Bush, Gore Share Some Ideological Space, but Their Orbits Are Distinct

At times during their high-octane campaign swings last week, Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush sounded as if they had swapped speech writers. The Texas Republican read from the Democratic hymnal when he insisted: “The purpose of prosperity is to make sure that people aren’t left out.” And the vice president practically recited one of Bush’s signature lines when he declared that America must be measured “not merely [by] the value of our possessions but the values we possess.” The only thing missing was the drawl.

There were enough echoing chords to lead one reporter trailing the veep to lament, “I guess it really doesn’t matter which campaign I cover; it looks like they are going to be the same.”

Not so fast. Bush and Gore think alike in some important ways, and those similarities point to hopeful trends in American politics. But the real story of their dueling appearances was how great a distance still separates a “new Democrat” like Gore from a “compassionate conservative” like Bush--and how eager both are to explore that gulf. Forget the exhausting eight-month general election campaign between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in 1996; Bush and Gore are embarking on what could be a nearly 18-month competition that will excavate every difference between them. And there are plenty.

First the similarities. In his own way, each man embodies the ideological chastening of his party. The Clinton-Gore new Democrat appeal is an explicit response to the voter rejection of traditional liberalism after the 1960s. Bush’s compassionate conservatism is an accommodation to the voter recoil from “revolutionary” Republican conservatism after 1994. Since each of these hybrid appeals borrows themes usually associated with the other party, it’s no surprise the two candidates end up in the same place on some issues.

In foreign policy, both are free-trading internationalists. On domestic issues, their overlap is concentrated in two broad areas.

One is on the importance of infusing public policy with such traditional values as rewarding work and demanding personal responsibility. Following Clinton’s breakthrough formulation from 1992, both Bush and Gore believe that social policy should be built on establishing a link between opportunity and responsibility. That leads them to espouse demanding work from welfare recipients and requiring students to pass tests for promotion from grade to grade--and at the same time providing extra help for those who don’t. Both want to boost families “who work hard and play by the rules”--Gore by raising the minimum wage, Bush by targeting them for tax breaks.

In their second big area of convergence, both are open to new ways for government to pursue its goals. Each has been influenced by the neo-progressive reform ideas gaining strength in both parties. Both want to personalize the delivery of aid to the needy by shifting more control to religiously based charities and other local groups. And they share an interest in challenging public bureaucracies by exposing them to greater competition--the way charter schools are meant to spur improvement in other public schools.

But Bush would take that competition idea much further than Gore, embracing ideas anathema to Democrats, such as vouchers for private schools. That contrast points toward a division could headline a Bush-Gore election: Even if the distance between them is narrowing about how the government should pursue its goals, they still diverge about what goals the government should pursue, especially at the federal level.

For all his interest in “reinventing” government, Gore still envisions an activist Washington that looks to do more things (albeit sometimes in new ways). His announcement speech last week proposed federal initiatives to reduce class sizes in all grades through high school, provide universal preschool, hire more police, control suburban sprawl and (although he did not say how) extend health insurance to some of the 43 million Americans now without it. That may not add up to the Great Society, but it’s a much bolder agenda for federal action than Clinton dared to run on in 1996.

On all of these questions, Bush’s instincts point in the opposite direction. “Government should do a few things and do them well,” he insisted last week. Asked at one campaign stop what his top two priorities would be as president, he quickly answered: cutting marginal tax rates and increasing defense spending. In every speech, he promised to “reduce the regulations that strangle enterprise,” to shift more control of education programs to the states and to partially privatize Social Security by diverting a portion of the payroll tax into individual investment accounts. Not much creeping moderation there.

On social and cultural issues, the two men again approach and then separate. Gore backs the death penalty; Bush’s moderation is evident in his refusal to enlist in conservative crusades on racially tinged issues such as eliminating affirmative action and banning bilingual education. But big differences remain.

Bush has been sending conciliatory signals on abortion (promising not to pursue an amendment to ban it, though he would personally support one); but he has said he would sign a bill to ban late-term abortions. Gore would veto it. Gore recently cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate for the Democratic bill to impose background checks for sales at gun shows; Bush opposed the bill. Bush signed a law allowing Texans to carry concealed weapons; Gore denounces such laws in almost every speech. Gore opposes a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning; Bush took the pledge for it last week.

Overall, Bush and Gore converge in ways that offer the prospect of at least some bipartisan progress in Washington if either is elected. But they diverge in a manner that points toward very different directions for the country. Neither is an ideologue; both accept compromise to advance their goals. But they come at the center from different sides--and they stop well short of it, safely on their own half of the field. It’s too early to guess who would win a general election between them--but not too early to predict that it would offer Americans a choice, not an echo.

Ronald Brownstein’s column appears in this space every Monday.

See current and past Brownstein columns on The Times’ Web site at: https://www.latimes.com/brownstein