The Muddled Meaning of the 2000 Election.
A LOOK AT THE EXIT POLLS from the 2000 election shows continuous and deep fault fines within the American electorate. A gender gap of about 11% persists, with men strongly Republican and women clearly Democratic. Looking deeper into that gap, one finds that the division between married women and men is relatively slight. It becomes yawning when one compares married men who voted 58% for George Bush to single women who voted 63% for Al Gore. The gender gap is also pronounced among college-educated men and women. College-educated women voted 57-40% for Gore, while their male counterparts went 57-39% for Bush. The racial gap is even more startling. A record 90% of the black vote went to Gore, exceeding the margins of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, who had connections at least as strong as Gore's to the black community. Conversely, the white vote went strongly for Bush, 54-42%.The electoral map also portrays a geographic split in the nation that is largely emblematic of a deep cultural division. The middle of the country was strongly Republican, even in areas that had been historically Democratic. For example, Bush carried Clinton's home state of Arkansas and Gore's home state of Tennessee, along with the usually stalwart Democratic state of West Virginia. The only states Gore carried in the interior of the country were in the more-liberal Upper Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan). The remainder of Gore's states came from the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. People from small towns and rural areas voted 59% for Bush, and those from the large and small cities voted about 60% for Gore. Those who identify themselves as conservative Christians voted 80% for Bush, as did those who claim to attend religious services at least once a week. By contrast, those who admitted to either rarely or never attending religious services voted close to 60% for Gore. Gays and lesbians voted 70% for Gore, while straight voters tipped slightly to Bush, 50-47%.
The gap over culture, geography, race, and gender is far deeper than that over income or education. Those with a family income under $30,000 a year supported Gore by more than 55%; Bush did better with those voters than any Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1984. On the other hand, Gore did better with voters making over $75,000 than any previous Democrat, including Clinton in 1996. Among the income groups ranging from $30,000 to $100,000 a year, there was an even division.
All this underscores an unusual irony in this election. Despite the narrowing of partisan divisions along income lines, the campaign was fought largely over economic issues--Social Security, taxes, health care, and education. Conversely, the candidates did not make the cultural issues the centerpiece of their campaigns. There was little discussion about gun control. (Gore avoided the issue so as to hold his blue-collar support in Michigan and Pennsylvania.) Neither candidate said too much about abortion; both supported the death penalty; and neither backed gay marriage. This raises the question of why there would be such a deep cultural gap in an election where both candidates seemed to downplay those issues and fought the election out over economic issues?
The question can be partially answered in three words: William Jefferson Clinton. He is a lightning rod in the cultural wars, poster boy for a more permissive culture, and symbol of much of what alarms the culturally traditional voters. Religious conservatives see Clinton as the MTV president who rubs elbows with the Hollywood and Manhattan elite they consider responsible for an increasingly vulgar and sexually obsessed culture. At the same time, Clinton's defenders see his enemies as religious zealots or moralistic bigots who want to impose their Victorian standards on the rest of society. This battle, regardless of what the candidates wanted to talk about, was at the heart of the 2000 election. When mathematical models that emphasize largely economic variables were applied to the election, they all predicted an overwhelming Gore victory. Even without such models, past history would conclude from the performance of the economy that the incumbent party and its candidate would coast to victory.
How Congress applies the lessons from this election may largely determine the President's success or failure. Let me suggest a few of them:
Avoid pushing the contentious cultural issues. For the Democrats, the gay rights agenda should be left for another day, particularly a civil rights bill that would give gay couples the same advantages as married ones or punish private groups such as the Boy Scouts for excluding gays. For the Republicans, while partial birth abortions will face legislative challenges, there is no public mandate to go much further in restricting abortion rights or denying access to the RU-486 pill.
Find common ground on taxes, HMO reform, and prescription drugs. Given the closely divided 107th Congress, we will see neither a Republican nor a Democratic agenda emerge. However, a close examination of the issues finds that the two parties are not that far apart. Congress should be able to compromise on a limited tax cut that would reduce the marriage penalty, slash the estate tax, and perhaps slightly lower the overall income tax rates. Prescription drug benefits could be made available at a smaller premium for low-income seniors than for wealthy seniors. An HMO reform bill could provide some limited right to sue the insurance companies that does not threaten the financial integrity of the industry. Similar compromises on education funding are also within reach.
Find the political center of gravity and strengthen it. One of most successful centrist presidents of the 20th century was Dwight Eisenhower. He knew that the country did not want to see the New Deal repealed, nor did Americans want to see it substantially extended. His domestic legislative accomplishments were modest, but he presided over an era marked by civility and restraint. Our new president could do worse than to emulate his fine example.
Robert J. Bresler, National Affairs Editor of USA Today, is professor of public policy, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Title Annotation: | voting patterns |
|---|---|
| Author: | Bresler, Robert J. |
| Publication: | USA Today (Magazine) |
| Article Type: | Brief Article |
| Geographic Code: | 1USA |
| Date: | Jan 1, 2001 |
| Words: | 1012 |
| Previous Article: | BIG LABOR VS. RIGHT TO WORK LAWS: The Battle Continues. |
| Next Article: | SHOULD INTERNET SALES BE TAXED? |
| Topics: | |