Miles Apart, but Both Play to the Center

Drawing bright lines in moderate tones, Al Gore and George W. Bush set the stage Tuesday night for a final act in the presidential campaign dominated by a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in society.

Though the two men arrived onstage in identical dark suits, white shirts and red ties, they displayed sharply contrasting ideological visions in their high-stakes first debate.

The encounter lacked a single defining moment or even a memorable confrontation until the end, when Bush criticized the ethical record of Gore and President Clinton. And though Gore appeared somewhat more confident and steady, neither man made a major gaffe.

Bush stumbled a bit on some questions--surprisingly seeming somewhat unsteady while presenting his critique of the administration’s military policy--but overall the Texan is likely to benefit from remaining cool in the face of Gore’s unrelenting critique.

More striking than the personal differences during the encounter were the issue contrasts. In a campaign that some once feared would offer an echo, not a choice, the two men clashed over domestic and foreign issues ranging from tax cuts to Social Security and the use of American forces abroad. And neither hesitated to bundle together their differences into broader philosophical choices for the electorate.

Over and over again, Bush aggressively insisted that his agenda would shift power from Washington to states and individuals. “My vision is to empower Americans to make decisions for themselves in their own lives,” Bush declared.

And Gore, while promising fiscal responsibility, relentlessly denounced Bush’s proposed tax cut plan--insisting that the money would be better spent on public programs such as education, health care and prescription drugs for the elderly. As he has throughout the fall, Gore sought to make the election primarily a referendum about how to allocate the massive surpluses Washington is expected to accumulate over the next decade.

“The key question . . . is, will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all our people and doesn’t go just to the few,” Gore said. “I think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors.”

Bush’s attack--and Gore’s defense--could make the campaign’s final sprint a test of one of the core calculations on which Gore has based an agenda. Gore is betting that the public will support considerably more government spending if it is presented within the framework of a balanced budget.

Bush advisors--looking at polls that show most Americans broadly prefer smaller than larger government--believe that, even in an age of budget surpluses, they can drive swing voters from Gore by painting him as the candidate of big government.

While both men seemed equally eager to draw clear ideological lines concerning issues such as tax cuts and Social Security, both also displayed a parallel instinct to court swing voters with centrist notes.

Anticipating Bush’s efforts to portray his agenda as a return to big government, Gore from his first answer emphasized his commitment to maintaining a balanced federal budget and paying down the national debt. He repeatedly highlighted other “new Democrat” priorities: promising to continue welfare reform, criticizing Hollywood and “cultural pollution,” reminding viewers that he supported the Persian Gulf War and noting that he had proposed a larger increase in defense spending over the next decade than did Bush. And he managed to note that he served in Vietnam.

Similarly, Bush balanced his criticism of overreaching government with repeated promises to work across party lines in Washington. At another point, he declared that he would try to help the nation reach common ground in the divisive debate about abortion rights.

With these ideological straddles, the debate highlighted both men’s desires to move their parties toward the center--and the distance that remains in their definition of where that center lies.

It also highlighted the continuing Republican belief that Gore is vulnerable on his ethics. At the debate’s end, Bush raised a series of administration scandals and suggested that Gore “must be responsible for decisions” he has made. As he did when Bill Bradley raised similar issues during the Democratic primary debates, Gore emphasized his support for campaign finance reform and insisted that voters want candidates to “focus on the problems and not attack each other.”

With polls showing that most voters consider Gore more experienced and holding a stronger grasp of the issues, Bush’s preeminent task Tuesday was similar to that faced by Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Ronald Reagan in 1980: convincing Americans that he has the knowledge and experience to fill the nation’s highest office.

For the most part, Bush seemed to pass that test. He seemed rattled once, when Gore insisted that the Texan’s plan to provide prescription drugs to the elderly would not help a retired couple making $25,000 a year; Bush, incorrectly, argued that the couple would be eligible for immediate help under his plan. But according to the fact sheet that accompanied the announcement of the plan last month, it would provide aid in its initial stages only to senior citizens earning less than $19,700 per year.

Yet, more often, Bush was confident and forceful in pressing his case for a major tax cut and fundamental reforms of Social Security and Medicare--both of which he said would increase choices for individuals.

