A Morality Play : The Quest for Moral Authority Starts Now

Elections are about what the voters want. It’s always something they’re not getting from the incumbent. In 1960, after eight years of Dwight D. Eisenhower, it was youth: John F. “Get-the-country-moving-again” Kennedy. In 1968, after Lyndon B. Johnson, people longed for order: Richard M. “Bring-us-together” Nixon. In 1976, after Watergate, Americans wanted morality: Jimmy “I-will-never-lie-to-you” Carter. In 1980, after Carter, they craved leadership: Ronald “I-paid-for-this-microphone” Reagan. In 1992, after George Bush, people were looking for empathy: Bill “I-feel-your-pain” Clinton.

What are Americans looking for after Clinton? They’ve got peace. They’ve got prosperity. They’ve got a declining crime rate. It’s clear they’re looking for something different. Otherwise, why is Vice President Al Gore lagging in the polls?

The answer may be moral authority. The country is feeling a sense of moral drift amid prosperity. It’s not just because of l’affaire Lewinsky. It’s also because of Littleton, Colo., and Atlanta and Granada Hills. Americans are asking, “What’s happening to us as a people? Where are our children getting their values? Who has moral authority?” Uh-oh. Sounds like bad news for Texas Gov. George W. “When-I-was-young-and-irresponsible, I-was young-and-irresponsible” Bush.

The shootings have already put the gun issue on the agenda. The shape of that debate is familiar. Democrats demand stronger gun controls. Republicans resist. Nothing much happens at the federal level.

Which is why local authorities have decided to act on their own. A gun buy-back program in Washington last week netted 1,164 guns in one day (at $100 a gun). The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows from county-owned property.

Democrats believe the issue will pay off for them next year. But there’s a bigger issue here. Americans are feeling a new kind of vulnerability. It’s not the old, familiar kind of vulnerability, like fear of the bomb during the Cold War or fear of inflation eroding the American dream.

People feel vulnerable for the physical safety of themselves and their children. It’s not fear of crime, exactly. Crime usually has a motive. Today’s violence is unnerving because it seems random. Children get attacked at a day-care center, a presumably safe place. Workers get attacked at an office building.

Just like four years ago, when citizens going about their daily business at a federal building in Oklahoma City were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There are ways to protect yourself from crime. But how do you protect yourself from random violence?

People see a link between these physical attacks and the deterioration of American culture. The senseless violence people see on the news mirrors a culture dominated by sensation and violence. Institutions that were once pillars of values in society--families, schools, churches, communities--have lost authority. What has replaced them? The answer is the one parents fear most: Kids are getting their values from the media, from the Internet and from each other. In other words, from sources that are value-neutral.

Do people want more regulation and censorship? No. They want leaders with moral authority, alternatives to celebrities and sports figures who degrade the culture.

Is it possible that Americans still look to politicians for moral authority? Almost 60% of the public approve of the way Clinton is handling his job. He addresses the issue of senseless violence with concern and sympathy.

But moral authority? Not this president.

Conservatives believe they have the answer. They say the problem isn’t gun control. It’s culture control. The right wants to declare a culture war: denounce permissiveness, drugs and sex and violence in the media. Attack the liberal establishment for abandoning traditional values. According to polls, voters say Republicans better represent the values of personal responsibility, ethics, faith in God and knowing right from wrong.

But Americans seem to be tired of left-right confrontations. This isn’t supposed to be “us” versus “them.” We’re all in this together.

Democrats have another answer. It goes like this: You’ve got a problem, we’ve got a program. You say parents are worried about not spending enough time with their families? They’re anxious over where children are getting their values? Gore calls it the “quality of life” issue. He has a program to deal with it, replete with provisions to deal with family leave time, suburban sprawl and traffic congestion.

Is that what’s shaping up for 2000, a debate between the culture warriors on the right and the policy wonks on the left? Not if the American people have anything to do with it. What Americans are looking for isn’t culture wars or government programs. They’re looking for moral reassurance. Is there a leader out there who can inspire that quality?

Those who are running are beginning to figure out what voters want. They’re starting to talk about moral leadership. Elizabeth H. Dole says the country has neglected values like honesty, civility, integrity and personal responsibility for too long. Bill Bradley talks about restoring America’s basic sense of goodness.

Are there any inspiring figures in the race? Could be Sen. John S. McCain. His is the inspiring personal story of a heroic prisoner of war. He’s shown moral courage in his leadership on issues like campaign-finance reform, tobacco regulation and the war in Kosovo.

What about Bush? He tries, with his talk about “compassionate conservatism.” As for his past, well, he’s packaging himself as a hell raiser saved by prayer. For many, that’s an inspiring image.

In fact, the character issue helped make Bush the GOP front-runner. For many voters, the brand name “Bush” connotes moral authority. Consider the fact that, in June, the Gallup Poll asked Americans whether they approve of the way former President George Bush handled his job as president. More than 70% said they approve. What can that mean? Probably that people associate the name “Bush” with character and integrity in the White House. Something they don’t feel they’re getting from the incumbent.

Has the controversy over Bush’s refusal to answer questions about his “youthful indiscretions” damaged that image? Not so you’d notice. Bush has skillfully portrayed the issue as himself versus the press. After all, no one has come up with a scrap of evidence that he ever used drugs. When a public figure stages a showdown with the press, guess which one the public sympathizes with? Clinton will tell you.

If Bush were to admit to past cocaine use, it would open up a whole new debate. He would have committed a serious felony. If he continued to argue that “how I behaved as a young man is irrelevant to this campaign,” what kind of message would that send to young people? That they, too, can get a free pass?

Back in the ‘60s, the Texas Air National Guard publicized young Bush as a guy who “got high on flying,” unlike many of his peers. As governor, Bush signed a law allowing judges to send first-time offenders to jail. According to Texas authorities, about 10% of the state’s prison population were convicted on cocaine-related charges. Moreover, African Americans have complained of a double standard: Courts have treated cocaine use by the white middle class as a less serious offense than crack use by minorities.

The word “hypocrite” comes to mind, but no one can say it out loud as long as the candidate admits nothing and no evidence can be found. Still, his equivocations sound familiar. “Bush is supposed to sell himself as a candidate who’s ‘not like Clinton,’ ” GOP values czar Bill Bennett complained. “The nation needs a candid leader. No baloney.”

Questions are already being raised about Bush’s gravitas: the “frat-boy” image. The drug controversy makes the problem worse, especially because the American public doesn’t know much about him. If Bush says, “Judge me on what I am today,” most voters don’t know what he is today. He has to reintroduce himself.

Just like Clinton did in 1992, after questions emerged about his past. In the end, voters were willing to set those questions aside. They had bigger concerns that year than character.

Bad news for Bush. The issue of moral leadership is likely to be central next year. Character questions will probably matter more for Bush than they did for Clinton, in part because of Clinton’s record. Whoever said politics was fair?*