ALL THINGS IN MODERATION
bryan beller (5.14.00)

So it's come down to this, a choice between the Imperial Houses of Gore and Bush. What's an undecided moderate voter to do? For this one, it's worth considering how we got here.

On the far-less-interesting Democratic side, you had the Target Practice Primary, with Al Gore honing his political marksmanship on the brightly colored and oversized bull's eye that turned out to be Bill Bradley. Personally I've always liked Dollar Bill -- and being a Jewish Northeasterner with an Ivy League family pedigree, there's some intangible cultural identification to own up to -- but politically he's been underwhelming for years. He single-handedly made the career of current Republican Governor of New Jersey Christie Todd Whitman by outspending her 10 to 1 in a Senate race some years back and winning by about four votes. His financial advantage was squandered mainly on commercials of him holding basketballs and smiling.

Ultimately, though Bradley proved surprisingly to be the true-blue lefty of the two (considering his moderate record in the Senate), Democrats left him for dead because he refused to stick up for himself until it was too late. There is history at work here.

After 1988, the year of Lee Atwater, Willie Horton and flag factories, long-abused Dems finally threw up their hands and shouted down the martyred tactics of losers past (Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis) in favor of a true scrapper, one who could go toe to toe with the Republican juggernaut without blinking even if he wasn't at one time Clean For Gene. Hence the Clinton Doctrine of Democratic Primaries: Political brawling ability trumps ideological purity (and considering President Cigar's leisure activities, purity in general).

This year's beneficiary of Clinton's victory over the left is the brutish and effective Al Gore, owner of the most appropriate name in politics this side of Dick Armey. He's like the GMC advertising slogan: Do one thing, do it well. What Gore does well is discredit opponents' programs by framing them as irrational and dangerous. Ask Ross Perot and Jack Kemp how their campaigns and personal ratings fared in the polls after Gore was done making their policies out to be the economic equivalent of The Hindenburg. The crucial question of whether or not Gore has any original ideas or leadership qualities on his own remains to be seen, but for now he seems content just to destroy whoever is put in front of him.

And it wasn't just his vigor that killed Dollar Bill. One cannot overestimate the advantage Clinton (and Bradley) handed him by making it OK to run to the center in the primaries, especially considering the jihad the Republicans treated us to in February.

Oh, what a spectacle it was. George W. Bush, the undisputed winner of the financial primary, the "compassionate conservative" extraordinaire, the one who could finally put a smile back on the face of conservatism, a uniter, a moderate, a winner. Right up until the second John McCain flayed him in New Hampshire, at which point he ran crying into the arms of the Bush family's long-standing political paramour, the religious right, to save his candidacy.

Between Bush the empty vessel, Gore the robotic hack and the ineffectual Bradley, is it any wonder in retrospect that those disaffected with the process ended up in the hands of John Wayne McCain? A widely known irritant to the Republican leadership (how enlightening it must have been for Lott, McConnell & co. upon realizing that Bush's endorsements from 95% of elected Republicans amounted to a pile of electoral steaming shit), McCain sought to at long last legitimize the "angry center" so coveted by both parties since '92, when Ross Perot proved than even the Taco Bell Chihuahua could garner 20% of the popular vote by simply being neither Democrat nor Republican and shouting "reform" a lot.

There has been much talk of this "swing vote," the supposed malleable center that decides elections and could prove even more crucial if someone were to unite them as a viable reform block. But they've had few places to go of any substance. Perot, Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Pat Buchanan, even the current successful champion of reform Jesse Ventura -- all "reformers" without a true national power base. Think about it: were these men leaders, or merely vehicles?

It didn't take a political junkie to figure out that the McCain situation was different. This wasn't a billionaire with a boutique party, or a semi-retired former governor or senator with a quirky centrist agenda, or even a former party loyalist with an axe to grind. This was the sitting Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a three-term incumbent with every reason in the world to maintain the status quo, pulling what amounted to a Bulworth on his own party.

Bush-backing Republicans carped incessantly about how the liberal press "swooned" over the pro-life, pro-military conservative John McCain, dismissively chalking it up to the constant access to the candidate on the now famous Straight Talk Express campaign bus. Well, I ask you: If a powerful, moderate Democratic senator -- say, Dianne Feinstein of California -- suddenly began campaigning against the continuance of the current entitlement system in favor of something more market-driven, and also came out for the banning of labor union contributions to political campaigns -- and then whipped Al Gore by seventeen percentage points in the Democratic New Hampshire primary! -- do you really think the press would not cover the story with due zeal because they did not have constant access to Senator Feinstein? Please.

