Why Bush Lost the Election

by Steve Chapman

Last week's debate was Bush's chance to show that he is not only personally likable but knowledgeable about the issues and prepared to assume leadership. Instead, he came across like a college student trying to bluff his way through an exam because he didn't bother with the reading. The suit seemed too big for the candidate, in more ways than one: For Bush to tell us he's a leader is no substitute for sounding like one. And the guy whose personality is supposed to be his prime asset showed not a hint of charm, much less charisma.

It was no surprise, then, that the first poll after the debate found Bush had failed to change any minds. The Reuters/MSNBC survey released Friday found Gore's five-point margin before the debate just as big afterward. The only question now is whether Gore can turn his lead into a landslide.

Bush's problems are not entirely, or even mostly, his fault. He faces the imposing challenge of trying to persuade voters that they should vote for a change in the White House, even though they have no real reason to be unhappy with the status quo. That's not easy, as Bob Dole discovered in 1996 and Michael Dukakis learned in 1988.

Commentators and political activists place great importance on campaign strategy and tactics, but the biggest factor in any presidential race is the overall condition of the country. When it's good, voters are strongly inclined to vote for continuity. When it's bad, they hanker for a change.

To overcome this natural tendency, Bush has to give the American people a good reason to evict the Democrats from the White House. But he and his fellow Republicans are torn between pushing a conservative agenda and trying to sound like Democrats. It's a choice of poisons: The conservative agenda alienates voters, and Republicans will never surpass Democrats in sounding like Democrats.

The GOP is increasingly at a loss for why it should exist, much less govern. During the Cold War, it was the party that wanted to strengthen the military and resist communism. During periods of high inflation, it was the advocate of sound money. During the era of big deficits, it called for cutting government down to size.

But those causes are as obsolete as a Betamax. Military preparedness doesn't have much potency as an issue at a time when our armed forces enjoy unchallenged supremacy. Inflation has stayed low despite a record-breaking expansion and eight years of Democratic rule. When the budget is in surplus, as it is today, no one has much interest in fiscal austerity.

So what does Bush offer? Well, he promises to restore "honor and dignity" to the Oval Office. But no one really expects Monica Lewinsky to make a return appearance in a Gore administration. And if the Clinton administration proved anything, it proved that honor and dignity are not the public's highest priority in a chief executive.

As for policy issues, Bush has staked his campaign on tax cuts -- tax cuts that Gore has mercilessly derided as a sop to the richest 1 percent of the population. With maniacal repetition, the vice president levelled that charge during the debate, and Bush essentially pleaded nolo contendre. "Fuzzy math," he sputtered, offering fuzzy non-math in return.

Thursday's vice-presidential debate could only hamper Bush, not because Dick Cheney did so poorly but because he did so well. Anyone hearing his calm, expert presentation had to wonder why he's at the bottom of the ticket instead of at the top.

By the time he was done, it was clear what Cheney would do if elected: He'd serve as George W. Bush's brain. There are probably many Americans who would be happy to vote for Bush, if he promised to resign immediately after being sworn in.

But even Cheney came up short on the issue that was supposed to power Republicans back into the White House -- tax cuts. It was surprising that in the presidential debate, Bush advisers had not come up with a plausible rebuttal to Gore's "1 percent" charge. It was astonishing that 48 hours later, they still had no effective riposte. That's only part of the bigger Republican problem, which is that tax cuts are far less appealing when times are good than when times are hard.

Hard times will come again, and if the GOP has any luck, they'll come between now and 2004, during the Gore administration. Four years from now, Republicans may have a chance to recapture the White House. Four weeks from now, they have none.