From the WSJ Opinion Archives
POTOMAC WATCH
So What Happened to Those Great Gore Issues?
Voters don't just like Bush. They agree with him.
If George W. Bush wins on Nov. 7, the wildebeest herd of independent liberals is sure to call it a triumph of personality. The likable lightweight beats Annoying Man.
This is understandable. It's a lot less painful than admitting the real news of this campaign, which is that Mr. Bush has battled Al Gore to a draw or better on their best issues.
We've heard it a thousand times: Mr. Gore would win because the election would be fought on "Democratic turf." This meant education, entitlements, health care, gun control and other things as alien to most Republicans as rap music.
Yet a mere 18 days from Election Day Mr. Bush is competitive not just in the horse race but also on these issues. What were supposed to be Mr. Gore's silver bullets have one by one turned out to be political blanks. Let's inspect the scorecard:
Gun control. A year ago this was all the White House rage. Yet when asked about the subject in Tuesday's debate, Mr. Gore ran like Maurice Green.
"None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters, or sportsmen, or people who use rifles," the veep began defensively. He added a couple of quick sentences on school violence before changing the subject to that legendary wedge issue, "reinventing government." Nothing about Texas's "concealed carry" law, zip about the Brady Bill.
Mr. Gore is wearing camouflage because he knows he's the deer in National Rifle Association crosshairs in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other swing states. NRA membership has soared to 4.1 million, from 2.9 million in December 1999, and its campaign spending this year could exceed $20 million.
Education. This is what demolished Bob Dole among women in 1996. But in this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Mr. Bush is trailing the vice president by a mere five points--a near-tie that's a victory for any Republican.
As a governor, Mr. Bush knows education better than any other subject, and it shows in debate. But his real achievement has been to recast the argument--away from school spending toward accountability and choice.
"We basically agree on accountability," Mr. Gore said Tuesday, in a misleading me-too tribute to the Texan's progress. The veep then ran down the usual teacher unions' wish list--smaller class sizes, "100,000 new teachers," new school bonds, and so on--but such quantity no longer trumps quality.
Health care and prescription drugs. A month ago this looked to be Mr. Bush's Achilles' heel. But then Republicans fought back in TV spots, hitting Mr. Gore's plan for a $600 fee and big-government regulation.
The Texan has since rebounded, notably in Florida and other senior havens. He now trails Mr. Gore by just nine points on drugs in the WSJ/NBC survey, and by even less in others.
The irony is that Mr. Gore only helped his opponent by abandoning Medicare reform last year. The veep asked Mr. Clinton to blow up his own bipartisan Medicare commission so he could have the issue.
But instead this handed Mr. Bush the equally powerful rebuttals of eight-years-of-failure and political cynicism. As with education, the veep's fealty to the status quo left has allowed Mr. Bush to occupy the pro-reform center on entitlements.
Social Security. Democrats wasted last week trying to prove that Texas is more of a backwater than Arkansas. But with time and options now running short, they've decided to scare grandma.
This won't be easy, because Social Security has so far helped Mr. Bush. His proposal for personal retirement accounts has earned points for leadership and is popular among younger voters. In the WSJ/NBC survey, Mr. Bush trails by only six points on this issue, unheard of for a Republican.
Mr. Gore's latest gambit is to claim that "privatization" means benefit cuts. But this ignores higher investment returns from private accounts. And it also ignores other changes that could ease the transition to a new system--such as a more accurate measure of inflation, as Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan has long recommended.
In any case, Mr. Gore's own nonreform plan would require either a 25% income-tax, or a 50% payroll-tax, increase to pay off future retirees. Either that, or he'd have to cut benefits too. Neither candidate is coming clean on every detail, so the real difference between them is philosophy and the role of government.
This raises the biggest "issue" irony of all: Voters don't want a return to the era of big government. Even many conservatives figured they did, with the John McCain faction at The Weekly Standard surrendering without a fight. But then Mr. Bush hit Mr. Gore for being to the left of Bill Clinton, and it worked.
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, 69% of voters believe the veep favors bigger government, while most voters prefer a smaller one. No wonder Mr. Gore kept insisting Tuesday that he favors a "smaller, smarter government," even as he promised one new federal subsidy after another.
Somehow this all sounds a lot more substantive than the mere politics of "personality." Mr. Bush seems to be doing for Republicans what Bill Clinton did for Democrats: making them competitive and credible on a whole new set of issues.
Mr. Gigot is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
