5.02.00
The "Conservative" Gore

5.01.00
A Stray Thot

4.28.00
The "Bipartisan" Bush

4.28.00
Elián and the Psychologists

4.26.00
The Politics of Elian

4.24.00
Shootout in Miami?

4.22.00
Waco Redux

4.14.00
Democracy Is In the Streets?

4.07.00
An Elegant Solution

4.05.00
Sweden with an Attitude

4.04.00
Father's Day

ho is the conservative in the presidential race? According to Vice President Al Gore, it is none other than Vice President Al Gore. In his two recent speeches outlining his economic and foreign policies, Gore went to painful lengths to position himself rhetorically as the conservative candidate. The frequency with which Gore uses the word "risky" to designate George W. Bush has, of course, been much ridiculed. This trope may seem tiresome — and, who knows, it still may help mark Gore as the robotic candidate who will say anything, even anything over and over again, to win. But it could also be the kind of repetition necessary to deliver a message. As the country minister once said, "First, I tells them I'm going to tell them. Then, I tell them. Then, I tell them I done told them."

What is Gore telling us? He's the conservative — he even uses the word in his economic speech, calling for "a consistent, conservative fiscal policy." Elsewhere in his remarks, he aligns himself with all the words one would associate with a conservative — "fiscal responsibility and debt reduction," "economic realism," "fiscal responsibility and hard choices," "the virtues of responsibility," "disciplined fiscal policy," and on and on.

Bush, in contrast, is portrayed as the drunken sailor Ronald Reagan always used to talk about. He is associated with the "irresponsible politics of illusion in the Bush-Quayle years." His tax plan, of course, is "risky." It will endanger "the soundness" of the Social Security trust fund. It is "casino economics." In fact, his proposed entitlement reforms are downright "dangerous," the whole business "built on a foundation of irresponsibility and risk."

The foreign-policy speech follows the same pattern. Gore aligns himself with the idea that America has a "responsibility" to lead the world. He again and again outlines his "responsible foreign policy." Bush is characterized as — you guessed it — "irresponsible, in supporting vague new weapons technology, and proposals for missile defense that amount to a "risky foreign policy scheme."

There are several things going on here. First, Gore is playing smart — and obvious — incumbent politics. When the status quo seems so good, it presumably pays to be a status-quo candidate. Second, Gore is engaged in an interesting effort to separate conservative instincts in the public--both in terms of temperament (generally against change) and values (in favor of responsibility, realism, discipline) — from political conservatism. So, Gore's economic policies get the "conservative" label, while Bush is something else altogether — "a right-wing partisan."

There is at least something to this, as modern conservatism arrayed itself from the beginning against the welfare-state status quo. But, then again, in their McGovernite guise Democrats made it possible for right-leaning politicians to tap the temperamental conservatism of the public — in favor of law and order, fiscal discipline, and generally the status quo — against the liberal radicals. This partisan advantage — as Gore demonstrates every day — is gone. We can all agree that the public is "conservative." The question now is how much is still values freedom and self-government.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home