Published: April 26, 2000
Which Can Copy Clinton
Best?
By Emory Curtis
The way this presidential campaign
is starting out, it looks like George W. Bush is reading Clinton's political
playbook and flipping it.
Clinton's actions as president have
been more Republican than Democrat while his talk has been that of a liberal
Democrat. Bush's campaign has
been stepping over into the Democratic side of cutting edge issues while
assuring Republican conservatives that he is a Republican conservative.
As to the federal government's role
in programs carried out at the local level, the traditional response of
the Republican party is that the federal government should back-off and
let the states and locals solve (or cope with) those problems. Their mantra has always been to reduce the
size of the federal government.
I'm sure that Bush pays homage to that
mantra when speaking to them. However,
for government to carry out the programs that he proposes, it must increase
its scope and responsibility. That's
Clinton. Talk one game, play another.
For example, Republicans were once
behind doing away with the Department of Education. It won't happen under Bush. To handle Bush's school testing, accountability and funding proposals,
the Department of Education's budget and responsibility has to increase.
If he makes it to the Oval Office,
Bush will probably pull a Clinton on that issue too. Laud the decreasing of the federal government while it is actually
increasing.
On the other side, Gore acts like he
wasn't paying attention when Clinton and his advisers stumbled upon his
successful way of using the Oval Office.
Take some good ideas from the Republicans (every now and then they have one or two), make a few changes, call
it yours, and then get Democrats to support it in Congress and get it
passed with a number of Democratic votes plus the natural Republican votes
(since it was their program anyway).
Free Trade is a case in point. It is a Republican core issue. Democrats, and their ally, labor, are against
it, for a very good reason. Free
trade means letting countries with low wage scales and no worker protection
sell their goods here in competition with goods made here by decently
paid workers whose union and government protect them.
Since money and management know-how
steps over nation borders with impunity, free trade favors countries with
the lowest production cost, and in many cases, that's not us. That's why organized labor fought NAFTA.
As our plants close and send jobs to
Mexico, labor's fight makes sense, to workers.
On the other hand, from a business point of view, cutting costs,
even if it means sending work out of the country and bringing the finished
goods here for sale makes sense too, at least it does to them.
The business issue in free trade is
at the heart of Republican philosophy and the labor part of the issue
is at the heart of Democratic philosophy.
Sorting out who would support what should be easy.
It's not. Even though organized labor always supported Clinton to the hilt
and, without a hitch, are doing the same for Gore, Clinton pushed for
and got the Republican's free trade NAFTA approved by Congress with a
few Democrats and a lot of Republicans voting for it.
That same scenario is being played out now to put low-cost producing
China on this country's Most Favored Nation trade list.
Like it or not (put me on the not side)
president Clinton has written a new chapter on how chief executives can
govern in this country without being tied down by party ideology or the
partisan make-up of the legislature and still keep their core supporters
in check. In that aspect, Clinton has been remarkable.
Some governors try to emulate his governing
style. California's new governor,
Gray Davis, and Texas's old governor now presidential candidate, George
Bush, are cases in point.
Gray Davis surprised his core liberal
supporters, the ones who stuck with him and put him in office, with his
jump (not step) to the right soon after taking over the reins. That's going to come back and bite him because,
unlike Clinton, Gray doesn't have that slick tongue to keep his supporters
pacified as he goes about his moderate Republican governor act.
George Bush has governed Texas as a
moderate Democrat. During his
tenure Texas public schools greatly increased the academic performance
of all of its students and narrowed the gap between its black and Hispanic
students and the white students. Instead of the regular Republican act
of only acting in a negative way toward minorities, Bush went after minority
support with positive actions.
It worked; at least it did with the
Hispanics. He got close to 40%
of their vote in his bid for election for a second term. With black voters, Bush only got a touch more than the Republicans
regularly get.
Because of the campaign attention Bush
is paying to problems that the lower middle class and below face in schools,
in housing and in health care, we will all win, no matter who wins the
election. Certainly his campaign
will cause Al Gore to beef up programs for those problems.
Gore knows that the lower middle class
and below voters are should be his meat and potatoes. A Bush penetration
into that area can spell disaster for him at the polls.
How those two play this campaign is
worth watching. Both should be
well schooled in the Clinton playbook.
Gore from his watching from the inside and Bush from his practicing
it as governor.
Let me hear from you: (916) 961-1859
(V); (916) 961-1596 (FAX); e-mail; eccurtis@hotmail.com.
or 8931 Bluff Lane, Fair Oaks, CA 95628.
To see back columns politicallyblack.com
Click Here to email this page to a friend |