McCain performed no less an amazing feat in New Hampshire than the hypothetical above. By advocating a ban on soft money contributions to parties, he was basically telling his party structure -- whose lifeblood is access to bundled contributions from its special interests, specifically the religious right -- to go fuck itself in the ass. But what made it a truly incendiary message was that John McCain was not a disgruntled outsider. He was a member of the political elite. And by demonizing the concept of soft money (though it's worth noting he happily accepted it to wage war against Bush), he was shoving it up the ass of the entire party. And he didn't care. Americans value few things as much as the courage to disobey authority. So moderate Republicans and reform-minded independents had a now legitimate way in which to tell the current Republican leadership to go fuck itself in the ass. It wasn't just a candidate's insurgency, it was an attempt to remake the party structure, and if McCain were to fail it would come at considerable personal and political cost to his own interest. Surely even the most ardent Bush supporter must logically conclude that the press wasn't hanging around McCain for his winning personality and off-color jokes. No, they were there to watch the internecine Republican gloves truly come off for the first time since '76, when Reagan lost the battle for the nomination but won the party's soul.

And boy, did they come off. Lee Atwater's plan to stifle moderates coming strong out of New Hampshire by placing the South Carolina primary second in line worked to perfection. Surely there was no better state for W. to demonstrate his ability to swallow the salty loads of Falwell and Robertson, and Bush's new best friends in the bible belt returned the favor by cold-cocking McCain across the jaw with every tool in the shed. By the time voting day came around, McCain was portrayed as a liberal, godless, anti-family philanderer who hadn't done enough to help...veterans? Bush had proven Atwater right by reminding McCain that, under the current party structure, no one could win the Republican nomination without the endorsement of its conservative wing, namely the Christian Coalition and its fundraising abilities. But instead of changing his message to capture that vote, McCain simply rejected the premise, with shattering implications.

I, for one, will never forget the sight of John McCain standing up in Virginia and comparing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to Louis Farrakhan. Ever. It made Clinton's '92 reprimand of Sistah Souljah in the face of Jesse Jackson seem downright tame. And while McCain immolated himself by setting the fire, he left Bush with nowhere to go but right. Later in the day of McCain's Virginia insurrection, Bush held a press conference in which he tried to slam McCain on behalf of the reverends without appearing to be in their pockets. Politicians far more skilled than W. would have had trouble pulling it off; in Bush's hands the ruse was embarrassingly transparent.

What happened next was predictable. The religious right, cornered and angry, attacked like a wounded animal and threw every resource it had at McCain. Sixty million dollars was spent to preserve the Republican establishment's mouthpiece/candidate, the largest expenditure of any political party against one of its own members in the history of world politics. Independently wealthy ad hitmen, like the Wyly brothers from Texas, smeared McCain in New York with last-minute issue ads accusing him of being against breast cancer research, as well as a polluter. Add in those voters who were genuinely turned off by McCain's attack and you had a Bush victory. (It is easy to forget that while not all religious voting Americans are members of the Christian Coalition or agree with their agenda, they do tend to speak up when they're made out to look like freaks.)

And now, thanks to Gore, Bush will be made to pay the heavy cost of using the religious right to smash McCain. W.'s strongest weapons against Gore have now been disarmed. Bush, the anti-Washington reformer vs. Gore and the Buddhist monks' dirty money? Oops, gotta defend that $70 million we raised. Gore the tree-hugging, labor-bought lefty against Bush the sensible moderate? Damn, forgot about that Bob Jones thing. Bush the positive campaigner, the compassionate conservative, vs. Gore the relentless negative attacker of professional nice guy Bill Bradley? Maybe after we remove that Crusader's sword from John McCain's eye socket.

