A Strange Campaign Is Born

It’s Nov. 7, 1999, exactly a year before the next presidential election. Do you know where your country is?

The United States has changed a lot during the Clinton years. For one thing, the ideological war seems to be over. The country has gone through a Thirty Years’ War between liberals and conservatives, fought on two fronts. One was the culture war, initiated by the left, that came out of the Great American Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. The other was the war on government, initiated by the right, that started with the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. Both came to a head during the Clinton years, with the health-care debacle, government shutdowns, the Oklahoma City bombing and, for a climax, the year-long struggle over impeachment.

Who won? It’s hard to say. Both sides claim defeat. After the failure of health-care reform and the catastrophic 1994 election, the left acknowledged defeat in the war on government. “The era of big government is over,” President Bill Clinton proclaimed, as he pulled Democrats to the center on economic issues. Defeated and demoralized liberals stood by Clinton, even after he scorned their cherished ideals by signing welfare reform.

After the failure of impeachment, the right acknowledged defeat in the culture wars. They saw the public’s willingness to stick with Clinton as proof that the 1960s have corrupted American culture with an ethic of self-indulgence. Now, under the banner of “compassionate conservatism,” George W. Bush is pulling Republicans to the center on social issues. Defeated and demoralized conservatives seem ready to follow him.

In reality, both wars were fought to a stand-off. The voters are firmly in the middle. They don’t want any big expansion of the federal government, like Clinton’s health-care reform. But they don’t want to cut back things the government does well, like Medicare, Medicaid, education and environmental protection. They favor traditional values, but they are tolerant of diversity and nonconformity. It has taken the parties 30 years to figure this out.

Going into the new century, Americans are both war-weary and satisfied with the way things are going in the country. They’re not looking for a big change of direction. The evidence: Clinton’s continued high job-approval rating, and the prevailing view that the country is on the right track. But they are looking for a change of leadership. The evidence: Bush has been leading Al Gore all year.

There’s something strange about the 2000 presidential campaign. Actually, several things. Start with the fact that we’ve already lost five, count ‘em, five candidates before a single vote has been cast. (Can you name them? Hint: J.K., L.A., D.Q., B.S. and E.D.) Then there’s the fact that running for president seems to be the latest celebrity craze (W.B., C.S., The D.)

But what’s really odd is that there don’t seem to be any earth-shaking issues out there. Presidential campaigns are usually dominated by big issues, like inflation and the hostage crisis in 1980, taxes in 1988, the economy in 1992 and balancing the budget in 1996. But according to last month’s poll from the Pew Research Center, “No single issue currently dominates the public agenda.”

Supporters of different parties can’t even agree on what the top issue is. To Republicans, it’s the economy. To Democrats, it’s Social Security and Medicare. To independents, it’s education. Fewer than 20% of Americans cite any one of them as the top priority for the next president.

One reason, certainly, is that things are going well. The economy is booming, crime is down and no one threatens us. According to the Time Magazine-CNN poll, nearly 70% of Americans feel times are good. About the same number felt that way just before the 1984 and 1996 elections, when Americans voted overwhelmingly for continuity, and in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was succeeded by his vice president. (Take courage, Gore.) It’s nothing like 1980 and 1992, when that figure was down in the 30s and voters threw the rascals out.

If Americans are satisfied, and there are no big issues roiling the electorate, what are voters looking for in a president? The Gallup poll asked them.

At the top of the list: Someone who has vision for the future, who is a strong and decisive leader, who knows how to get things done in Washington and who has good moral character--all qualities considered “very important” by 80% or more. Strikingly, only about half the voters say it’s very important to have a president who agrees with them on the issues. What’s that about?

It’s about a change in the voters’ definition of leadership. Consider the fact that there’s something new this year called SelectSmart.com, which allows you to shop for candidates on the Internet. You answer questions about your issue positions, and the program comes up with the candidate who matches your answers best. Just like Christmas shopping. Only that’s not the way most voters are shopping for a president. They’re not looking for someone who agrees with them. They’re looking for someone who can get things done.

Reagan’s leadership was ideological. Clinton’s was political. The voters seem to have had enough of both. That’s Gore’s problem: He looks and sounds too much like a politician. In last month’s New Hampshire town hall forum, Gore described himself repeatedly as a “fighter”: “I would like to have your support because I want to fight for you as president and fight for all the people.”

What’s all this fighting about? The ideological wars are over, and voters are war-weary. What about education and health care? Voters see them as problems to be solved, not issues to be fought over. Enough of Clinton and the Republican Congress trying to position themselves for maximum political advantage. What voters want now is a problem-solver.

Someone with an innovative approach, who’s willing to try anything. Bill Bradley espoused that view at the New Hampshire forum, observing that “when FDR was president and we were in a Depression, he said, “ ‘I’m going to try this, I’m going to try that, I’m going to try something else and see what works.’ ” People want a leader who’s ideologically open and flexible--a plus for a GOP maverick like John McCain, who has challenged his own party’s leadership on campaign-finance reform, tobacco regulation and the war in Kosovo.

Most of all, people are looking for a leader who’s not driven by politics. Maybe that’s what they see in Bush, who acknowledged a few months ago that he wouldn’t be crushed if he doesn’t become president. He’d just go fishing. That sort of laid-back, take-it-or-leave-it attitude is rare in politicians. It’s certainly a far cry from Clinton.

A presidential candidate not driven by politics? What could that be? It could be a superannuated fraternity president like Bush. Or a nonconformist like McCain. Or a visionary like Bradley. Or maybe even a policy wonk like Gore, who’s doing everything he can to shake off the image of a professional politician, including dressing like a country-and-western singer.

What’s emerging in the United States today is an entrepreneurial political culture, driven by a constant need for innovation and marketing. It’s open, freewheeling, individualistic, nonideological and sometimes out of control. More or less a combination of Reaganite economics, Clintonian culture and Jesse Ventura politics.