Propelled Toward Change : The Questions Left Unanswered

If you can believe the polls, there may not be much suspense when the presidential votes are counted Tuesday night. More than 100 national polls have been taken since the Democratic National Convention in July. Bill Clinton has been in the lead in every one. In fact, since Ross Perot got back in the race, the order of finish has always been the same: Clinton first, George Bush second, Perot third.

That may be the reason why some polls showed the margin between Clinton and Bush getting uncomfortably close last week. Press coverage follows the polls. The press has been full of stories about “President Clinton”--what he’s going to do in the first 100 days, who is going to be in his Cabinet, what Hillary is going to wear to the inaugural ball.

The voters heard all this and said, “Wait just a minute here. What do we really know about this guy? Can we trust him?” Before making their fateful decision, the voters stopped to take a deep breath. They inhaled, so to speak.

If the polls suddenly showed Bush surging into the lead, the same thing would happen. Voters would say, “Wait just a minute here. Do we want four more years of Bush?” A lot of voters would Quayle at that prospect, so to speak.

Meanwhile, Perot has been going around saying, “Don’t waste your vote.” It’s not clear, however, whether that’s an argument for Perot or against him.

The presidential race is the big story Tuesday night, but it’s not the only story. A lot of other questions are going to be answered besides who’s going to be the next President. Like these:

Are women a new force in American politics? The gender gap has been around since 1980. Women have been voting more Democratic than men--but not by big enough margins to defeat Ronald Reagan or Bush. This year, a new factor seems to be added to the mix. Call it gender consciousness.

The gender gap is simply a difference between men and women. Women have tended to vote more Democratic for many reasons--they are less aggressive about using force, less secure economically and more critical of Reagan’s harsh economic doctrines.

What’s new is that women are now conscious of their distinctive needs and interests. The same thing may be happening to women that happened to blacks in the 1950s. Before the civil-rights movement, blacks tended to vote Democratic because so many were poor. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus, black political consciousness was raised. More blacks voted as blacks.

For women, the transforming event came last year, when Anita F. Hill testified against Clarence Thomas before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This year, a lot of women may be voting as women for the first time--not just differently, but consciously. We’ll see Tuesday night whether women voters rally to women candidates, or to male candidates who seem responsive to their interests.

Is the Religious Right a growing or declining force in U.S. politics? Religious fundamentalists have gained significant strength in the GOP, to the point where they had virtually a free hand in writing the platform this year. They succeed because they are well organized and highly motivated. And because other voters don’t care enough to attend party caucuses and vote in primaries.

We’ll see Tuesday night how well religious conservatives do when voter turnout reaches a peak. And how their causes, like the anti-gay rights referendum in Oregon, fare. A lot of people are expecting a backlash against the GOP among educated suburban voters and young people.

And, quite possibly, a huge turnout of gay voters in big cities. The gay-rights issue is more sharply defined than ever before in U.S. politics, and gay leaders want to demonstrate their political clout.

We’ll also see which way the abortion issue cuts. In past presidential elections, most voters described themselves as pro-choice. But only a minority said abortion was the deciding issue. Most of that minority were on the anti-abortion side.

Pro-choice leaders have to demonstrate that abortion is now a deciding issue for pro-choice voters. That’s the only way they will convince politicians it’s dangerous to oppose abortion rights.

The Supreme Court did the abortion- rights movement no favor last June when it voted, 5 to 4, to reaffirm Roe vs. Wade. The effect was to diminish the sense of threat to abortion rights. We’ll see Tuesday night whether voters are convinced that abortion rights are, as Clinton put it, “hanging by a thread.”

Is the Perot vote a passing protest, or does it signify a basic realignment of U.S. politics? A historian once said, “Third parties are like bees. They sting and then they die.” But the aftereffects can be long-lasting.

George C. Wallace, who got 13.5% of the vote in 1968, did not remain a major player in U.S. politics. But he led a lot of conservative Democrats out of the Democratic Party. Richard M. Nixon quickly folded them into the GOP.

John Anderson, who got 6.6% of the vote in 1980, did not remain a major player, either. But he led a lot of liberal Republicans out of the GOP. Though Anderson himself has remained an independent, most of his supporters now vote Democratic. Anderson himself endorsed Clinton last week.

Perot’s supporters tend to be Bush voters who are furious at Bush. Perot is leading them out of the GOP. But where is he leading them? If Perot does exceptionally well on Tuesday--say, 20% or better--then the Perot movement could remain a force in U.S. politics.

The deficit is Perot’s big issue, and the size of his vote will tell us how serious the voters are on this. A big Perot vote will signal the next President that he’d better do something about the deficit if he wants to fold Perot voters into his coalition.

Is the revolt against incumbents for real? Term-limit initiatives are likely to pass in almost every state they are on the ballot. But that’s an easy test, like saying, “Stop us before we reelect again.” The hard test is whether the voters reelect again.

If the reelection rate for congressional incumbents remains at more than 90%, then it will be pretty clear the revolt was not serious. But if incumbents start dropping like flies, the message will be heard.

We’ll also find out if the voters are serious about ending gridlock in Washington. If they are, straight-ticket voting will go up. More people will vote the same party for President and Congress.

Is the Reagan coalition dead? Look at the vote in the suburbs and the Sun Belt, the cornerstones of the house that Reagan built. The Clinton-Gore ticket may well crack the South, with the more populist Southern states going Democratic (Georgia, North Carolina) and the more conservative Southern states staying with the GOP (Virginia, South Carolina).

The same thing could happen in the West, with Bush carrying the mountain states and Clinton sweeping the Pacific coast. Cracks like that mean that the foundations of Reaganism are rotting.

So would significant Democratic gains in the suburbs. Suburban voters feel betrayed by Bush. What they want from government is prosperity and low taxes. They voted for Bush in 1988 because he promised to give them that. Then he failed to deliver.

On the other hand, Bush has never stopped hammering away at Clinton on the tax issue. “I raised taxes once and said it was a mistake,” Bush tells audiences. “Clinton raised taxes 128 times, and he says he’ll do it again.” If Bush sweeps the suburbs Tuesday, the message is clear: The tax revolt, which signified the birth of the Reagan Revolution, is alive and well. No matter how unhappy suburban voters are with Bush, they still don’t trust the Democrats on taxes.

And a final question to be answered Tuesday night: Can you believe the polls? Pollsters protect themselves by asking people what they would do “if the election were held today.” The correct answer is, “If the election were held today, a lot of people would be very surprised.”

The point is, the election wasn’t held today, and the voters knew that. On Tuesday, we’ll see what difference it makes when the election is held today.