POLITICS
Al Gore fought a good campaign but George Bush deserved to win
BRUCE ANDERSON
If you spend $3 billion on electioneering, you are entitled to some entertainment but what a performance. It was the Presi- dential race in which all the clichés came true. 'Too close to call'; 'Down to the wire'. It was far more exciting than that. No thanks to the BBC. Those of us who kept sleep at bay and sat up to the end wanted one thing from the coverage: fig- ures. Those, the BBC was determined not to provide. Hours before the BBC saw fit to pass it on, vital information was available on the Internet. Instead, we had endless silly stunts from Peter Snow, plus interviews of astounding banality and irrelevance. David Dimbleby and Tony King were not to blame. When the producers allowed them to, they made useful points. On Flor- ida, Professor King reminded us of the importance of military absentee ballots i.e. postal votes — which will ensure that the Republicans carry Florida, despite Wednesday morning's alarms. But the BBC is a channel which has not only forgotten how to produce serious current affairs; it has lost interest in doing so. There ought to be a court of inquiry; that election pro- gramme alone would justify the abolition of the licence fee.
Another inquiry was beginning as Ameri- ca woke up on Wednesday. Al Gore will become the most derided man in the Democratic party. It should have been the economy, stupid, his colleagues will say, but he was too dumb to exploit it. Instead he talked about 'fighting for working families' — American for trade unionists — as if he had been a New Dealer campaigning against the Great Depression. Apart from claiming to invent it, he seemed to have no contact with the world of the Internet. You cannot win a majority by appealing only to minorities, his fellow Democrats will now argue. They will declare that this is why they have lost the Presidency to an under- whelming opponent; failed to capture the House or the Senate; and are about to lose the Supreme Court, probably for a genera- tion.
That assault on Al Gore will become the conventional wisdom, but it may not be true. In the first place, Mr Gore's coalition of minorities almost brought him victory. Thanks to the blacks and the unions, he did extremely well in Michigan, Illinois, Penn- sylvania and New Jersey. As for the eco- nomic issues, his ability to exploit them was circumscribed by the common sense of enough American voters. They knew how much credit to give to President Clinton let alone to Vice-President Gore — for the nation's prosperity: zilch.
Mr Gore lost because he was an unattractive character. Even more dishon- est than Bill Clinton, he has none of the President's redeeming vices. But he did fight a campaign which played to his own strengths, and he nearly pulled it off.
The Republicans could have won more easily with a stronger candidate, which does not mean that Mr Bush will be a bad Presi- dent. Earlier this year, his weaknesses became apparent: a lack of intellectual curiosity, especially in foreign affairs, and a determination to perpetuate his father's war with the English language. George Dubya shares George Senior's appetite for polysyllables, and his inability to get them right. During the New Hampshire primary, there was a classic, when he talked about `obsfucation'. At moments, I feared that this could become his campaign's obituary: `you obsfucated that up, Governor'. In the event, he narrowly avoided doing so.
But these obvious faults are also superfi- cial ones: to some extent, indeed, they have already been corrected. When it comes to linguistic defects, George W. lacks his father's stiffness. Though he will continue to make mistakes, he is also good at laugh- ing at himself. It is easy to imagine his fel- low Americans learning to laugh too, with affection rather than scorn.
As for foreign affairs, the new President has not only surrounded himself with experts; most of them have come to respect his judgment. In private at least, he is not embarrassed to admit his ignorance, and I am reliably informed that he is a quick study. Again contrary to the conventional wisdom, any problems with foreign policy might not arise from President Bush, but from his most prominent adviser.
General Colin Powell is probably the most respected living American, and he is a man of obvious qualities. But they may not include flexible thinking about international affairs. As one would expect, Gen. Powell will run a tight ship; there will be none of the conflict between the State Department and the National Security Council which hampered earlier administrations. But it might be too tight a ship. There are power- ful, experienced and original minds in the Bush foreign-policy entourage: Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, who established their reputations in the Reagan era; Peter Rodman, who is still youthful but dates from early Kissinger; and several others. There is also at least one new star, Con- doleezza Rice, a young politician of unlimit- ed promise. Sooner or later, the Americans will elect their first black president and their first female president; with Condy Rice, they could do both at once. She is expected to head the NSC, which may not be an ade- quate outlet for her talents. Professor Rice would make an excellent Secretary of Defense, for she would be eloquent in reminding everyone that the USA's armed forces were not called into being to act as a laboratory of political correctness.
But will Gen. Powell achieve a creative relationship with all these characters? The answer to that question will have a crucial influence on the success of the Bush presi- dency in foreign affairs, and if that answer is to be favourable, the General will have to prove that he too can grow in office.
On the economy, there are fewer grounds for anxiety. America has enjoyed the most sustained period of economic well-being in human history, and there are two explan- ations for this: the creative energies of its people and the success of Reaganomics. A deregulated labour market and the right monetary policies meant that the USA was able to grow out of the deficit. The same combination will enable it to deal with the easier problem of the surplus.
With the help of Hillary Clinton, George Dubya could well be a two-term President, thus succeeding where his father failed and emulating Ronald Reagan. There are other aspects in which he resembles that great President. Mr Reagan too had a mind uncluttered by morasses of information and could appear intellectually lazy. But he never lost sight of the big picture.
I once suggested to Margaret Thatcher that there was an irony in her relationship with Mr Reagan. After all, she would not have employed him in her government even in a junior role; he would simply not have been good enough at mastering detail. 'Ron may not understand detail,' came the reply; `he does understand the principles necessary for the restoration of American greatness.'
George W. Bush now has to prove that he can maintain that greatness. There is no reason why he should fail.
Previous page
