what middle America likely heard: I'm not going to raise your taxes and I'm not going to cut them either. But I will raise someone's taxes and while I'm at it I'll offer you some "credits" that you'll need to hire a tax lawyer to figure out. Not exactly "read my lips."
Tort reform is somewhat of a signature issue for President Bush. As governor of Texas he led the fight to cap punitive damages and in other ways limit the damage of frivolous suits. In 2000 tort reform was a central plank to his platform. Since he took office, tort reform has been an underlying issue from the president's judicial nominations to new Labor Department rules. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao has been clarifying regulations so businesses will no longer be sued for not following what are often contradictory or confusing mandates.
The flashpoint for the issue is health care, because the price of malpractice insurance is driving up prices, pushing doctors out of business or forcing them to stop taking "high risk" patients. So on the stump this year the president has pounded Mr. Kerry on the issue and promised to enact reforms. In the debate, Mr. Bush said his opponent "shows a lack of understanding" of the issue. "Doctors practice defensive medicine because of all the frivolous lawsuits that cost our government $28 billion a year."
Mr. Kerry was asked how he could be counted on to stop frivolous lawsuits after putting a trial lawyer on the ticket. He said "I'm a lawyer too" and promised that he and John Edwards "will be able to get a fix that has eluded everybody else because we know how to do it." Mr. Kerry continued: "Is it a problem? Yes. . . . But it's less than 1% of the total cost of health care." In other words, Trust me to solve the problem because I too am a member of a profession that has a reputation lower than that of used-car salesmen. But don't worry, it's not really a problem anyway. Not exactly a smart the thing to say to win over voters who care about the issue.
On abortion Mr. Kerry left the middle ground to Mr. Bush. The Democrat was asked whether he'd allow the federal government's money to be used for abortions. His answer was so jumbled that Mr. Bush started his reply by wondering how to "decipher" it. The president then went on to stake out something close to Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" position in 1992. Mr. Bush clearly stated no federal dollars would be used for abortions if he remained president and then he talked about promoting a culture of life by requiring parental notification before a minor has an abortion--something Mr. Clinton supported when he was governor of Arkansas--and banning partial-birth abortion. For voters who are uncomfortable with abortion but unwilling to outlaw it altogether, Mr. Bush presented himself as a moderate option. Mr. Kerry was left occupying the most extreme position--favoring partial-birth abortion, using federal funds for abortions and refusing to accept parental notification.
On the one issue in the debate in which Democrats hold the natural advantage, the environment, Mr. Kerry came out on top. He attacked Mr. Bush's policies, saying they have "Orwellian" names like "Clear Skies" but in reality harm the environment.
The president was left to insist that the air is cleaner than it was four years ago. It's too bad he didn't find a way to deflate fears about his administration by noting that most of the promising ideas on the environment are percolating from free-market groups like The Property & Environmental Research Center. PERC, in Bozeman, Mont., has been on the forefront for decades on finding ways to use property rights to protect the environment and has seen some of its ideas become policy.
On homeland security the president noted that spending for security has increased to $30 billion from $10 billion. One of the perks of having a pork-barrel reputation is that voters assume some of that pork is for security-related projects. But when asked about the Patriot Act, Mr. Bush brushed aside fears that it is allowing law-enforcement officers to abuse American civil liberties. The president happens to be right; the act isn't being abused. But Americans are naturally jealous of their liberties, so he might have noted that he understands the concern and was taking steps to ensure it wouldn't happen.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush has rightly been seen as a war president and the war on terror and how it should be fought remains the overarching issue of this campaign. But it's a mistake to discount Mr. Bush and the popularity of his domestic agenda. The media will never give him the win unless he soundly puts Mr. Kerry away--especially when journalists start out assuming that Americans really want the Democrat's policies. But looking over last week's performance it's hard to say Mr. Bush didn't do well. It turns out that the one advantage of being a big spender is that it is hard to be tagged as inattentive to people's needs.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
