Clinton Era ratifies Reagan Revolution,By Scott Rasmussen

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Many pundits are wondering about the ability of our new president to govern given the extreme closeness of Election 2000. After all, not only was the presidential election a toss-up, the Senate is 50-50; the House is closely divided; and, less than six in 10 voters are convinced that the man going to the White House actually won the election. This situation will certainly test the political skills of the man who says he is a "uniter, not a divider." Fortunately for the man from Austin, there is plenty of common ground for our new president to build upon. Ironically, the strongest evidence of common ground comes from the campaign of the Democratic challenger.

As Election Day drew near, Al Gore shifted his rhetoric on taxes. For months, he had been trying to convince voters that his plan for targeted tax cuts were better than the larger, across the board, tax cuts proposed by George W. Bush. Voters weren't convinced, so the vice president decided to try another approach.

Down the stretch, Gore came up with a new line. He claimed that both he and his opponent were offering targeted tax cuts and that the only difference was who they targeted. While Bush voters may dispute the accuracy of Gore's line, it was a very effective piece of rhetoric and helped the Democrat gain ground on the issue.

The real significance of Gore's tactical shift on taxes and other issues is not how it affected the election, but what it tells us about the mood of the country.

Vice President Gore switched gears on the tax issue because Americans liked the idea of tax cuts for everyone more than targeted tax cuts. One reason for this preference is a lingering distrust of politics and politicians. When they hear candidates talk about targeting tax cuts, most voters assume that means someone else's taxes will be cut.

It's hard to overstate this level of distrust. A few years ago, when president Clinton and Republican congressional leaders got together to announce a plan to balance the budget, cut spending, and cut taxes, only 1 percent of voters believed them. In fact, when asked, voters were twice as likely to think that their own taxes would go up rather than down.

Another message coming from Gore's tactical shift on taxes is that the political insiders misunderstood the public on this issue. All throughout the campaign, we heard that voters weren't motivated by tax cuts any more. Actually, voters still want tax cuts, but they just don't believe any politicians will deliver upon this particular campaign promise. During the height of the campaign, just four out of 10 Americans believed that taxes would be cut even if Bush won the White House and Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

Looked at from another perspective, seven out of 10 Americans say that they want taxes and spending to go down over the next five years. However, seven out of 10 also say that they expect taxes and spending to keep going up.

The pundits missed another aspect of the tax debate. Washington politicians typically say that voters are motivated by greed when they favor tax cuts. The pols also assume that there is a conflict between the public desire for tax cuts and for balanced budgets. In reality, voters view both tax cuts and balanced budgets as complimentary tools that both help to slow the growth of government spending. Voters overwhelmingly prefer lower government spending over balanced budgets as a policy goal.

So, the public favors tax cuts, they're cynical about politicians and the Washington insiders misread the public mood. Sounds a lot like when Ronald Reagan was president.

In fact, that leads us to the real lesson of Campaign 2000.

The Clinton administration did not succeed in repudiating the Reagan legacy. Instead, the Clinton administration ended up ratifying the Reagan Revolution.

When Bill Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is over," he wasn't stating his policy preference. Instead, he was bending to a political reality created by the Gipper. From that moment forward, both Republicans and Democrats began to fight over their policy differences within the political framework created by America's voters and articulated by President Reagan.

In a sense, Clinton played the same role that Dwight Eisenhower played in ratifying the New Deal. When Ike took office in 1952, he was the first GOP president in 20 years. Rather than trying to undo the New Deal, he accepted it along with the underlying premise of a more active federal government. Once that premise was off the table politically, the next presidential election was a squeaker with John Kennedy edging Richard Nixon by less than a single percentage point in the popular vote.

When Bill Clinton became president, Democrats had won that office only once in the previous 28 years. He initially tried to challenge the Reagan premise that voters were tired of an ever-expanding federal government. Voters then gave the GOP control of Congress and Clinton accepted the new limitations on government. As a result, the next presidential election was a squeaker because both Republicans and Democrats have now accepted the underlying premise of the Reagan Revolution as political reality.

The bottom line is that the public is demanding improved performance from government at a lower and less intrusive cost. They're used to getting more for less in the private sector and now want the same from the political sector of society.

Where will this lead us? That's unknown, just as the election of 1960 could never have foreshadowed the '60s. However, we do know that there is a lot of common ground among voters. Even on issues as politically sensitive as Social Security, the voters are coming close to speaking with one voice. Just about everyone agrees that current retirees and those about to retire should be fully protected under any reform plan. At the same time, a solid majority agrees with the premise that workers should be given more control of their own retirement plans. Again, we don't know how this will work out politically, but we do know that there is common ground to build upon.

So, the challenge for our new president will be to build political unity out of the common ground that exists among the public. If he succeeds, he and his party will also succeed. If he fails, it may be a long time before Republicans gain control of both the White House and the Congress again.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 13, 2000

Answers

Bush is definately the man for the job.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 13, 2000.

So, the challenge for our new president will be to build political unity out of the common ground that exists among the public. If he succeeds, he and his party will also succeed. If he fails, it may be a long time before Republicans gain control of both the White House and the Congress again.

IMO. the challenge for Bush will be to not get compromised more than necessary. True, he has no majority mandate but he is the President and should make every effort to be a strong leader and advocate for Conservative government.

If he becomes a well-respected leader, the memory of this election will recede.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 13, 2000.


Ok, I've lost much of the 1980's in a fog. But...didn't Ronald Reagan leave this country with a HUGE public debt? Didn't he leave office having quadrupled the debt? Did he EVER offer a balanced budget to Congress? Didn't Reagan spend his ass off while in office?

Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Or so I remember it. I'm open to correction on this one. And no, I did not vote for Walter Mondale in 1984.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 13, 2000.


Rich:

As I recall it, Yes, No, No, No. But this is a question of accountability as well. You could probably make the strongest case that Reagan didn't do enough to curtail the wild spending that was being done by a Democratic legislature. In hindsight, perhaps as a result of Reagan's tax cuts, the economy boomed and tax revenues rose as a result. Reagan and Congress were both glad to spend it, but more significant both were glad to *project* far more than ever came in, and spend *that* as well.

But I don't think Rasmussen is speaking about overspending. He's addressing the philosophy that Big Government MAY NOT be the answer to all questions, all problems. Maybe government exists to protect an environment in which we can all succeed or fail on our own merits, rather than trying to do everything for us. Maybe government should try to ensure we all get to the starting line, rather than trying to ensure that we all pass the finish line together.

The Reagan Revolution was one of confidence in the people, that they can do it themselves. If that revolution dies, we return to an era of NO confidence in the people, so government better do it for us. And that would be a shame. But we should still live within our means.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 13, 2000.


Rich,

Yes. Tripled (then Bush extended it to quadrupled-and-a-half for the two of them). Don't know. Spent his _memory_ off.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), December 13, 2000.



Rich,

That was Bush the Father, not Bush a Son, to whom I referred. Gotta get used to that distinction.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), December 13, 2000.


Ah, projections. The best friend of every politician. The land of 'make believe'. One trick of 'creative accounting'.

Personal practice is to leave out bonuses, tax refunds & vacation pay from my monthly household budget. I place those items in a separate category called 'found money'. This forces me to allocate my resources more responsibly while at the same time allows for a little wiggle room -- the occasional whimsical expenditure.

I agree with your summary of the article, Flint.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), December 13, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