POLITICS

How the Republicans are learning to win again with a little help from Al Gore

BRUCE ANDERSON

Bill Clinton loathes George W. Bush. At his Wednesday evening meetings with senior White House staff, he returns to the subject obsessively, like a man who cannot stop himself from probing a sore tooth with his tongue. But the detestation is an increasingly thin disguise for desperation. Mr Clinton is too good a politician not to see that his chosen successor is blowing it.

The President himself still enjoys remarkably high job approval ratings, which he owes to the economy and to the force of his own personality. As plausible a rogue as ever, he can still charm the skin off a snake. As former Republican chairman Haley Barbour puts it, he is the only man in histo- ry who has learnt how to cry out of one eye.

But Al Gore has none of these thespian skills. A worse man than Bill Clinton, in that his lies are told in cold blood, he commits a hideous mistake every time he appears in public. He projects himself as he is. Mr Clin- ton could sell a Chevy to a Ford dealer. Mr Gore would have difficulty selling umbrellas during a rainstorm. He labours under a unique combination of disabilities. There have been plenty of wooden politicians down the years and plenty of dishonest ones. But no one has ever been so woodenly dis- honest as Al Gore. His qualities have been summarised in a lapel badge which deserves this week's bad-taste prize. 'Nixon in 2000: he's still not as stiff as Al Gore.'

Bob Shrum is one of Mr Gore's closest advisers. Last Sunday, he was on television for 14 minutes and did not once mention Al Gore's name. He knows that the Vice- President is loaded down with more nega- tives than a chain gang has chains, and that it will be impossible to persuade the voters to like Al Gore. So the Democrats have only one hope: to make Americans fear and distrust Mr Bush more than they dislike Mr Gore. That is well-nigh impossible, hence Mr Clinton's increasing frustration. In one crucial respect, it will not be Al Gore who is the Clintonesque candidate of this election, but George W. Bush.

The Philadelphia convention has been the most improbable Republican Conven- tion of all time. A television channel-hop- per who dropped in on its proceedings might easily conclude that he was watching some bizarre modern dance troupe. Bizarre or not, it has been a carefully scripted per- formance and part of a formidable political strategy, which has produced the most suc- cessful Republic Convention since 1984, the year President Reagan won his second term in a landslide.

George W. Bush starts with two advan- tages, not counting Al Gore. The first is his own party: this year, his fellow Republicans really want to win. George Bush senior in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 were both undermined by conservative Republican activists, many of whom were only interest- ed in victory on their own terms. They ended up with defeat, on Bill Clinton's terms, and eight years of a President whom they despise has finally cured them of revo- lutionary defeatism.

They also know that this year, there is more than the presidency at stake. The Republicans have only a six-seat majority in the House of Representatives, while a num- ber of their senators are also vulnerable. If Al Gore becomes President, he will carry the House and possibly the Senate as well. The latter would be especially useful to President Gore, because there could well be some early vacancies on the Supreme Court Bench. A Democrat-controlled Senate would do noth- ing to prevent Mr Gore nominating youthful left-liberal judicial activists who would poi- son American public life for decades to come. So this year, all but the most bone- headed of Republicans have realised that they simply cannot afford to lose.

Nor need they, for despite the strength of the economy, they should have the assis- tance of the public mood, Mr Bush's sec- ond asset. For months, and despite the poll data, some academic analysts have been insisting that it will be impossible for the Democrats to lose this year, because of the voters' gratitude for economic success. But there is one basic flaw in that argument. Though many voters feel complacent about the economy, there is little evidence of gratitude, at least towards Washington. Most of those who are likely to vote seem to agree with the Republicans that it is not the politicians who have created prosperity, it is the American people. Electorates who feel comfortable about their economic prospects can concentrate on lesser priori- ties. In the USA, this takes an interesting form (Tony Blair should beware lest it prove infectious). After eight years of Bill Clinton, there is a desire for a less political breed of politician.

That is why John McCain aroused so much public interest with his 'straight-talk express', and that is why Mr Gore is in such trouble. All the focus groups say the same: that he is insincere, that he only tells the voters what they want to hear, that his whole being is in thrall to political calcula- tion.

This also explains why George W. has held such an unpolitical Convention. Mr Bush may not have a great intellect, but he has compensating advantages. A warm, generous human being without a mean- spirited molecule in his body, comfortable with other people and at ease with himself, he is an increasingly effective campaigner. I had not seen him in action since early February amid the snows of New Hamp- shire. In the intervening months, he has grown in confidence and in stature. He is also a first-rate tactician, who is following the examples of the two most accomplished recent American masters: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Like President Reagan, Governor Bush knows how to be an unthreatening conser- vative. Mr Bush always keeps his own right- wing supporters happy by endorsing their positions, but he then promptly embraces their adversaries. His motto appears to be: 'Hate the sin but love the sinner.'

Like Bill Clinton, Mr Bush understands the importance of the centre-ground. Hence the main themes of this Convention: inclusivity and hope. The only policy area to find its way to the podium is education, and that is no coincidence. It was the issue that did Bob Dole most damage in 1996.

Like all the finest tacticians, Mr Bush tries to force his opponents to fight on the ground which he has chosen for them: in this case, negativity. There has been hardly any negative campaigning in Philadelphia this week, and this was deliberate. Mr Bush and his advisers will leave that to Mr Gore, for they believe that he will have to take the negative road. They also believe that they can hold him Off, especially as the Ameri- can people are not at all in a negative mood. A politician beset by his own nega- tives who runs a failed negative campaign will end up in an even worse mess, yet that is the risk which Al Gore will have to run.

The conventional wisdom has it that this will be a dirty campaign, which is true, and that the outcome will be close. That may not be true. There is no reason why George W. Bush should not beat Al Gore by at least 10 per cent.