But Bush is betting the farm that the memories of American voters are short, and he's running to the middle in a desperate attempt to get there before Gore's war machine is ready for battle. It's curious, to say the least, that Bush is suddenly giving speeches about nothing but education (in which Texas ranks dead last), gun control (though he signed a Texas bill making it legal to carry concealed weapons into churches) and the preservation of social security (through privatization, a concept that may have stronger legs than Democrats hope). Clinton must be sitting back and smiling, for Bush has studied Slick Willie's own jujitsu playbook and is running it fairly well. Recent polling has suggested Bush gains in some alarming categories for Democrats, such as married women and independents. This was made possible by the inability of Gore to communicate exactly what he stands for outside of being really, really scared of some new Republican policy ideas.

Of course, if history is any indicator then Gore has Bush right in his wheelhouse, with new ideas waiting to be shredded in debates and a scary concept with which to frighten the voters: a Republican Congress and White House working in tandem with no checks and balances. So if the economy holds and Gore doesn't fuck up too badly, Bush should have little room to maneuver. Lee Atwater's Southern Strategy (crafted for Bush Sr.) has painted the Republicans into a corner, and Clinton the political craftsman has written the formula to lock them into it. As a result, the son could very well pay for the sins of the father. For the last six years, Americans have seen Republicans as Newt Gingrich, the impeachment house managers, Ken Starr, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Trent Lott... is it any wonder that the center has held so long for the Democrats, even though their standard-bearer is about as exciting as watching water evaporate?

McCain's fate is harder to call. He could end up as one of the insurgents that mattered, like Goldwater in '64 and Reagan in '76, a harbringer of things to come. Or he could just end up a footnote to a successful Bush presidency -- you never know. Certainly his followers were disappointed by his endorsement of Bush (tepid and through clenched teeth as it was), but what was he supposed to do? Go independent like New Hampshire fruitcake Bob Smith, only to return to the party a chastened man when he couldnít muster more than 1% of the vote? Besides, McCainís in a win-win right now. If Bush loses, McCain immediately becomes the 2004 Republican frontrunner. On the other hand, since McCain's plans are to get out and campaign for reform-minded GOP candidates, he's likely to end up with an intraparty base (something he was sorely lacking this time around) even in the event of a Bush victory, and could control the agenda from the Senate. Bush would ignore a barking Senator McCain in the next Congress at his own peril. Perhaps Gore should be worried that, in McCain, a man whose displeasure with the Clinton/Gore scandals runs deep, there is someone else out on the campaign trail willing to trade haymakers at will. And unlike Bush, someone who knows how to throw the punches himself. No wonder Bush wanted him on the ticket.

But if there's only one sure thing McCain demonstrated this campaign season, it is this: As long as soft money contributions are legal, the two-party structure's leaders can choose a candidate far in advance of the primaries, direct the party money their way, and secure the financial resources to make it practically impossible for an insurgent reformer to succeed. People like McCain and Bradley can afford one, maybe two tactical errors in the entire campaign, while Bush can fritter away two crucial states early on (Michigan and New Hampshire) and still win on the strength of a war chest compiled months before a single vote is cast.

And so the swing voters are left with the Houses of Bush and Gore, the uncoincidental sons of a President and Senator, respectively. What will they do?

Some who came out to vote for McCain will remember why they usually don't vote and stay home. The others, largely unimpressed by either candidate, will pick a secondary issue and vote on it. Pro-choicers and gun control advocates will favor Gore. Moralists and change-seekers will go for Bush. The measure of the man will count for plenty, as the non-affilliated may decide what is worse: the lack of self in Gore, or the lack of knowledge in Bush. The phrase "lesser of two evils" will be used over dinner tables across the country. And voter turnout, the heart rate of any democracy, will sink to its lowest level yet.

For their part, the candidates will both use the same formula that's been worked to death: do as little as possible to keep your base intact, find a wedge issue or two to split off enough votes from the middle, and divide and conquer. Do lots of polling, find something unpopular your opponent is for and come out against it. With sincerity and conviction, of course.

Meanwhile, the modern silent majority waits for a champion, as they have since 1992. One who reflects the views of the winning independent formula (moderately conservative on financial issues, moderately liberal on social issues) and whose name is not Jesse Ventura. One who proves stubborn, brave, charismatic and legitimate enough to lead the charge straight up the middle of the spectrum and split the left and right off into minority factions the same way the two sides have done to them all these years. It would take a special person, but if he (or she) were to come along, it would be the biggest realignment of American electoral politics since the Civil War.

This time around, however, will be sadly familiar. I, like many moderates, will find a secondary issue or two, hold my nose, and get it over with.