More often than not, presidential debates have reconfirmed rather than reconfigured the public’s view of the contenders. But on occasion, they have played a major role.

Over the last 40 years, the candidates who have most benefited from the debates have tended to be challengers, especially those without extensive national experience, who have been able to use an appearance on the same stage to close the “stature gap” with more experienced opponents.

In precisely that way, the presidential debates contributed to the victories of John F. Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. In each of those years, voters appeared to be inclined toward change but needed to be reassured that the less-experienced candidate was ready for the Oval Office.

The debates have played a less critical role in years when voters were largely satisfied with the country’s direction and in little mood for change.

The conditions surrounding this year’s debates intriguingly blend that history. On the one hand, polls show substantial satisfaction with the country’s direction--a force that has boosted Gore and could ultimately mute the effect of these encounters. On the other hand, that current hasn’t allowed Gore to pull away from Bush, which suggests that many voters haven’t closed the door on change despite the country’s good times.

Still, Bush faced a second challenge that didn’t confront Carter, who ran in the wake of Watergate, or Reagan, who ran amid an economic downturn at home and embarrassment abroad: making a case for change. At one point, Gore almost dared Bush to suggest that the country wasn’t better off than it was eight years ago. Finding a compelling reason for change, at a time of prosperity, still looms as the largest challenge for Bush after this first encounter.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What They Liked, What They Didn’t

A Sampling of Viewpoints From Informed Voters

*

THE CANDIDATE

John B. Anderson

Independent presidential candidate in 1980. Endorsed Ralph Nader.

ABOUT BUSH: “This forum was not made for George W. Bush. He is the master of the infelicitous phrase, and it does show, particularly over the stretch of 90 minutes.”

ABOUT GORE: “He endangers his position in the sense that he almost gives people an overload of information, and that makes him seem a little more like the slick salesman than I think he really wants to be.”

ADVANTAGE . . . : Gore

*

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST

Joseph T. Edmiston

Executive director of Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Democrat

ABOUT BUSH: “He was more folksy... I’m not putting him down for that. You saw somebody who’d be comfortable kicking off his loafers and putting his feet up on the table.”

ABOUT GORE: “He started wooden. He really came on strong as a very effective debater. When he started coming right back, it showed the real difference was the intellectual agility.”

ADVANTAGE . . . : Gore

*

THE DEBATE COACH

John Fincher

Speech teacher, debate coach at Citrus College in Glendora. Republican

ABOUT BUSH: “His expectations were so low and he exceeded those. The frat boy image disappeared tonight. I didn’t see the smirk, I didn’t see immaturity. He scored on Social Security, education and on Gore’s ‘fuzzy numbers.”’

ABOUT GORE: “His performance was typical Al Gore. His proposals probably came across muddled. His makeup looked like he was blushing. Another style point was the sighing. It looked coached and fake.”

ADVANTAGE . . . : Bush

*

THE ACTIVIST

Joan M. Garry

Exec. director, GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Democrat

ABOUT BUSH: “I didn’t see a lot of passion in him. I felt like when he was talking about his strongest issue, education, there was a glimpse of passion, but that was it. I didn’t think that folksy shtick worked generally.”

ABOUT GORE: “I heard credentials and experience and detail and an awful lot of passion. I thought he had direct answers and he was direct in a passionate way.”

ADVANTAGE . . . : Gore

*

THE BUSINESSWOMAN

Marsha McLean

Santa Clarita community activist, small business owner. Republican

ABOUT BUSH: “If you’re a staunch Republican, you’d probably say he did great, but he had his cutesy phrases. I don’t know that either one came across as being the strong person people are looking for.”

ABOUT GORE: “Gore was a lot more confident. It’s a forum he feels very comfortable with, but I didn’t care with what he did he had his cutesy little stories.”

ADVANTAGE . . . : Neither

*

THE AD EXEC

Hector Orci

Founder of La Agencia de Orci, an ad agency that targets Latinos. Usually independent

ABOUT BUSH: “I think he held his own. Like he has throughout the campaign, he came across as a credible person who is competent I personally would have preferred a lot more specificity.”

ABOUT GORE: “I thought it was a strong performance. I sensed from Gore a lot more confidence and expertise while the governor came across as confident and hopeful about what he could do.’

ADVANTAGE . . . : Neither